[Senate Hearing 115-289]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-289
BORDER SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
THE EFFECTS OF BORDER INSECURITY AND LAX IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ON
AMERICAN COMMUNITIES, MARCH 1, 2017
IMPROVED BORDER SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY, APRIL 5, 2017
BORDER INSECURITY: THE RISE OF MS-13 AND OTHER TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL
ORGANIZATIONS, MAY 24, 2017
----------
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-769PDF WASHINGTON: 2018
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RAND PAUL, Kentucky JON TESTER, Montana
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
STEVE DAINES, Montana KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
Daniel P. Lips, Policy Director
Kyle P. Brosnan, Counsel
Jose J. Bautista, Senior Professional Staff Member
Colleen E. Berny, Professional Staff Member
Christopher S. Boness, Professional Staff Member
Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
J. Jackson Eaton IV, Minority Senior Counsel
Caitlin Warner, Minority Counsel
Hannah M. Berner, Minority Investigator
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Bonni E. Dinerstein, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Johnson
Senator McCaskill
Senator Heitkamp
Senator McCain............................................... 259
Senator Hoeven.............................................262, 487
Senator Peters............................................... 267
Senator Hassan
Senator Daines
Senator Carper............................................... 275
Senator Harris
Senator Portman.............................................. 281
Senator Tester............................................... 284
Senator Paul................................................. 287
Senator Lankford............................................. 468
Prepared statements:
Senator Johnson
Senator McCaskill
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
WITNESSES
Julie Nordman, Wentzville, Missouri.............................. 4
Hon. Eric J. Severson, Sheriff, Waukesha County, State of
Wisconsin...................................................... 6
Ryan Rectenwald, Chief Deputy of Special Operations, Grant County
Sheriff's Office, State of Washington.......................... 8
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Nordman, Julie:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Rectenwald, Ryan:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 117
Severson, Hon. Eric J.:
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 27
APPENDIX
Charts submitted by Senator Johnson.............................. 128
Immigration Panel Transcript submitted by Senator Harris......... 130
Statement submitted for the Record from:
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles......... 210
Michael C. Koval, Chief of Police, Madison Police Department,
Madison, Wisconsin......................................... 211
Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force....................... 218
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record:
Mr. Severson................................................. 221
Mr. Rectenwald............................................... 233
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
WITNESS
Hon. John F. Kelly, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security
Testimony.................................................... 251
Prepared statement........................................... 301
APPENDIX
Chart submitted by Senator Johnson............................... 313
WSJ article submitted by Senator McCaskill....................... 314
Fentanyl Report submitted by Senator Portman..................... 317
Heartland Alliance Statement submitted by Senator Heitkamp....... 334
Senate Letter submitted by Senator Peters........................ 337
Corrections for the Record from Mr. Kelly........................ 346
Statement for the Record from Human Rights First................. 356
Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record from Mr. Kelly 360
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
WITNESSES
Timothy D. Sini, Police Commissioner, Suffolk County Police
Department, Suffolk County, New York........................... 460
Scott M. Conley, Detective, Criminal Investigative Division,
Chelsea Police Department, Chelsea, Massachusetts.............. 463
J. Thomas Manger, Chief of Police, Montgomery County Police
Department, Montgomery County, Maryland, and President, Major
Cities Chiefs Association...................................... 465
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Conley, Scott M.:
Testimony.................................................... 463
Prepared statement........................................... 515
Manger, J. Thomas:
Testimony.................................................... 465
Prepared statement........................................... 522
Sini, Timothy D.:
Testimony.................................................... 460
Prepared statement........................................... 496
APPENDIX
Report submitted for the Record by Senator Harris................ 532
Responses to questions for the Record:
Mr. Sini..................................................... 646
Mr. Conley................................................... 648
Mr. Manger................................................... 661
THE EFFECTS OF BORDER INSECURITY AND
LAX IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ON AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:59 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, McCaskill,
Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON\1\
Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing of the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC)
will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is actually a pretty simple hearing--not a whole lot
of complexity to what I am trying to accomplish here. I am just
trying to lay out, with some powerful stories, what happens
when a nation does not secure its borders or enforce its
immigration laws.
We are going to be hearing some powerful testimonies. I
want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing, for taking
the time, and for your thoughtful testimonies. I want to
particularly thank Julie Nordman, who I realize is going to be
telling a story that is going to be very painful--very tragic
for you to tell, but it is just one of many stories that we
have heard around the country. We are all, obviously, familiar
with Kate Steinle, but there are so many other names of
individuals that have had their lives shattered because people
are in this country illegally--and they commit crimes, they
traffic drugs, and they traffic humans.
President Trump, in his State of the Union (SOTU) address,
asked a pretty simple question. He said: ``To any in Congress
who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you
this question: What do you say to the American family that
loses their jobs, their income, or a loved one because America
refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?''
To me, the role of the Federal Government--the top priority
is the defense of this Nation--defense of this homeland, the
security of its borders and the security of its citizens. And,
that is really all this hearing is about--is to lay out a
reality through some powerful examples. And, again, we have
Julie here. We have Sheriff Eric Severson from Waukesha County,
Wisconsin, who will be laying out and talking about the problem
of drug abuse, because our borders are so porous.
In the 1980s, heroin cost $3,200 per gram. Deputy
Rectenwald, we were talking yesterday. You think it is about
$80 a gram. Ten doses per gram--that is $8 for a hit of heroin.
It is a very affordable, destructive habit. And, that is
because our borders are so porous.
So, there is a lot of destruction occurring. We have a
sheriff and a deputy sheriff here, describing those things.
And, of course, Deputy Sheriff Rectenwald will be talking about
another tragedy--another young mom, Jill Sundberg, who was
murdered by five individuals--criminals that were in this
country illegally. Again, we are going to allow these powerful
stories to be told, so we understand the consequences of not
enforcing our immigration laws and securing our borders.
With that, I will turn it over to my Ranking Member,
Senator McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\1\
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you
for this hearing today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This morning we will hear from a constituent of mine named
Julie Nordman, who, on the morning of March 8, 2016, was forced
to run to the attic of her home in Montgomery County, Missouri,
while her husband, Randy--a hero--desperate to save his wife
and protect her, struggled with a stranger with a gun,
downstairs, in the couple's garage. The man who allegedly shot
and killed Randy--and four other men the night before, in
Kansas City, Kansas--never should have been in this country.
According to the information I have, Pablo Antonio Serrano-
Vitorino, who is set for trial in a capital murder case in
Missouri, was deported in 2004, after serving a year in prison
for a felony conviction in California. At some point, he
illegally reentered the country. And, despite his prior felony,
he managed to slip through the cracks during at least three
run-ins with the Kansas police.
I am told that, in one case in Coffey County, Kansas, Mr.
Serrano was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI), but
his fingerprints were never taken--so a match was never made
with the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) immigration
database. After again being arrested and charged with domestic
assault in Wyandotte County, Mr. Serrano's fingerprints were
sent to DHS, but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did
not take him into custody before he was released. Just 3 months
later, when Mr. Serrano showed up at the Overland Park, Kansas
Municipal Court to pay a traffic fine, his fingerprints were
taken again. ICE was notified that they had an undocumented
individual with a history of violent offenses within their
grasp. ICE issued a detainer, requesting that Mr. Serrano be
held until Federal authorities could get there, but, amazingly,
the detainer was sent to the wrong place: It went to the
Johnson County, Kansas Sheriff's Office instead of the Overland
Park Municipal Court Building. How did that happen? I do not
know. Why did ICE not pursue Mr. Serrano further? I do not
know.
What I do know is that, 6 months later, Mr. Serrano
allegedly shot and killed five men in Kansas and Missouri,
including Randy Nordman. And, it appears that, while the local
authorities
were doing their jobs, the Federal Government--specifically
ICE--dropped the ball.
Now, Mrs. Nordman, I know none of this is going to bring
your husband back. And, I would never try to say that it would.
Mr. Serrano should not have been in this country. Your husband
should still be with you today. I want to know how this was
allowed to happen. And, I am sure you have some of the very
same questions.
That is why I am so disappointed that someone with ICE
could not be here, today. As you know, I invited Director
Thomas Homan or--when I found out that he was not available--
anyone in his organization to come and testify this morning. I
would hope that he would be able to speak to some of the
specifics of this case and the other cases we will be hearing
about this morning.
I have also asked for a copy of Mr. Serrano's case file
from ICE, but, at every turn, my staff and I have been met with
resistance. The Agency told us that, due to privacy concerns,
Mr. Serrano's case files cannot be released. But, that flies
directly in the face of the Trump administration's new policy
that says, and I quote, ``The Department will no longer afford
Privacy Act rights and protections to persons who are neither
U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.'' How can you, on
one hand, have an Administration that says that privacy rights
do not attach and also have someone in your Administration tell
a U.S. Senate office that we are not allowed to look at a file
that is critically important, in terms of us fixing these
problems? If we want to stop future tragedies, we have to see
that file, we have to understand the mistakes that were made,
and we have to have our questions answered.
One of the reasons I have devoted so much of my time here,
in the Senate, to oversight is that I truly believe that, as
legislators, we have an obligation to understand the problems
before we try and pass new laws. Sometimes, passing new laws
does more harm than good, if you do not really understand the
underlying problem. What happened in this case was an absolute
tragedy. But, was it caused by a failure in our immigration
laws and policies? Or, was it instead the result of human
beings failing to follow the rules, the policies, or the
directives?
Unfortunately, Immigration and Customs Enforcement are the
only people capable of answering that question, and, to date,
have refused to either provide the information to my office or
to participate in today's hearing.
Mrs. Nordman, despite the resistance from ICE, I am going
to do everything in my power to get you some answers. And, I
appreciate you and your sister being here, today. I think
Missouri should be very proud of your courage. I know that I
am.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
We do have a vote that is going to be called at 10:30, so
what I would like to do is, get to the witnesses--make sure we
go through their entire testimony. We are going to be kind of
canvassing staff for the people who want to come back--whether
we want to recess or just continue this hearing, as we
frequently do.
With that, it is the tradition of this Committee to swear
in witnesses. So, if you will all rise and raise your right
hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Ms. Nordman. I do.
Mr. Severson. I do.
Mr. Rectenwald. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Our first witness is Julie Nordman. Ms. Nordman is from
Wentzville, Missouri. On March 8, 2016, as Senator McCaskill
talked about, Julie's husband, Randy Nordman, was murdered by
an illegal immigrant who had previously been deported.
Julie, you have our deepest sympathies for your loss. And,
we thank you for being here, today. And, take your time. We
realize this is not going to be an easy story to tell, so we
will be more than understanding. But, again, thank you for
appearing.
TESTIMONY OF JULIE NORDMAN,\1\ WENTZVILLE, MISSOURI
Ms. Nordman. Hello. My name is Julie Nordman, and I was
asked to speak you today, following the tragic and preventable
murder of my husband, Randy Nordman. Although this happened
less than a year ago and the pain is still unbearable, this
story starts nearly two decades ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Nordman appears in the Appendix
on page 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man who murdered my husband, Pablo Serrano-Vitorino,
first encountered law enforcement in 1998 in California. He was
here illegally and was charged with making a threat with the
intent to terrorize. He pled guilty to disturbing the peace and
spent 3 days in jail. He was allowed to remain in the United
States, and between 1993 and 2003, he was arrested twice more
for domestic violence. Then, in 2003, he pointed a rifle at the
mother of his three children and threatened her life. Later
that year, he was convicted on those felony charges and was
sentenced to 2 years in prison. Following his release in 2004,
he was deported for being in the United States illegally.
No one knows when he returned to the United States--or
how--but he did. And, in November 2014, he was arrested in
Kansas for driving while intoxicated, driving without a
license, and speeding. He pled guilty and, again, was allowed
to remain in the United States. Then, less than a year later,
in June 2015, he was arrested and charged with domestic
battery. While being held in the county jail, the sheriff's
office notified Immigration and Customs Enforcement that he was
in custody. ICE is required to respond within a 4-hour
deadline, yet they failed to do so. And, the sheriff was
required to release him. He later pled guilty to the charge and
received a fine.
Only 2 months later, in August 2015, he was again arrested
for driving without a license. While at the municipal
courthouse, he was fingerprinted and ICE issued a detainer for
his immigration violation. However, because of their
carelessness, ICE mistakenly sent the detainer paperwork to the
incorrect location--and it never reached the proper
authorities.
That brings you to my story. In the 18 months before the
senseless murder of my husband, this killer had been in custody
on three occasions, yet Federal officials failed to detain or
deport him. Had they just done their jobs and followed the
laws, my husband would still be alive--and so would four other
innocent victims he brutally murdered.
On March 7, 2016, in Kansas City, Kansas, four men were
found dead. Mike Capps, Jeremey Water, and brothers Clint and
Austin Harter were Pablo's neighbors. And, he murdered them,
from what I have heard, over a parking spot. Authorities
started a manhunt, but they did not find him until it was too
late.
On the early morning of March 8, 2016, my husband was
getting ready for work. I was awoken from my sleep when I heard
my husband shouting, ``What are you doing?'' And then, he
called out for me, ``Julie! Julie!'' I looked out of the window
into our garage and saw a man and my husband fighting over a
rifle. I immediately grabbed my phone and called 911 as I ran
to the attic. I was scared out of my mind, and I whispered to
the 911 operator that we needed help. I asked them to hurry,
and I prayed and prayed for Randy to be OK. I saw our dog at
the top of the stairs and told 911 that I was worried that the
dog was going to give my location away. I then remember asking
the operator, if the gunman shot me, would it hurt? I tried to
climb out of the attic window, but it was stuck. So, I stayed
put. I also asked if I could go check on my husband, and they
told me no. Then I heard a pop. I heard the gunman rustle
through our things. And, we believe he was trying to find car
keys so he could steal one of our vehicles and continue fleeing
from law enforcement.
I looked out of the attic window, and I saw a police car
racing toward our house. But then, it raced past our house. I
told the dispatcher that the officer needed to turn around.
And, that is when I saw the killer run across my property and
jump, face first, into a ditch.
When the police arrived, I saw my husband on the kitchen
floor, but I thought he was unconscious. The police then
escorted me out of the house. And, I kept screaming, ``Where is
the ambulance?'' But, they kept telling me that it was a
secured area. Officers told me that they had located the man's
vehicle right off of the highway near our house, and then
showed me a picture to identify him. After I identified him,
that is when the ambulance personnel came over and told me that
my husband had passed away--and I just lost it.
They searched for him for 17 hours, using dogs and what
seemed like hundreds of policemen and two helicopters, but no
one could find him. We later found out that he was lying 800
feet from my house in the grass. He waited until it had gotten
dark and then walked to a gas station where he tried to hijack
someone else. However, because my husband had removed the clip
from his gun, the killer's only remaining bullet was used on my
husband, Randy. My husband was a hero for not only saving my
life, but also saving all of the other people this man would
have attacked. Authorities quickly apprehended the man near the
gas station, and he is now in custody awaiting trial for the
death of my husband.
Following the incident, I was never contacted by ICE or
anyone else from the government to express their remorse.
However, I read in the paper that ICE said that they would
monitor Randy's case and place a detainer on the man. They also
said that they ``would remain focused on smart, effective
immigration enforcement that prioritizes threats to national
security, public safety, and border security.'' I find that
their statement could not be further from the truth. Their
actions were not smart. In 2015, they sent his detainer
paperwork to the wrong place. Their actions were not effective.
In 2015, they also failed to respond to the immigration query.
They did not properly prioritize the threat. After this man was
arrested, on numerous occasions, for violent crimes, he went on
to kill five completely innocent men.
Not only has ICE failed us, but our borders have failed us.
They are, obviously, wide open, as the man was able to enter--
not once, but twice--without being detected. But, I suppose, if
your policy is to let them go even after you arrest them for
committing violent crimes, why even secure the border at all?
If the ICE authorities had just done their jobs, Andrew
Harter would still be alive. Clint Harter would still be a
husband and would have seen his second child being born. Mike
Capps would still be alive. Jeremey Water would still be alive.
And, most importantly to me, my husband, Randy, would still be
here. Instead, every day that I am at our house, I am reminded
of this tragic event. I wish you could bring my husband back,
but we all know that cannot happen. What you can do is, make
sure that this does not happen to another innocent family in
the future.
And, also, before I go, I would like to publicly thank the
Missouri State Highway Patrol (MSHP) and the nearby county
officers for catching and arresting this monster.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Julie. I am sure I speak for
everybody in this room when we offer our sincere condolences. I
will guarantee you that this Committee will provide oversight
and we will get the answers that you deserve. But, again, thank
you for testifying.
Our next witness is Sheriff Eric Severson. Sheriff Severson
is the sheriff of Waukesha County, Wisconsin. Sheriff Severson
was elected to his current position in 2014 and has 13 years of
experience as a law enforcement officer (LEO). Sheriff
Severson.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERIC J. SEVERSON,\1\ SHERIFF,
WAUKESHA COUNTY, STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Severson. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill,
and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is my honor to
address you today on behalf of the citizens of Waukesha County
and the State of Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Severson appears in the Appendix
on page 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Senator Johnson indicated, my name is Eric Severson. I
am the Sheriff of Waukesha County. Waukesha County is a mix of
rural and suburban communities located west of and adjacent to
Milwaukee County. And, I have served my community as a law
enforcement officer for over 32 years.
To provide context for my testimony, I have included a
brief biography. I would highlight that I currently serve on
the Board of Directors of the National Sheriffs' Association
(NSA) and I serve on the Board of Directors of the Wisconsin
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA).
The greatest impact on the safety of our community, as it
relates to border insecurity, is the ease of bringing
controlled substances into our community by way of the Mexican-
American border.
The lion's share of the controlled substances consumed in
southeast Wisconsin is sourced from south of the border. Heroin
and opiate pharmaceuticals have been the chief drug threat in
Wisconsin for years. Heroin consumed in my community was
transported through the Southern Border in its entirety. Today,
Mexican drug cartels are growing poppy plants to manufacture
locally produced heroin, making Mexico a source country for
heroin for the United States.
Methamphetamine (meth) is an emerging drug threat in
Wisconsin--and 95 percent of methamphetamine in Wisconsin comes
from Mexico.
The drug public health crisis is not limited to border
communities or major cities, alone. In the last 10 years, my
county has lost 387 of our citizens due to controlled substance
overdose deaths. Last year, alone, we experienced over 35 drug-
related deaths. One-third of that total involved heroin.
Fentanyl, an adulterant often added to heroin, has increased
the lethality of heroin. And, we now see fentanyl as yet
another illicit drug entering the United States through the
Southern Border.
On a local level, we are doing all that we can to protect
our citizens. And, last year, my deputies administered Narcan
(naloxone) 21 times--but only saving 17 lives.
Along with the drug trafficking business, comes violence.
Robberies, home invasions, burglaries, and thefts are all the
byproduct of drug users seeking the resources to fuel their
addictions.
Our community's drug enforcement officers must face the
dangerous realities of the drug trade in Wisconsin. One example
of this is the growing use of mobile drug crews. These dealers
sell heroin from stolen vehicles that are often car-jacked at
gunpoint and will evade apprehension by recklessly eluding
police by ramming squads and even citizen-owned vehicles in an
effort to escape apprehension. These dangerous drug dealers are
frequently well armed and use countersurveillance techniques,
which add to the danger to law enforcement and the community.
The thrust of my testimony has been on border security as
it relates to drug trafficking. This is because my fellow
sheriffs, police chiefs, and I see this as the greatest border-
related threat to our communities in Wisconsin. My testimony
would be incomplete, however, if I failed to acknowledge the
criminal threat posed by foreign nationals that are in our
country in violation of our immigration statutes. Candidly, I
see criminal offenses by foreign nationals as relatively
infrequent occurrences within the confines of my county's
border. It would be incorrect--and, in fact, dangerous--to
conclude, however, that these events do not occur in Wisconsin.
Some specific examples include a Drug Trafficking
Organization (DTO) involving at least 2 undocumented Mexican
nationals, where 15 kilograms of cocaine was seized. Another
DTO, containing several undocumented Mexican nationals, was
attempting to illegally sell firearms to undercover agents.
This DTO also had human-trafficking ties.
A recent 25-kilogram seizure of methamphetamine resulted in
the arrest of several undocumented Mexican nationals in
southeast Wisconsin. The actors, in this case, were purporting
the methamphetamine to be cocaine in hopes of expanding the
organization's methamphetamine market and aiding in its
distribution. Many other examples exist.
I have included a copy of the National Sheriffs'
Association position paper on comprehensive immigration reform.
I respectfully ask that you to consider all recommendations. In
particular, I would hope that a strong focus is placed on
providing appropriations to adequately secure the border--which
would include providing sufficient law enforcement presence, in
the form of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers--
and sufficiently supporting the highly effective HIDTA programs
and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
programs that currently help communities that are not located
near the border.
It is truly my honor to be here, today. And, I am happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Sheriff Severson.
Our next witness is Deputy Sheriff Ryan Rectenwald. He is
the Chief Deputy of Special Operations for the Grant County
Sheriff's Office in Washington State. Mr. Rectenwald is an Army
veteran with over 25 years of public safety experience. Chief
Deputy Rectenwald.
TESTIMONY OF RYAN RECTENWALD,\1\ CHIEF DEPUTY OF SPECIAL
OPERATIONS, GRANT COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Rectenwald. Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member
McCaskill, thank you for the invitation to come and speak with
you today. I am here to talk about a horrific murder, which
took place in our rural community of Grant County, Washington--
an incident that, to this day, remains the most dreadful scene
I have encountered in my nearly 20-year law enforcement career.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Rectenwald appears in the
Appendix on page 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received a call around noon, just 3 days before
Christmas in 2016. A woman was out walking her dog near the
Columbia River, in a picturesque recreational area, which is
popular with tourists and rock climbers and is endeared by
residents. She said that she had found a dead body.
What I saw when I arrived at the crime scene can only be
described as straight out of a horror movie. The body was lying
face down in the snow. Detectives found 13 bullet casings.
Eleven of those bullets found their mark, striking the victim
in the back of her head, her neck, and her shoulder area.
A box from a case of beer had a message written in Spanish
and was secured to the victim's back with a kitchen knife--
signed ``Gulf Cartel.'' The victim was later identified as Jill
Marie Sundberg, age 31, the mother of four young children. We
later learned that she was kidnapped by five men after an
argument at a party. She was forced into this vehicle with
those 5 men, driven 10 miles to this remote location, and was
executed. The fear and brutality that this woman faced during
that 10-mile drive and in the moments prior to her death will
forever haunt case investigators.
During the investigation, we developed a list of persons of
interest who lived in the same trailer park where Jill
occasionally lived. With the help of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement as well as the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), we
were able to pick up and interview three of those five men. All
five were later arrested on murder, kidnapping, and other
charges. What is important to know is that all five men were
determined to be in this country illegally--and one had two
prior felony convictions.
The fact that these suspects were here illegally is not my
point. It is that the shooter was still in the United States
after being convicted of crimes and previously deported. So,
how did this happen?
It turns out, the alleged shooter had been previously
deported in May 2007, after his first felony conviction. He
then illegally reentered our country. And, in June 2013, he was
arrested on new felony charges in Grant County. He served out
his sentence, and, in January 2014, he was released to ICE
again. But, prior to his deportation hearing, he was allowed to
post an $8,000 cash bail. He never returned for this hearing.
No failure-to-appear warrants were ever issued. He was then
later rearrested in September 2015, in our county, on new
domestic violence charges.
That is not how legal residents are treated when we miss
court dates. You and I would have had warrants issued for our
arrest.
Meanwhile, after the shooter returned to our community,
local law enforcement had opportunities to bring him back into
custody during unrelated contacts, but, due to the fact that no
Federal warrants were ever issued, he was never arrested.
I was asked to provide insight on policies that Congress
and the Administration should be considering to stem the
unlawful movement of people, illegal drugs, and other
contraband into this country. Can we start with just some basic
principles?
It makes sense that, after being convicted of a felony, you
should not be allowed to bail out on your immigration hearing.
If you abscond, warrants should be issued for your arrest--and
ICE and local law enforcement should be able to pick you up.
Now, I realize that this may present administrative and
budgetary concerns, but we need easier access to the bad guys.
This is not about illegal immigrants who reside in our
communities peacefully alongside us.
Allowing us these tools would help us to distinguish
between the truly law-abiding and those whose purpose is to
harm through violence or drug distribution via enabling
policies and practices. This, certainly, is not justice.
Although I can empathize with the discussion about ripping
families apart, when it comes to immigration enforcement, I can
assure you, the Sundberg family has been ripped apart, because
of the lack of enforcement of current immigration laws.
Lastly, I would like to publicly commend the hard work our
men and women put into this complex investigation. We live by
an unwritten code that dictates that they will never stop, they
will never quit, and they will always work for the ones who no
longer can speak for themselves. Their efforts have truly made
our community a far safer place to live.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Rectenwald.
Julie, I am going to start with you, but I am not going to
ask for an answer right away. But, I just want you thinking
about this until the very end. I do want to know what
information you want. What have you not been told from ICE?
What can we get for you? So, just kind of think about that.
And, I am going to start with Deputy Rectenwald.
You have been in law enforcement for how long?
Mr. Rectenwald. Over 25 years, now.
Chairman Johnson. Have you seen a change in--you said that
legal residents would not be treated the way that we treated
the illegal immigrants--or illegal aliens. Have you seen a
shift over those 20 years, in terms of how we handle this?
Mr. Rectenwald. I have. Early in my career, I was a
corrections officer (CO) for the same county--for the Grant
County Sheriff's Office. And, ICE regularly came into our
facility and regularly picked up people on immigration holds--
ICE detainers. For example, I was a detective in 2008, when
there was a rape in our county. I was the investigator, and I
knew the location of the supposed suspect. And, I asked ICE if
we could work together and try to pick this individual up--not
only to help my investigation, but to get someone, who was
previously deported on felony drug charges, out of our county.
And, in 2008, they said that they could not help me.
So, my investigation took longer--a lot longer than it
should have. And, while this investigation was going on, I
finally made an arrest, after we had a positive
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) hit from the crime lab. I picked
the suspect up and arrested him. While the suspect was awaiting
trial, my female victim died in a car crash, and charges were
dropped.
So, to answer your question, all we want is for some simple
principles and simple things, to be able to help us during our
investigations.
Chairman Johnson. I think the thrust of my question is, if
policies have changed, in terms of how you handle legal
residents versus illegal aliens, was that a law change--
something imposed on you? Were these just administrative
guidelines--Executive Orders (EOs)? In other words, do we have
to legislate something here to correct this problem? Or, is
this something that can be done just through executive action
or policy change?
Mr. Rectenwald. I think the current laws in place should be
effective. They are not. There are some in law enforcement
careers that are afraid of a lawsuit--they are afraid of the
challenges that present.
Chairman Johnson. Sheriff Severson, I made a swing through
Wisconsin early in 2016. We called it a ``national security
listening session.'' And, every public safety official--whether
it was local, State, or Federal--when I asked, ``What is the
biggest problem you are dealing with, as a law enforcement
official?''--without exception, the answer was unanimous. They
said, ``Drug abuse.'' Is that how you would answer that
question as well?
Mr. Severson. Yes, it is. And, more striking is that, in
recent years, it has become focused on heroin and opiates. For
the first time in the history of HIDTA, about 3 years ago, we
had 100-percent conformity, where all law enforcement agencies
were reporting heroin as the chief drug threat in their
community. And, given the number of deaths that we have
experienced--again, in my county, in the last 10 years, 387
families have lost their husbands, children, wives and
daughters. So, it is clearly a major threat for us.
Chairman Johnson. There has been a debate about sanctuary
cities, but also about sanctuary jurisdictions. And, Deputy,
you alluded to this. Because of some civil lawsuits, sheriffs
that I have talked to in Wisconsin, who want to help enforce
immigration laws, feel constrained, because they may be subject
to a lawsuit. Can either one of you comment on that, before I
go to Julie?
Mr. Rectenwald. Well, thankfully, I work for a very good
sheriff, Sheriff Tom Jones. And, his number one priority is the
protection and safety of our citizens. So, he has given us the
backing--and we work very well with Immigration and Customs
Enforcement and the U.S. Marshals Service. And, there are no
qualms with allowing them into our jail or our facilities--
allowing ICE agents into our jails or our facilities to allow
them to make our community safer.
Chairman Johnson. He is not concerned about civil
liabilities. Sheriff Severson, is that something that you have
heard from your fellow chiefs and sheriffs?
Mr. Severson. Yes, it is. We are concerned about civil
liability. We are concerned about some of--and I am not an
attorney, Senator, but we are concerned about some litigation
that sheriffs have faced, whereby there are questions as to
whether or not the detention--or the detainers--contain
sufficient probable cause for us to detain folks, solely on the
basis of those detainers. And, the frustration that chiefs and
sheriffs in Wisconsin are feeling is that there does not seem
to be any movement to clarify how ICE is going to solve the
problem of giving us the sufficient probable cause, so that we
can make those detentions without fear of litigation. And, for
the most part, we are communicative with ICE. And, we are
trying to share information as best we can. And, we are
limiting our detentions to very short periods of time, to give
them an opportunity to resolve their legal issues. But, one of
the frustrations that we have experienced is that ICE will not
take responsibility for developing clear, defendable probable
cause for those detentions.
Chairman Johnson. Again, if you are really facing a civil
lawsuit, that may be outside of their jurisdiction. We may have
to actually change the law to make sure that we provide those
types of liability protections, correct?
Mr. Severson. I would agree with that.
Chairman Johnson. Again, Julie, we are so sorry for your
loss. And, we want to do everything we can to provide you the
information. Giving you some time, are there some specific
questions you have that you want answered?
Ms. Nordman. I just want to know why. And, I just want to
make sure this does not happen to somebody else. I want the
laws strengthened or changed--more security. That is all I have
to say.
Chairman Johnson. OK. Well, again, we do appreciate you
coming here. We know how hard it is to tell this story,
especially when it is so recent and so raw. We will continue to
stay in contact with you and to provide you with those types of
answers--and strengthen our laws, so we can try and prevent
these types of tragedies in the future. Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Both the Chairman and I have reached out
to ICE with a list of questions. And, I will make sure that you
have a copy of the letter that I have sent them. I think it is
unfortunate that they are not here, today, to apologize to
you--at a minimum. It would have been nice to have somebody
from ICE at this table to look at you and say, ``I am sorry,''
and to acknowledge the failures of that Agency. I wish they
were--here and they were doing that.
Let me make sure I understand this liability issue, because
I want to make sure that law enforcement is protected here. The
liability you are worried about is, if you are detaining
someone for ICE--if you are holding them past a certain amount
of time, like if you bring somebody in for questioning on
something, and you have to release them, because you cannot
charge them--but there is an ICE hold on them--you are worried
about holding them longer than you, typically, would hold them?
Explain to me where the liability part comes in. That is what I
want to make sure I am clear on, so we can try to get it fixed.
Mr. Severson. The challenge of working with ICE, under
these detainers, exists when we have no other underlying
criminal offense that we can hold an individual on. So, in
other words, if we make an arrest in Waukesha County and we
have probable cause to detain them for a particular charge, and
we also have immigration status issues, and we notify ICE of
that--if they say, ``Well, we would like you to detain that
person for our purposes,'' that is not going to be an issue as
long as they come to our jail and take care of their business
before we are forced to release the individual on local
charges.
Where it becomes a challenge is when we have exhausted the
reasoning--the rationale for detaining an individual on our
local charges or other precedent charges and ICE would like us
to detain them solely on the basis of their detainer. And,
there have been several lawsuits that are working their way
through appeals that have suggested that local law enforcement
does not have the authority to detain an individual based
solely on the ICE detainer. And, again, I am not an attorney,
but the argument, generally, is that the ICE detainer is not
sufficient due process, in and of itself.
Senator McCaskill. That is the argument that is being made?
Mr. Severson. That is the argument that is being made.
Senator McCaskill. So, we will track that down, follow
those cases, and figure out exactly what the facts are and see
what we can do to be helpful in that--especially if this is a
priority deportation based on criminal activity. I am assuming
both of you would agree that that should be the priority for
our resources--going after people who have committed crimes in
this country. Correct, Sheriff, Deputy?
Mr. Severson. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. You both agree with that?
Mr. Rectenwald. Yes, I would agree.
Senator McCaskill. OK. Great. I was struck, Deputy, by your
testimony about ICE and the no failure-to-appear warrant. What
I was even more struck by is, this was a convicted felon that
was given an $8,000 cash bail. I find that wildly
inappropriate. Have either of you ever seen instances where
they are giving someone with a prior felony conviction, who is
in this country illegally--who was deported once and came back
to this country--they are letting them walk out of the door for
eight grand? Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not
that is common?
Mr. Rectenwald. This was news to me. And, I was very
shocked and surprised and, actually, appalled.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. That should not be the case--a cash
bail, in those circumstances. I think that is a situation where
detaining someone is appropriate, particularly, for
prioritizing the criminals. We need to be putting the necessary
resources into detaining the criminals--maybe, not the children
that are showing up unaccompanied on our border that are
saying, ``Please help me,'' who are 4 years old and 5 years
old. But, certainly, for someone who has committed a felony in
this country and who is here illegally, we ought to prioritize
those resources and never let them get bail and hold them until
the hearing. That is where I think we should be shifting these
resources.
Let me ask you this, too: In 2008, it is interesting to me
that you are saying that, in calendar year 2008, ICE would not
assist you--when you had converging interests in a suspect,
they said that they could not assist you. Did they give you a
reason why they would not assist you?
Mr. Rectenwald. They did not give me a reason, other than
they just were not able to pick that individual up--knowing
that he had been previously deported on felony drug charges--he
had a felony drug conviction.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. So, they did not say whether it was
resources or it was just their policy not to?
Mr. Rectenwald. It may have been a policy or something back
then. And, that is my point, that----
Senator McCaskill. It would be nice to be able to ask them
that question. I do not understand, for the life of me, how
anybody with ICE would not want to prioritize someone who had
been previously deported for a felony drug conviction. That is
very hard to understand.
What about--have you seen ICE work effectively with you
when you have converging interests, in terms of a criminal
suspect and someone who is illegally in this country--either
one of you? Have you seen them do a good job?
Mr. Severson. In the case of Wisconsin, I am happy to
report that we do not have a lot of issues of illegally present
foreign nationals who are committing a lot of criminal activity
in my county. That being said, for the most part, we are very
blessed, because we have a local ICE office in Milwaukee, which
is very close to us, and we have a good working relationship.
But, I will also report to you that sheriffs throughout the
Nation do not necessarily have that immediate access to ICE
officials. So, resourcing can become a challenge. The time it
takes to respond to a detainer can be a challenge--beyond the
obvious policy questions on whether or not there is an
aggressive and vigorous effort on the part of ICE to work
cooperatively to deal with these problems.
Senator McCaskill. It seems to me that, if we are going to
prioritize, which we should--I mean, that is one thing the
President is doing--is continuing the policy that has been in
place--that we should be prioritizing illegal immigrants who
are committing crimes--that a working relationship with law
enforcement in this country would be step one, making sure you
are on the same page, that you have a communication, and that
you have a working relationship. And, certainly, I will be
working hard on that.
In that regard, do you plan, Sheriff, to try to apply and
be part of the 287(g) agreements? Have you made a decision in
that regard?
Mr. Severson. At this time, I do not have the resources to
participate with that, nor is our community structure such
that--I do not know that that is, necessarily, a high priority
for us, right now. Again, I am fortunate enough to report to
you today that it is--instances of criminal activity by
illegally present immigrants--beyond their status--is
relatively uncommon in my county.
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Mr. Severson. And, generally, in Wisconsin, it is less
common than in some other communities.
Senator McCaskill. Right. And, what about you, Deputy? Do
you know if your sheriff is interested in participating in
287(g) agreements, which are the agreements that would,
essentially, perform the legal function of deputizing local law
enforcement to perform immigration functions--immigration
enforcement functions?
Mr. Rectenwald. I have not had that conversation with my
sheriff, so I do not know what his stance is.
Senator McCaskill. At the height of the program, we only
had 72 agencies participating--and I do not know how many
thousands there are. As a former prosecutor, I know that, just
in my jurisdiction, there were a lot of police jurisdictions,
and, certainly, if you multiply that across the country--I am
not sure that is the key to the kingdom. I think ICE doing a
better job and developing a working relationship with the law
enforcement that is out there--better communication is,
probably, where we need to be focusing our attention.
Thank you both for being here. Please thank all of your
departments for the work they do. And, once again, Julie, I
could not be more proud of you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
So, the vote has been called. The time will expire at about
10:50 a.m. They will hold the vote open until 11:00 a.m., so
let us go on to Senator Heitkamp. Then, we will talk to other
Senators, in terms of how they want to proceed with the
hearing. Senator Heitkamp.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you,
Ranking Member.
Julie, Senator Kamala Harris, who was here, from
California, Claire, and myself have all been prosecutors, we
all ran large agencies, and we have all sat across the table
from victims. And, I remember their faces. And, we are not
going to forget yours--and we are not going to forget your
story and we are going to get to the bottom of this. And so, I
just want you to know that it is hard to do what you just did.
And, we are really proud of you, but it makes a difference,
because it unites us all in this tragedy to try and fix what is
wrong. So, thank you so much for coming.
I want to turn my attention to local law enforcement
grants. I am very concerned that--I ran the Byrne Grant
Program. I was, probably, one of the first States that had a
HIDTA program in the Great Plains--ran the drug task forces out
of my office, in collaboration with local law enforcement. I
was the State Attorney General (AG). And so, one of the things
that I am deeply concerned about is that we have Operation
Stonegarden, which deals with on-the-border jurisdictions. We
have cut that program. We have cut the Byrne Grant Program to
the point where we cannot get those resources. It is harder and
harder to find Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
money. It is harder and harder to find HIDTA money. And, we
have a growing national crisis with drugs. And, the fact that
people are pouring across the border--they are pouring across--
the criminal element is pouring across the border, because
there is a market for what they are selling here. And, they are
competing for territory. We know what is going on.
So, can either one of you tell me what you would do if we
plussed up the Byrne Grant Program the way it was before--or
even more--if we plussed up the COPS Program and if we extended
Operation Stonegarden, to recognize that a lot of the problems
off of the border actually come to the interior? What could we
do with additional resources? And, how would you approach that?
And, I guess, we will start with you, Sheriff.
Mr. Severson. Thank you. I agree that those programs have
suffered over the last few years. Again, by way of background,
I did run one of the largest metropolitan drug enforcement
agencies within the State of Wisconsin, so I am very familiar
with Byrne. I have been on the Board of Directors of HIDTA for
almost 20 years. And, I am here to tell you that HIDTA, in my
opinion, is a great success story. HIDTA is one of the real
flagship Federal programs, in part, because it did not create
an Agency. It created a cooperative nature and----
Senator Heitkamp. Collaboration.
Mr. Severson [continuing]. Collaboration. And so, that has
been exceptionally effective in Milwaukee. It started in
Milwaukee. And, now, we are actually multi-state, so that is a
great thing. So, anything that we can do to support HIDTA
funding is going to really do a lot to get boots on the ground
in the local communities, particularly, in the non-border
areas.
One of the things that concerns me is that we focus our
attention in the community and ignore what is happening at the
border. It makes no sense to me to have somebody working at
home plate so hard and nobody working around the diamond,
trying to help us control the influx of controlled substances.
If we can seize large quantities at the border, that is going
to, in my opinion, have more impact on the local communities.
And so, we need to do both. And so, to me, the border security
issue, in my conversations with border sheriffs and other
members of the National Sheriffs' Association--we are just at
our wits' end that we are having to continue to sit and look at
the border and watch this continue. And so, anything that we
can do to increase staffing at the border, increase the use of
technology, and create infrastructure that will allow us to
patrol the border, is going to be important.
Locally, we are getting to the point where local law
enforcement agencies do not have the resources anymore to
participate in cooperative drug enforcement efforts. And, that
is, in part, because of the reduction of Byrne Grant Programs.
When I started in drug enforcement, we were getting three times
or four times what we are getting now.
Senator Heitkamp. I mean, I think it is clear--and the
ability to collaborate, with those resources, is so critical.
Mr. Severson. It is.
Senator Heitkamp. I will tell you that we spent a lot of
time talking about the open border in rural areas--and that
absolutely needs to be addressed. But, it is DHS's position
that most of the contraband--especially heroin and
methamphetamines--are actually coming through the ports of
entry (POEs). And so, we need to do everything we can to plus-
up the resources, plus-up the inspections, and find out, cross-
border, how we can really attack this problem--whether it is
detecting tunnels or whether it is, in fact, making sure that
we have the resources at the border. But, I am concerned that,
with the lack of Federal resources, it takes that great
collaboration and pulls it apart. And, people say, ``I am not
going there. I have other things to do. This is your job.''
And, I am not saying that we are doing that, but I do see that
the cohesiveness that I saw in the 1990s on these programs has
really fallen apart, because of the lack of resources.
Deputy Sheriff, you mentioned--I do not have it in my
paperwork--I am sure it is in your testimony--the Sheriffs'
Association's recommendations. We will be very interested in
reading those and understanding. I spent a fair amount of time
with the sheriffs down at the border. I know their level of
frustration. But, from your perspective, what can we do that is
going to get you the resources that you need to tackle this
problem?
Mr. Rectenwald. Just a little background about myself. I am
the commander of our Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team
(INET), so we are a little different, as in we do have the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) office that is located in
Spokane, Washington and we also have the DEA office that is
located in Yakima. And, we are somewhere in the middle, on an
island.
Senator Heitkamp. So, no DEA is assigned to your region?
Mr. Rectenwald. Correct.
Senator Heitkamp. OK.
Mr. Rectenwald. So, we are kind of on an island, and we are
a collaborative of smaller agencies. We are a county of 93,000
people. That does not mean that we do not have a huge drug
problem, which we do.
Senator Heitkamp. Absolutely.
Mr. Rectenwald. As I previously stated, the price of heroin
is between $80 and $100 a gram--and the price of
methamphetamine is even cheaper. It is $60 a gram. And, it is
not uncommon for us to make seizures of 10 to 15 pounds of
heroin and----
Senator Heitkamp. In your county?
Mr. Rectenwald. In our county. And, methamphetamine. I
think we do have cartel action, and they are very well embedded
in our State. And, having that money and having those funds to
be able to support an Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team,
which is supported by funds--and it is allowing these smaller
counties, who otherwise could not afford to have a detective
assigned to the unit----
Senator Heitkamp. I just have one more question. I am
curious about whether you are in proximity of any reservation
or Indian country, and whether that has created issues for your
county.
Mr. Rectenwald. We are close to the Yakima Nation, but, no,
that really does not--other than----
Senator Heitkamp. I raise this because, in North Dakota, we
see a lot of trafficking on and off of the reservation. And,
the jurisdictional issues that we have, trying to tackle that,
are absolutely horrible--and we need Federal help. We need DEA,
we need the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and we need
any kind of Federal assistance that we can get, to have a cop
on the beat on the Indian reservation, because, if you are the
bad guy and you think there is no cop on the beat, where are
you going to go?
And so, we will work very actively to try and figure out
the relationship between you, ICE, and the Federal authorities,
but also to get us back where we need to be--in the 1990s and
even beyond--that, given the crisis that we are confronting--to
recognize the important role that you all play as boots on the
ground to help us keep our communities safe. And, thank you
again, Julie.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence and the extra
time.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp.
It is difficult to deal with these votes. We have two of
them, so I think what we will do here is just thank the
witnesses for your testimonies and for coming in. Gentlemen,
thank you for your service. Julie, again, our sincere
condolences. You have the commitment of this Committee that we
will do everything we can to work with you to get you the
answers--but also work with the new Administration to secure
our borders and to start enforcing immigration laws, so we can
try and prevent these types of tragedies from happening again.
Your testimony was powerful. Thank you for coming. It will make
a difference.
With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days
until March 16th, at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements
and questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IMPROVING BORDER SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, McCain, Portman, Paul, Lankford,
Hoeven, Daines, McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters,
Hassan, and Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON
Chairman Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
I would like to welcome the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, General Kelly. We appreciate you coming and
taking the time and your thoughtful testimony. We are looking
forward to your oral testimony and your answers to what should
be a number of pretty interesting questions.
For the Members of this Committee, it should come as no
surprise that the security of our border has been a top
priority of this Committee. In November 2015, after about 13
hearings and 3 roundtables, we did publish a report, ``The
State of America's Border Security,'' which, by the way, we
have a bunch of copies, so any new Members or older Members who
did not get a copy, I would be happy to give you one.
We have learned an awful lot, and I would ask that my
opening statement be entered in the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 295.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCaskill. Without objection.
Chairman Johnson What I would like to do is read some of
the findings out of that opening statement as well as just some
other things we have learned, just kind of bullet points.
First and foremost, what we have learned during--now this
is going to be our 23rd hearing on various aspects of border
security. The first finding, our borders are not secure.
Number two, and we mentioned this in yesterday's hearing--
America's insatiable demand for drugs is one root cause,
perhaps the root cause, preventing the achievement of a secure
border.
In order to secure our borders--we heard this yesterday in
testimony on fencing and walls--agents need full situational
awareness, which includes the ability to see on the other side
of the border. This can be achieved with appropriate fencing
and technology.
We had a hearing in November of last year. We had the
former heads of U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and Deputy Border
Patrol, and they said that fencing works and we need more of
it.
We found out last week in a hearing from the front lines
that hiring is a challenge, and personnel issues must be
addressed, and we are working with the Secretary and his Deputy
to try and address that really based off of Senator Heitkamp's
comments at the end of that one hearing when she said, ``This
is insane, this is crazy,'' and there are some insane and crazy
policies which we want to work with you to get those addressed
and fixed right away so you can actually staff up and provide
the manpower element of securing our border.
Ports of entry must not be forgotten. The majority of drugs
enter our country through our ports of entry, and that is
something I would like to talk about.
One difficult hearing to have was victims of an unsecured
border, victims of not enforcing our immigration laws. The
truth is tragedies have occurred as a result of our insecure
borders, tragedies that could have been prevented.
Going down another list, not in my opening statement, drug
cartels and coyotes use minors to avoid prosecution.
Unaccompanied children have been trafficked into sex trade and
involuntary servitude. Drug cartels are as, if not more, brutal
and depraved than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Aerostats, good technology, but as we found out on one of
our trips down to the border, they are not real good in wind,
and so in certain areas, they can only operate about 40 percent
of the time.
We had an incredibly interesting hearing--and this is
something I am a big supporter of--to quadruple or quintuple
the use of dogs because no technology can beat the nose of a
dog.
In Brooks County on one of our trips, we found out that 435
deaths of people who crossed into the country illegally
occurred just in the last 5 years. It is a very dangerous
journey. We need to try to disincentivize people from making
that dangerous journey.
Drug use is not a victimless crime. It has given rise to
the drug cartels. Those drug cartels traffic little girls. We
were down in Guatemala, and we went to one of those shelters,
Senator Heitkamp, Senator Carper, and Senator Peters. I think
the average age was 14. So, it is not a victimless crime. I
think we all realize that. But, unfortunately, we need to
understand the responsibility we bear because of our insatiable
demand for drugs.
That is just a list. I do not want to keep droning on here,
but we have learned an awful lot in 22 hearings. I think we are
going to learn a lot more today. And, as Senator McCaskill said
in yesterday's hearing, I do not think there is one United
States Senator who does not believe we need a secure border. So
let us start there, with that area of agreement. We share that
goal. We want to secure our border. We want to keep the folks
that we represent in our States, safe and secure. Now we have
to figure out the details.
Again, I want to welcome General Kelly, and I will also
turn it over to Senator McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\1\
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Kelly, thank you so much for being here today. We
are cognizant of the demands on your time, and part of our
goal--and the Chairman and I agree on this--is trying to be
careful about what we ask for and how much we ask for. But. we
have to ask for stuff because our job is oversight. But, we are
aware that you are being pulled a lot of different ways. That
is why we look forward to you getting the full team in place so
we can begin to have some of the people in charge in your
operation come and answer some of these difficult policy and
oversight questions.
You and I have worked together on the Armed Services
Committee. I am a fan of how you have served as a Marine and a
general, and no one can question the sacrifices you have made
for our Nation. Ever since your confirmation, I have considered
you a voice of reason within the Administration. You have
displayed throughout your career a willingness to speak truth
to power, to say no rather than nodding, and have made your
decisions based on the facts, not political expediency.
Those characteristics are needed now more than ever. I am
counting on you to speak truth to this Administration and to
the President. But, I am also asking you to speak to us and the
American people. Even though it may not seem like it, we are
now 3 months into the new Administration. I know that you want
time to settle in, and you need help to do your job. We are
pleased that we confirmed Elaine Duke yesterday. I think she
will be a terrific addition to your Department. And, by the
way, I secured her vote tally, the original. I was going to
bring it this morning and I forgot, but I will make sure I get
that to her so she can have it to frame for her office.
We have two Executive Orders (EO) that ban travel from
Muslim majority nations. The first was implemented without
notice and caused chaos at our Nation's airports. Both have
come under immediate constitutional scrutiny by the courts. The
Department has overhauled its interior enforcement, in the
words of the White House, to ``take the shackles off''
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border
Patrol. You have ordered the Department to ``immediately begin
planning, design, construction, and maintenance of a wall''
along the border. Even though Missouri is not on the border, my
State is directly affected by it. The drugs that get through
the Mexican border have a huge impact on the opioid crisis that
is gripping my State and the entire Nation. It is causing death
and destruction to families all over the United States.
I know you share my concern about drugs coming over the
border, but I am deeply concerned that all of the rhetoric and
all of the budget requests have focused on the border and not
the ports of entry, that there is no plan to increase resources
at the ports of entry, which we know, along with the mail, is
the primary place that drugs are coming into our country. I
certainly hope that we have a chance to address that today.
Away from the border, I am concerned about the Secret
Service and the unprecedented challenge of protecting the
President and his family at numerous locations: the White
House, Trump Tower, and Mar-a-Lago, as well as the
international travel by the President's sons. In the meantime,
the Secret Service is reviewing incidents that have threatened
the physical security of the White House, including a case in
March where a fence jumper was able to elude security and roam
the grounds for 15 minutes.
I am deeply concerned that the Secret Service is being
stretched to its breaking point. And, just yesterday, I read
news reports that the extreme vetting procedures that the
President has ordered could force visa applicants from places
like Australia and Japan and the United Kingdom (U.K.) to
disclose not only all the information on their mobile phones,
social media passwords, financial records, even to answer
questions about their beliefs.
I have to tell you, if my family was traveling to the
United Kingdom and they told me that we would have to answer
questions about my beliefs to get into the country, we would
not go. And, I have a hard time imagining those countries would
see us as their friends. I think this has a profound impact on
our standing in the world, a profound impact on the nature of
our alliances around the world, and a profound impact on our
national security. And, I will ask questions about that today,
as I indicated to you in our conversation yesterday, because I
think we are doing things that in no way as a former prosecutor
trips up the bad guys but changes our image forever in the eyes
of the world, permanent and irreparable harm occurring.
Secretary Kelly, we have been trying to ask questions about
policies and problems like these to your Department, and there
have been times it has been very difficult to get answers. I am
willing to do a reset and check that off as you not having all
hands on deck, but going forward, I hope that together the
Chairman and I can work to make sure that we have witnesses
from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) answer some of
the questions that need to be answered. And, frankly, I think
it works to the benefit of your Department because if you are
not here explaining, then assumptions can be made that
sometimes are unfair. So, going forward, I hope that we have a
new beginning as it relates to not only getting questions
answered but also having witnesses at hearings.
I am glad you are here today. There are a lot of important
issues before us, and I have a lot of questions. I hope we can
count on you and your Department being willing to answer them
going forward. Thank you very much.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. I would
point out that General Kelly has already made himself available
for a secure briefing and now he is here already in early
April. So I certainly appreciate his willingness to testify.
Senator McCaskill. So do I.
Chairman Johnson. Secretary Kelly, we do have a tradition
in this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if you will please
rise and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony
you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God?
Secretary Kelly. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Secretary John F. Kelly, General Kelly, was confirmed to be
the fifth Secretary of Homeland Security on January 20, 2017.
He previously served as United States Marine Corps (USMC)
General and commander of the United States Southern Command
(USSOUTHCOM). Less than a year after retiring from the Marine
Corps, Secretary Kelly once again answered the call to serve
the Nation and the American people by leading the Department of
Homeland Security.
General, we thank you for your service, past, present, and
future, and we look forward to your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KELLY,\1\ SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Kelly. Well, thank you, Chairman, and certainly
Ranking Member McCaskill, all of the Members of the Committee.
It is really an honor to be here. I will make myself available
anytime by phone, by drop-in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Secretary Kelly appears in the
Appendix on page 301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just recently, I met just yesterday with the entire
Hispanic Caucus on the House side, a week prior to that with
the entire Democratic Caucus on the House side. I have met with
the Democratic Caucus on this side last week, and I think I am
scheduled to speak with the Republicans. So, any time, any
place, happy to do it. Just need a little notice.
Since unexpectfully taking on this assignment nearly 3
months ago, I have learned two very important lessons vis-a-vis
the Department of Homeland Security and the defense of the
homeland. The first is that the men and women of my Department
are incredibly talented and devoted public servants who serve
the Nation in very special ways. In particular are those who
uphold the laws this institution, Congress, passes by way of
the democratic process. It goes without saying the United
States Coast Guard (USCG), supremely effective in their lane,
one of the five military services of our country, they just
happen to be lucky enough to be in the Department of Homeland
Security.
Then there are the incredibly dedicated Immigration and
Customs Enforcement agents, who have taken on the task of
enforcing, again, the laws you have passed, and they do that in
the interior of our country. They do it humanely,
professionally, and always according to the law.
The ICE team also includes the amazingly effective
investigators of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), who
are second to none in their investigative effectiveness.
Then there are the professionals of Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), who, among many other functions, are the
first and last line of defense, depending on how you look at
it, doing the essential and often dangerous work of defending
the borders. They are out there day and night, 24/7, suffering
the heat of an Arizona summer or the deadly cold of a Montana
winter.
Third, another group, the Secret Service, as you mentioned,
Senator McCaskill, I want to highlight them, both the agents as
well as the uniformed force. They routinely work, and are
overworked, to protect not only U.S. Government officials but
foreign dignitaries as well. They are amazing public servants
dedicated to taking a bullet and giving their life for people
that they do not even know.
Then there is the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) who ensure the security of, among other things, the
traveling public, aviation traveling public. TSA enjoys little
credit as the work they have been ordered to do and complete by
the laws of this Nation bring them in direct contact with a
public that has little tolerance for minor inconveniences.
Again, all of this required by the law. This same public
forgets that the alternative to what the TSA does at our
airports is possibly dying in a fireball falling from 30,000
feet. They are heroes. They do their effectively, and they work
very hard at improving their performance.
The second lesson I have come to realize is what homeland
security means. We must no longer think about the defense of
the Nation in terms of defense and nondefensive initiatives and
funding. In the world in which we live and the relentless and
accumulating threats directed against our Nation and our way of
life, we must adjust our thinking to think about security and
non-security, which requires an increased melding of the
thinking of the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland
Security. Secretary Mattis and his superb team fight the away
game. They do it effectively every day. The equally superb men
and women of Homeland Security that I am in charge of fight the
home game. The defense of the homeland starts with allies and
partners willing to fight the fight in places like Syria, Iraq,
and Afghanistan while standing ready in Europe, Asia, and South
Asia.
Closer to home and winning the home game, it is all about
increasing the partnership with willing and reliable friends
like Colombia, Mexico, Canada, indeed, all of the nations of
this hemisphere and around the globe.
Securing a nation's border is the primary responsibility of
any sovereign nation. To those of us who serve the Nation as
part of DHS, this is nonnegotiable and sacred. Yet for a
decade, the Federal Government, in spite of passing one law
after another to do just that, has not lived up to its promise
to the American people. President Trump in the early days of
his Administration issued Executive Orders and focused interest
on this very issue and tasked me to accomplish it. Various
Executive Orders have been put out there, some of them
effectively, some of them not so effectively, but all of them
worth adhering to once the courts finish with their rulings.
But, what has happened in the last 90 days or so, we have
seen an absolutely amazing drop in the number of migrants
coming out of Central America that are taking that terribly
dangerous route from Central America into the United States. In
particular, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of
families and the number of children that are in that pipeline.
It will not last. It will not last unless we do something,
again, to secure the border.
The wall or physical barrier, something to secure our
border, you all know that we are looking at that. In fact, I
think the proposals closed out yesterday. What it will look
like, how tall it will be, how thick it will be, what color it
will be is yet to be determined. All we know is that physical
barriers do work if they are put in the right places. And, of
course, I have already pulsed the men and women that work the
border, CBP. They know exactly where they want the wall, and
they know exactly how long the wall should be in their sector.
They are also quick to point out that if they cannot have a
wall from sea to shining sea, at least give them the wall, the
physical barrier, the technology, that will do the job for them
in the locations where they have identified to me, and we will
do that.
Before I would conclude, I would like to highlight to the
Committee and the American people to a relentless threat that
thankfully we have stayed probably two or three steps ahead of
over the years. I talk of those who would do us harm primarily
operating out of the Middle East, and they are unyielding in
their attempt to destroy commercial passenger aircraft in
flight.
In response to this threat, DHS personnel, primarily from
TSA and CBP, are deployed in the thousands overseas, working
with airports, air carriers, and intelligence and law
enforcement partners to deny the terrorists' attempt to kill
the innocent in the
largest numbers possible to make some sick statement. As I say,
we--the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security
Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Office of
the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), DOD, Department of
Interior (DOI), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and DHS, and all of our international
partners--have been successful thus far.
I recently made several decisions that added additional
baggage protocols at a number of foreign airports that fly
flights directly to the United States. This decision was not--
and I repeat not--about the Muslim religion, anyone's skin
color, or ethnicity, but to impact the bottom line of foreign
air carriers to the benefit of U.S. air carriers. My decisions
were based entirely on saving lives and protecting the
homeland. If we cannot get our arms around the current threat,
you can expect additional protocol adjustments in the very near
future.
I will end by saying I thank you so very much for the
support you gave Elaine Duke, the fact that she is now
confirmed, and with any kind of luck, I will return to my
building after this meeting or after this Committee, swear her
in, and put a very heavy pack on her back, fill it up with a
lot of rocks, and make the Department of Homeland Security
better than it already is.
So, with that, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, I stand by for
questions.
Chairman Johnson. She ought to be looking forward to that.
Secretary Kelly, let me start. You talked about the study
on the border barriers. Can you just tell me in a little more
detail the status of that as well as any surprises in terms of
the initial results of that?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir. We know that a physical barrier
works. The parts of the border that have physical barrier now,
roughly 650 miles, built some years ago, in those sectors it
works. There are other places along the border--and, again, the
professionals in CBP, if you walk the terrain--and I know some
of you have--will tell your boss, if you can give me 27 more
miles here, 16 more miles here, I do not really care about the
other 140 miles I am responsible for, but I need something that
works and to deflect the flow of people, primarily bad actors,
and people, not all of whom are bad actors, people who are
coming to the United States for various reasons, to primarily
deflect them away from the cities. The idea with the coyotes
and the traffickers, to get them as close to a city, cross over
as close to a city as possible, get them into the city where
they disappear. So, if you can deflect them away from the city,
then it is easier to pick them up and return them, whether they
are Mexican or whatever. And, it is actually safer in many
ways.
Last year, I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,500
near-death individuals were saved by CBP primarily out in the
desert, and, unfortunately, unknown specific numbers but some
several hundred lost their lives in this attempt to get across
the border. And, that is on our border. There is no telling how
many--in addition to the rapes and the assaults and the abuse
that they take in the network flowing up through Mexico, not
done by the Mexicans but by the coyotes, the traffickers, there
is no way to tell how many of those people lose their lives.
But, the point is it is a very dangerous trip.
The barriers work. Technology also works. But, all of it
does not work at all unless you have men and women who are
willing to patrol the border, develop relationships, which they
do with their Mexican counterparts directly across the border.
But, that is where we are right now. There is no way I could
give the Committee an estimate of how much this will cost. I do
not know what it will be made of. I do not know how high it
will be. I do not know if it is going to have solar panels on
the side and what one side is going to look like and how it is
going to be painted. I have no idea. So, I cannot give you any
type of an estimate.
I will say this, that it is unlikely that we will build a
wall or physical barrier from sea to shining sea, but it is
very likely I am committed to putting it where the men and
women say we should put it.
Chairman Johnson. In your written testimony, the quote is
you are going to ``implement a full complement of solutions to
meet border security requirements.'' That is technology, that
is manpower, that is going to be physical barriers. My
assumption is you are going to target kind of a step-by-step
basis and put walls and fencing in top priority areas where
your border agents are telling you, correct?
Secretary Kelly. Exactly right, Senator.
Chairman Johnson. We had a hearing last week from the front
lines with the heads of the unions from Border Patrol and the
Office of Field Operations (OFO) and ICE. There were some real
problems: The use of polygraphs, just way too high, rejection
rate. Pay parity, Border Patrol saying once you go try and hire
10,000 ICE agents, they are just going to steal them from
Border Patrol because of the lack of parity. Just work
schedules from OFO talking about how agents are working
multiple days in a row, 16-hour shifts.
So, can you just kind of address what you are finding out?
We are going to try to do a very cooperative process with you,
with the White House, bipartisan--nonpartisan basis, really,
and try to produce the oversight at the same time you are
enacting the solutions. But, can you just kind of address those
personnel issues?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, Senator. This is going to be kind of
a cinder block-size rock in Secretary Duke's pack. One of the
things my good friend Jeh Johnson started long before I
obviously took this job was this unity-of-effort issue, to look
at all of the Department that is still a fairly broken up and
disparate organization, to look at all the Department, where it
makes sense start to unify things, like acquisition, like pay.
Even though it is my understanding that some of the pay
problems in a couple of the unions--one of the unions, anyways,
was actually negotiated that way by the union, it did not turn
out so well, as I am informed.
So, what we are going to do is turn that over to Elaine and
look at all--the Secret Service falls into the same category,
another kind of different pay scale, and there is a better way
to do this. So, that unity of effort, we are going to really
breathe some life into it. Jeh started it, a great thing. We
are really going to finish it over the next year or so, or
more, but find ways to do exactly what the Senator is
suggesting, and that is, come up with better pay systems,
better benefits.
One of the things the CBP folks tend to migrate into ICE
frequently is because they might be from, I do not know, the
great State of Missouri, and they are working on the border in
Arizona, and that is OK for a few years, but they want to maybe
get back home. So, we will look at that, too, but that requires
a lot of detail work, and I do not know what the exact number
is in terms of a larger force, CBP particularly, well, ICE for
that matter. And, for sure Secret Service needs to be bigger.
For sure they need to be bigger. They are carrying a load that
is almost crushing the individual agent, and we are going to
fix that.
But, to your point, sir, we will take on all of that and
improve it, with your help.
Chairman Johnson. OK, yes, and we will want to work with
you on that. I come from a manufacturing background, continuous
shift operation. You need four shifts, and I would love to work
with you and the agencies designing a proper shift that does
not overburden the personnel.
Just real quick, because you did raise this issue about the
device searches. In fiscal year (FY) 2015, under the Obama
Administration there were 8,500 devices searched, and they
realized this is actually pretty effective. So, in 2016, they
searched 23,877 devices. Can you just kind of talk about what--
again, there is a big article, I think a lot of concern about
that. Can you just allay some of those concerns and talk about
really the effectiveness of why we should be doing this?
Secretary Kelly. Roughly a million people a day come into
the United States, either by land or by aviation, and of that
million, one-half of 1 percent might have their devices looked
at. Generally speaking, these would be foreigners anyways. In
fact, in almost every case they would be foreigners. A large
percentage would be foreigners. But, it is the normal process
of coming into the country.
And so, what do they look for? Frankly, a couple of
examples I would give you. It is one of the ways they find
these pedophiles. And, the CBP people, in the course of
interviewing travelers into the United States, will send people
into secondary, for whatever reason--and there are a myriad of
reasons they do this--will send people into secondary. Usually
they are there for a short period of time. It might be to do--
their passports look out of sync or something like that. Their
stories do not match what the passport says. There is a myriad
of reasons.
But, some of those reasons revolve around men who are
coming from certain parts of the globe that--what do they call
it? ``Sexual tourism,'' I think, pedophiles anyway. So, that is
one way we catch them. We go on, we look at their devices, and
it is filled with child porn. That is one thing.
Recently, we had--again, a couple of examples. We had an
individual traveling here from a Middle Eastern country. During
the process, the profiling, if you will, there was something
not quite right about him matching up with what he was telling
about his past, where he comes from, his passport. So, they put
him in secondary. They looked, ran his contact numbers out of
his telephone, and he was in contact with several--I will not
go into it too deeply, but several well-known terrorists,
traffickers, and organizers in the Middle East. They then
looked at the pictures and saw a full display of gay men being
thrown off of roofs and people being beheaded and all that.
Now, we had no reason to hold him because he was not in any
database, so we sent him back. That I think appeared shortly
after that in the newspaper about how we were focusing on a
Muslim male, and we did it because he was a Muslim and from the
Arab part of the world. But, the point is there are reasons for
it.
But, to Senator McCaskill's concerns, this is not routine.
It is done in a very small number of cases. It will not be done
routinely for people that are coming here from anywhere. It
will not be done routinely from anywhere. But, if there is a
reason to do it, we will, in fact, do it. But, whether it is
France, Britain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Somalia, it will not
be routinely done at the port of entry.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, General. Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. General, is the President OK with
fencing instead of a wall?
Secretary Kelly. The President has told me, ``Kelly, go do
it.'' We need to protect the Southwest border in any way that
that makes sense.
Senator McCaskill. So, he understands that----
Secretary Kelly. I have a lot of elbow room.
Senator McCaskill. So, he knows that we are not going to
build a concrete wall, a 2,000-mile concrete wall? The
President knows that, right?
Secretary Kelly. The President knows that I am looking at
every variation on the theme, and I have no doubt when I go
back to him and say, ``Boss, the wall makes sense here, high-
tech fencing makes sense over here, technology makes sense over
here,'' I have no doubt that he will go tell me to do it.
Senator McCaskill. And, can you provide to the Committee
the request by the border chiefs for how many miles they are
requesting of barrier?
Secretary Kelly. Can I provide? Yes, ma'am.
Senator McCaskill. Yes, I mean, you are going to ask every
border chief for their sector, ``How many miles do you need and
where?''
Secretary Kelly. Exactly right.
Senator McCaskill. And, are you also going to ask them for
their technology requests?
Secretary Kelly. All of that will be part of--I mean, their
input is absolute to what we are doing.
Senator McCaskill. Right. Can we get those requests as soon
as you receive them?
Secretary Kelly. Absolutely.
Senator McCaskill. Because I think it is really important.
The sooner we stop this, ``We are going to build a wall from
sea to shining to sea and the Mexicans are going to pay for
it''--it is embarrassing. It is not going to happen. Everybody
in Congress knows it is not going to happen. Every Republican
knows it, every Democrat knows it. It appears the only person
who will not say it out loud is the President of the United
States, and it is embarrassing. I do not understand it. I mean,
it makes no sense. And, frankly, the money we reprogrammed for
the prototypes, the solicitation says no technology insertion
is even a requirement of the prototype, and you know
situational awareness is going to be key for these border
chiefs. It does no good to build a big wall if they cannot see
over it, because they are not able to respond to the ladder or
to some kind of breach.
And so, it is just frustrating to me. You get it. We all
get it. But, the President is so stubborn and will not say to
the American people, ``We are going to use your money wisely,
and we are going to protect the border in a way that makes
sense. And, by the way, Mexico is not going to pay for it.''
So, I urge you to speak truth to power in that regard. The
sooner the President gets some credibility on this, I think the
better off we all are, and I think it would make your job much
easier. My two cents' worth.
And, by the way, you will get a lot of bipartisan support
immediately for budget requests that are based on sound ideas
about securing the border. I think the majority of the Senate--
and I cannot speak to the House--is not going to sign a blank
check for a wall that we know is never going to be built. So,
the sooner we all get honest about this, I think the better off
we are.
On the extreme vetting, I get what you are saying that it
will be applied to very few people. But, if it is the policy of
our country to increase the questions asked for visa
applications all over the world and to expose the 38 visa
waiver countries to this possibility, it has a dramatic impact,
and you have to understand, Secretary Kelly, that if they know
we are going to look at their phones--I am talking about bad
guys. I have had some experience with bad guys. If they know we
are going to look at their phones and they know we are going to
ask them questions about their ideology, they are going to get
rid of their phones, and guess what they are going to do on
ideology? They are going to lie. Are we going to use
polygraphs?
Secretary Kelly. We could not do that for all of the people
that we currently put into secondary, no. But, your point is
well taken in terms of if we were doing these things routinely,
but there are databases we look at that cause us to bring
someone into secondary. Travel patterns--I would prefer not to
go into it, but travel patterns tell us a lot about a person,
and that would get someone to go into secondary.
But, generally speaking, the average tourist coming into
the United States is not going to have their--we are not going
to ask them--they are not going to go into secondary.
Senator McCaskill. But, we are going to tell them we might
ask them about what they--I think the things that have been--
was the article accurate that they are going to be asked how
applicants view the treatment of women in society, whether they
value the sanctity of human life, and who they view as a
legitimate target in a military operation? Are we going to
explain to all of our friends across the world that they could
be questioned like that if they come into the United States?
Secretary Kelly. I would not say those would be questions
we would ask.
Senator McCaskill. So, this article is incorrect, that this
is what is being considered?
Secretary Kelly. Which article is it?
Senator McCaskill. This was a Wall Street Journal article
yesterday that said visitors to the United States could be
forced to provide cell phone contacts, social media passwords,
and answer questions about their ideology, according to Trump
Administration officials.
Secretary Kelly. those questions you have indicated are not
questions that I think would be used in the secondary kind of
questioning. Once again, I go back to very small numbers. It is
effective to catch people. They are coming into the country,
but they are not really here yet. So, if they do not want to
cooperate, they can go back.
Senator McCaskill. But are we not telling them what they
need to do to get in? I mean, that is what is weird here. It
seems to me we are signaling something that is very un-American
to the rest of the world by announcing this policy. Every
Ambassador in Washington read this article in the Wall Street
Journal yesterday, and every Ambassador in Washington called
back to their country and said, ``Listen to this. They are
going to start asking people for their social media passwords
and about their ideology in America.'' That is incredibly
damaging, and all the bad guys are going to like just lie. I do
not get how we get anything out of it, except damage.
Secretary Kelly. As I say, very small numbers, and we will
go to those questions or request social media--and I am talking
right now about at our airports and ports of entry. We will go
in that direction when the professionals at the counter decide
that there is a reason to go in that direction. But, the vast
majority of people will not be questioned in that way. It is
just like the vast majority of people that come in the country,
foreigners, for that matter American citizens, we do not go
into their luggage and inspect their luggage. It is the same
kind of thing. We will do it when we think there is a reason to
do it.
Senator McCaskill. Well, as you can tell, my hair is on
fire about this. I am really upset that America would be saying
this to the world. And, if this needs a classified briefing in
terms of understanding better what the plans are and who would
be pulled, and if somebody can explain to me how we get
terrorists when they know all they got to do is lie to the
questions, and buy a burner before they come to America?
Secretary Kelly. I think you know, Senator, I mean, this is
nothing new. We have been doing this, to the best of my
knowledge, my staff tells me, for a number of years.
Senator McCaskill. We have never announced that it is the
policy of America that all foreign visitors to our country
could be subjected to this kind of questioning and this kind of
intrusion.
Secretary Kelly. Questioning, again, I am not aware--the
questions you recited are not questions that I am familiar with
at all, and I do not----
Senator McCaskill. That is what I want to get to the bottom
of.
Secretary Kelly. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. And, I will just tell you, Americans
would never put up with this in other countries. If all of
these countries sent a signal that if you come to our country--
can you imagine a U.S. Senator saying, ``Oh, yes, well, let us
go to Japan, and they are going to take my phone for 3 days if
they feel like it. And, they are going to ask for my social
media passwords or I cannot go in.'' Or, ``They are going to
ask me questions of my ideology.'' I mean, can you imagine
anybody in America wanting to go there? And, we do not want to
send that signal. That is the essence of my questions,
Secretary, and if you could follow up with us about how this is
going to be applied and clarify it to the world that we welcome
our friends to America, I think that would be very helpful.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. Again, I
will just remind you, in fiscal year 2016, approximately 24,000
devices were searched, so this is not new. I think it is being
somewhat blown out of proportion.
Secretary Kelly. Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that, of
the ones that were searched, a very small percentage are
actually gone into forensically, if you will. It is essentially
they turn it on, we would like to see the pictures. And, again,
we find child pornography. We find really grisly photographs of
terrorists acts. We are not sending these--we could if we want
to, and in some small numbers we do, but we do not send them to
a place to be forensically taken apart and----
Chairman Johnson. And, unfortunately, publicizing this does
make it less effective.
Senator Hoeven has graciously allowed the Chairman of Armed
Services the slot ahead of him, so, Senator McCain.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCAIN
Senator McCain. Thanks, Senator Hoeven.
You know what sets my hair on fire? The fact that we know
that coming out of Raqqa are people that have been directed to
come and get into the United States of America and commit acts
of terror. Is that not true?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator McCain. That sets my hair on fire.
Secretary Kelly. That is absolutely true.
Senator McCain. Does it set our hair on fire that there are
now, we know, published reports, there are efforts at taking
these devices and implanting explosives and committing acts of
terror with this technology? Does that set your hair on fire?
Secretary Kelly. It does, Senator.
Senator McCain. And, they are developing technology right
now to put--one of the reasons why there has been some of the
ban on what can be brought on an airliner sets my hair on fire
right now. So, I am really worried about offending every
Ambassador in Washington. That has always been one of my
greatest concerns, is how they feel, and I certainly would not
want to offend their feelings. But, the fact is that there are
people being trained in Raqqa today that are leaving Raqqa and
trying to get to the United States and use various devices to
commit acts of terror in the United States of America. True?
Secretary Kelly. It is true.
Senator McCain. Thank you. So, maybe we ought to put a
little perspective on this in our hysteria.
Secretary Kelly. If I could add to it, Senator.
Senator McCain. Go ahead.
Secretary Kelly. We know there are somewhat in the
neighborhood of 10,000 European citizens who are in the fight,
in the caliphate, Iraq and in Syria, and as that caliphate is
being reduced, those individual fighters are being encouraged
to return to Europe and do terrorist-type things.
Now, in many cases, because of the nature of Europe and the
borders and what-not, lack of borders, in many cases the
countries where their citizens do not know that they have been
out of the country fighting in Syria, to the point of visa
waiver countries, so we are in a position now where someone who
is in Raqqa today returns to--pick a country--and basically can
get on--he is not in any database, and can get on an airplane
and fly here under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and be in the
United States, that does not keep me up at night too much, but
it does keep me up. So, we are looking at visa waiver; we are
looking at all kinds of ways to keep these people out.
Senator McCain. I want to make sure that we are not
restricted from looking at anybody's electronic device given
the public information that we know of their attempts at trying
to develop these capabilities in order to set off bombs.
Also, by the way, I tell you what does set my hair on fire,
and that is that we now have Phoenix, Arizona, as the major
distribution point for Mexican-manufactured heroin coming into
this country across the Sonoran border. Is that true?
Secretary Kelly. It is true, Senator.
Senator McCain. And, it is killing people all over America,
including some Governors in Northeastern and Midwestern States
are saying it is an epidemic, particularly a group of Americans
that I care about, and that is older white males. Is that
right?
Secretary Kelly. It is absolutely right.
Senator McCain. OK. So, we need to do one hell of a lot
better job on this drug trafficking and human trafficking that
is coming across our border. And, I am happy to tell you that I
hear from my friends on the Border Patrol who say their morale
has gone up now that we have your kind of leadership.
By the way, I am not sure you should have taken all that
bullet for the travel ban, but that is a subject for another
day.
But, what are you going to do about--can you not interpret
a wall the word ``wall''--as being drones, towers, fences,
attempts at detecting--using technology to detect tunnels, to
have really what is an electronic wall plus the personnel?
Could that fit the definition of a wall and maybe stop this
flood of Mexican-manufactured heroin that is flooding into this
country and killing people at a very great rate, including the
fentanyl which is particularly lethal?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir. In my view, the wall is all of
that. Just before you came in, we had this discussion. In my
view, the wall is all of that.
Senator McCain. So if we interpret the law as that, I think
most Americans would support it.
Senator McCaskill. True.
Senator McCain. But, however, we have a problem with
Mexico. Right now there is a lot of anti-American sentiment in
Mexico. If the election were tomorrow in Mexico, you would
probably get a left-wing, anti-American President of Mexico.
That cannot be good for America.
Secretary Kelly. It would not be good for America--or for
Mexico.
Senator McCain. OK. Then, finally, would you just tell us a
little bit about--and I thank the indulgence of my colleagues--
what kind of cooperation are you getting from the Mexican
authorities and what kind of cooperation are you not getting?
Secretary Kelly. We are getting a huge amount of
cooperation from the Mexicans. Senator, I go back to my time
when I was in uniform at SOUTHCOM, very good relationships with
the Mexicans, both on their Southern border where they stopped
160,000 illegal immigrants from Central America last year, all
the way up to the Northern border. The relationship between the
local authorities on our side of the border is pretty good with
the local authorities on the other side. I count some of the--
certainly, the head of the army and the navy as friends. I was
down there about a month and a half ago, had a great meeting,
all the way up through with the President.
Senator McCain. How serious is the corruption?
Secretary Kelly. Corruption is very widespread, and much of
that is due to the profits that come out of the drug use in the
United States. There is no doubt it, corruption is widespread.
They are trying to get after that. It is a dangerous place
because of the corruption and the trafficking, most of it
fueled by U.S. drug consumption.
Senator McCain. Well, the heartbreaking one to me is the
human trafficking, Mr. Secretary, and I wish all Americans were
aware of how terrible this situation is, these young girls
being transported up, hooked on drugs. It is so terrible, a lot
of times we do not like to think about it. How high is that on
your priority list?
Secretary Kelly. Very high. In fact, the good news is for
really the fifth month in a row, but certainly the second big
month in a row, the movement of--the human trafficking of
people in general is down significantly, and to your point,
young girls in particular in the family units down even more
significantly. And, that is all as a result of what we have
started to do on the border and, frankly, my working personally
with the Central American Presidents, attorneys general (AG),
religious leaders, and with our relationship with Mexico.
Senator McCain. Well, the next time you do a travel ban,
how about thinking it through? Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hoeven.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Kelly, good to see you again. Thank you for being
here.
Secretary Kelly. Sure.
Senator Hoeven. And, thanks for the important work you are
doing. In terms of the mix, we are talking about
infrastructure, we are talking about technology, we are talking
about people. How do you make sure you have the right mix as
you put that together?
Secretary Kelly. On the wall?
Senator Hoeven. Yes.
Secretary Kelly. We really have to rely on the folks that
work the border. The younger agents are down there doing the
scut work every day, but some of the more senior agents, they
know the border and their sector better than anyone, and they
can tell us. And, we will do that study.
Senator Hoeven. I am a member of the Appropriations
Committee for Homeland Security, and we are putting together
your appropriation for fiscal year 2017, and then, of course,
we will work on 2018. So, it is very important that we have the
resources. When we talk about building a wall, as you have
defined, that wall is not only a wall itself and fencing, but
it is also technology and people. It is very important that we
have that funding in your appropriation bill for fiscal year
2017, is it not, to secure the country? That would be an
incredibly important priority for you, would it not?
Secretary Kelly. It is, yes, sir.
Senator Hoeven. OK. Thank you. The second thing is metrics.
What metrics are most important? You provide us with some
metrics here. We appreciate that. It is encouraging. It shows
that you are having success. Tell us, what are the most
important metrics that we need to be cognizant of? And then,
how do we use them to make sure that the American people
understand what is going on on the border and, that we are
getting to a more secure border?
Secretary Kelly. I think certainly the metrics are people
that do not cross into the United States illegally. Another
metric would be the amount of--and it mostly comes through the
ports of entry, which is another discussion that we can
certainly have here, but the amount of drugs that come through.
But, as I said so many times when I was in the United States
Southern Command, once the drugs get to Mexico, Central
America/Mexico, they are essentially in unless we do something
about the border.
Now, I think the Senator knows virtually all of the heroin
consumed in the United States is produced in Mexico, from poppy
to laboratory to packaging to in the United States. All of the
cocaine that we consume comes up the same way. Much of the
methamphetamine comes up the same way. An awful lot of opiate
pills that are counterfeit--the counterfeit pills come up
through that, fentanyl largely through Mexico but now
increasingly directly from China to the United States by the
U.S. Mail. It is an unending struggle, but it really does go
back to--and I was just at a meeting last week or early this
week--last week now, with the President and a number of people
to get after this drug consumption in the United States. One of
the first conversations I had with then Candidate Trump was
when he brought up to me the issue of securing the Southern
border. I said, ``Boss, Mr. Trump, there is no way we are going
to do that unless we get after drug consumption in the United
States.'' And, I do not mean arresting more African American
guys and throwing them in jail for dealing. I mean, no kidding,
a comprehensive drug demand reduction.
Mr. Trump has taken that on and has put together a task
force, so from rehab to law enforcement to try to stop the
production in Mexico, all of that adds up to we will have a
much more secure border if we can stop the drug demand in the
United States. And, we have never had--some States have, some
communities have, several organizations have tried, but we have
never had a comprehensive campaign against it.
Senator Hoeven. As we increasingly secure the Southern
border, would that not put more pressure on the Northern border
and other ports of entry?
Secretary Kelly. On other ports of entry for sure. The
beauty of the Northern border is Canada. I mean, they are
committed, to say the least. They have very low rates of
corruption. They have tremendous law enforcement, and our
partnership with them just could not be stronger. So, that is
the advantage, and I hope over time Mexico--and, again, the
strains on the Mexican society, the violence, again corruption,
we can hope that that gets better. They are trying. My
relationship with senior--in fact, right after this I will meet
again, for about the fourth or fifth time, with a good friend
who is the foreign minister of Mexico. I just had the military
leadership, which play a different role in their society than
our senior military people do. My HSI people, my CBP people, my
ICE people are in Mexico in large numbers, as is the FBI. The
collaboration is very good, law enforcement. It is just not----
Senator Hoeven. But, you would agree we need to do more on
the Northern border as well, and what are those security
measures? Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), for example?
Sensors? What are the priorities on the Northern border for
you?
Secretary Kelly. Well, right now there is not nearly the
same level of cross-border crime and what-not. We obviously
need to watch it. One of the things the Canadians recently did
was to allow visa travel--non-visa--Mexicans to travel to
Canada without visas, and we are seeing a little bit of an
increase in Mexicans coming illegally into the United States
from the north. We are working with them. I am on the phone
with my counterparts in places like Canada all the time.
But, we obviously have to watch the threat. I mean, if we
were successful in drying up the production of heroin in, say,
Mexico, probably impossible----
Senator Hoeven. I am not talking just drugs. I am talking
terrorism, I am talking any--as you continue to secure the
Southern border, it is going to create pressure in other
places, and that is why we want to make sure that we are taking
the necessary steps on the Northern border as well. And, I
would invite you to--at the Pembina border station, which is
essentially Grand Forks, North Dakota, your border station
there, they have responsibility for 900 miles of border, all
the way from the Great Lakes through most of Montana. And, we
are using everything from Predators, the Grand Forks Air Force
Base there has Global Hawk. In fact, we have a UAS test site,
and the CBP station, they fly out of Grand Forks Air Force
Base. And, I would invite you to come up and see the
technology. You talk about cooperation with the Canadians and
also use it as an opportunity to build on some of that
cooperation with the Canadians, because you are talking 900
miles of border without a fence. We are going to have to
continue to build those relations and that technology to do the
job. And, I hope you would come see what we are doing there.
Secretary Kelly. Absolutely. I will do that, Senator.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Portman. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
Senator Heitkamp.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you. I did not want to disappoint
anyone, so I am going to raise the Northern border in the very
beginning.
Obviously, the law that was passed requires that you meet a
June deadline for telling us what the threats are and how you
are going to secure the Northern border. Can you tell me
whether you are on target to meet that June deadline?
Secretary Kelly. We are always on target. I was just up in
Seattle and met with the local law enforcement folks. I have
been on the phone a number of times on REAL ID with the
Governor up there, so we have a little bit of a relationship.
But, more importantly, I talked to my people that are
responsible for that stretch from the Pacific inland for about
650 miles, something like that. They have, again, great
relations with their counterparts on the other side of the
border. The real strength is the databases.
Senator Heitkamp. So, we can expect a report in June which
then we can react to in the next budgetary time period,
correct?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, Senator. Yes.
Senator Heitkamp. OK. I just want to remind you that 8 of
the 15 Senators actually represent the Northern border.
Secretary Kelly. That has my attention, believe me. I love
the Northern border.
Senator Heitkamp. I did not think it escaped your
attention. And, obviously, we would love to host you. I am
deeply concerned about personnel issues on the Northern border
and hope that whatever you are looking at in that study
includes securing enough personnel to do the job and to meet
the challenges.
I want to talk a little bit about Central America. It is a
topic that I know you are well familiar with, and it was one
of, I think, the great opportunities that we had given your
position in Southern Command and given the fact that you have
so many great relationships. We continue to be challenged by
the Northern Triangle countries. The rate of murder and mayhem
is unparalleled throughout the world, which is really saying
something. We are looking at the Alliance for Progress as a way
to kind of build that soft power, not just look at border
security but how can we, in fact, refugee in place.
It is my understanding that you are convening a conference
in Miami. One of the concerns that I have is who is going to
all be at the table, because I think it is critically important
that everyone be represented, whether it is NGO's, whether it
is immigration groups, whether it is advocacy groups, that we
all understand that we have a role in securing--providing some
security for those Central American countries.
Can you tell me what the plan is and what you hope to
accomplish in the Miami conference?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, Senator. First, I would tell you that
I am close to the Central Americans. In the short period of
time I have been in the job, I have been down to Guatemala. The
President of Honduras was just up in my office. He is someone
that I have worked closely with before. I am going to Honduras
soon. I have been to Mexico since I have been in this job and
met Mr. Tillerson there, Secretary Tillerson there. So, I have
met all three from the northern tier countries--Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras. All three of their attorneys general
came, and we had great discussions--again, friends. Mr.
Videgaray is in and out of Washington quite frequently. I plan
another trip to Mexico. So, that is where we are in terms of
what we have been doing there.
Now, when I briefed, when I had discussions with Mr. Trump,
when he was still Mr. Trump, I talked to him about the issue,
again, of drug use in the United States, drug trafficking, what
that does to these countries. But, some of the things--and I
will take a little credit--not much but a little credit for
this. Some of the things, when I was still on active duty in
Southern Command, some of the things we helped the northern
tier countries implement have driven down. Now, the death rates
are still horrific.
Senator Heitkamp. So, what do you hope to accomplish in
Miami and who----
Secretary Kelly. It will be a 2-day conference. One day
will be economic. We have certainly one of the real powers
behind this is the Inter-American Development Bank. EU will be
there, is my understanding, some European countries. Obviously,
we will have--I am hoping to have the Secretary of Commerce,
the Secretary of Treasury. I will be there; the Vice President,
our Vice President, is coming down. There will be businessmen
and--women. I believe all three of the Central American
Presidents and their teams will be there for this. I have the
Canadian--the Mexicans will co-host this.
Senator Heitkamp. Will you be reviewing the Alliance for
Progress and whether that has been valuable and what changes we
need to make as it relates to that commitment?
Secretary Kelly. The Alliance for Prosperity----
Senator Heitkamp. Prosperity, I mean. Excuse me.
Secretary Kelly. Prosperity, right. And, I could go into it
if you want, but I would just say that I had a lot to do with
organizing that with the three countries. They have put their
own money against it. We, you, the Congress has put money
against it. The real thrust of this event in Miami in mid-June,
I think, will be outside investment as opposed to U.S.
investment.
Senator Heitkamp. Right.
Secretary Kelly. Although outside private investment. So,
that is what we are trying to accomplish--that is what we will
accomplish.
Senator Heitkamp. I think there are tons of folks who want
to help out, in the NGO community especially, and I think that
it takes me to the kind of next topic, which is why people are
leaving Central America. And, I would say there has been a lot
of confusion back and forth on what is going to happen to women
coming to the border with children from Central American
countries.
Just a quick yes or no. There have been reports that you
are considering separating children from their mothers at the
border, and I want to know, yes or no, whether that is true.
Secretary Kelly. Can I give you more than a yes or no?
Senator Heitkamp. You can just a little bit.
Secretary Kelly. OK. Only if the situation at that point in
time requires it. If the mother is sick or addicted to drugs or
whatever. In the same way we would do it here in the United
States, not routinely.
Senator Heitkamp. So if you thought that a child was
endangered?
Secretary Kelly. Sure.
Senator Heitkamp That is the only circumstance to which you
would separate----
Secretary Kelly. I cannot imagine doing it otherwise.
Senator Heitkamp. Yes, I just want to--I know a lot of
people think that that might provide a deterrent, and we have a
number of people within the Heartland Alliance program, and I
would ask that this letter--and I know you get a lot of
correspondence, obviously, sent to you--March 8th--but it is
some comments from women who--I ask that this be put in the
record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The letter referenced by Senator Heitkamp appears in the
Appendix on page 334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson [Presiding.] Without objection.
Senator Heitkamp. I just want to read a couple of them
because I think it is really important to understand what is
driving people north.
``My faith was in God when I made the decision to leave. I
had never heard of asylum. All I knew was that the United
States was a place where people could be protected and safe.''
``I came to the United States. I did not think about the
policies. I was just considering that the United States is the
thing that could protect us from violence where we were
living.''
I think you know almost better than anyone else who serves
in this Administration how horrific the conditions are. And, I
appreciate your answer, and no one could disagree that if a
child is in danger and you believe that, that there should be
separation and that that would be a rare circumstance. Is that
correct, General Kelly?
Secretary Kelly. That is, yes.
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary Kelly. That is a yes.
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, it is good to
see you, Secretary Kelly. It is good to have you here before
the Committee. I appreciate your testimony and also wanted to
thank you again publicly for coming to Detroit upon my
invitation and spending some time with the Muslim American/Arab
American community, Latino/Hispanic community, and, of course,
we had a wonderful opportunity to see firsthand one of the
busiest border crossings in North America there, from Detroit
to Windsor into Canada, and I appreciate your interest and your
involvement in that meeting.
But as you know, Secretary Kelly, there has been an
appreciable uptick in hate crimes and crimes against religious
institutions across the country. Last month, Senator Portman
and I led a letter that was signed by every single Member of
the Senate asking your Department, the DOJ, and FBI to take
action against the rise in hate crimes against Jewish community
centers, mosques, and other religiously associated locations.
And, as you are aware, it is rare to have a letter signed by
all 100 of us. This is how serious we take it.
It has been about 29 days since the letter has been written
to you, the Attorney General, and the FBI, and I was just
wondering when should we expect a response back to all my
colleagues.
Secretary Kelly. It should have been a long time ago. I
will apologize, and I am on it. But, I will tell you this, that
I have added our approach to this issue to add mosques and any
religious building, church, whatever, that might be affected by
this.
We do have some capability within the Department to advise
individuals that want to be advised about, say, security
precautions. I think my staff told me yesterday virtually all
of the Jewish centers, large groups, have taken that advice. We
have teams that go out and travel. So, we are very--I do not
know if any of the mosques have responded yet, but as I say, I
add all religious communities to that, not just--I have told my
people let us just not talk one religion, let us just not talk
terrorism, for that matter. How about we talk about white
supremacists and things like that?
But, I apologize for not getting back, and I will get on
that today.
Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that, Secretary. And, I
think it is obvious from your comments you do believe there is
a legitimate fear of hate crimes. In our communities that they
need to be concerned about.
Secretary Kelly. I do.
Senator Peters And, given that, will you commit to
continued support for programs that support vulnerable
locations such as the nonprofit security grant program that
your Department runs?
Secretary Kelly. I will.
Senator Peters. Thank you. I appreciate that, Secretary.
As you know, Michigan has an extension of the REAL ID
enforcement allowing Federal Agencies to accept driver's
licenses and identification cards from Michigan. It runs
through October 10, of this year, in 2017. What is the current
status of REAL ID implementation across the Nation?
Secretary Kelly. As I know the Senator knows, the REAL ID
law was passed by Congress in 2005, and the real first big
deadline is this January coming, I think it is the 22nd, to
where you will have to have an appropriate REAL ID, approved
REAL ID, or if you do not have that, something like a passport,
in order to fly domestically and internationally.
The map--and I addressed most of the Governors of all of
the States, I think 48 of the States, about 3 weeks ago, and
for those that are not compliant--and there are right now I
think five that for sure are not even really trying, and that
is their call. I mean, I am not criticizing them, but they are
not really trying for issues inside the State, and then there
are another 18 or 19 States that are going in the direction
but, again, are unsure if they could be compliant. So, when I
talked to the Governors--and I would say the same thing here--I
think the Governors have to kind of have a real serious
conversation with their citizens, with their staffs first, and
decide whether they can hit the mark in January; and if they
cannot, to have a conversation with their citizens about you
really need to consider getting a passport, as an example. A
passport is for 10 years, $110 I think to get a passport, very
easy to get. Because in January, if they do not have some
compliant ID, they are not going to be able to get on an
airplane, domestically or otherwise.
This scared me to death, actually, because I thought that
the people I was talking to in Washington, which is really a
red State right now, probably not going to get there. And, by
the way, the Governors, several Governors have asked me to send
out some people from my staff to take a look at where they are,
to do an appraisal of if they are going to make it, so then
they can talk to their people. And, I have made that available
to all the States.
But, the point is when I was talking to these businessmen
and--women in Seattle who were, very well informed people, they
were all under the impression that their State-enhanced
driver's license was REAL ID compatible, which it is not. So,
if people like that were unaware of the ID situation, I would
say the vast majority of the good citizens of Washington State.
So, the point is where it is right now, if you are not fully
compliant, on the 22nd of January coming then you will have to
have a form of ID like a military ID or a passport, passport
card, in order to get on an airplane. That is where it is right
now.
Senator Peters. Under Section 102 of the REAL ID Act, the
DHS can waive laws to facilitate the construction of a border
wall. This provision has been used previously to waive dozens
of laws, including some environmental laws. What laws does DHS
intend to waive to build this new wall along the Southern
border?
Secretary Kelly. First, obviously, do the nuts-and-bolts
survey of where we are going to put wall, and at those points,
as I understand it--and I would have to consult my lawyers,
obviously, but places like the Indian reservation would be
complicated. We are working with the Indian reservation in
Arizona, 75 miles of the border. They already have some
technology there. That would be a place that would be
unwilling, unlikely to take on. There are some eminent domain
issues. We will try to do as much as we can without those kind
of issues coming to a head. Certainly, I am very aware of any
critical habitat, particularly say in the Big Bend part of
Texas.
So, again, Senator, not going to build a wall where it does
not make sense, but we will do something across the Southwest
border.
Senator Peters. Well, I understand you are going to need
some time to review some of these issues, and perhaps we can
work closely with your office as that goes forward. But, I
would just ask if you would be willing to commit to one item,
and that would be not to waive Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) under the wall project so that we can have full
transparency.
Secretary Kelly. Can I get back to you?\1\ But, it sounds
like a yes to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The correction to Mr. Kelly remarks appear in the Appendix on
page 346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Peters. Great. Appreciate that. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
And, good morning, Secretary Kelly. It is nice to see you
again.
There is a specific program within ICE's Homeland Security
Investigations Division that focuses on bringing law
enforcement scrutiny to the adjudications of visa applications.
The program is called the ``Visa Security Program (VSP).''
Right now, in 30 United States diplomatic posts around the
world, specially trained law enforcement teams are dispatched
to provide recommendations to the State Department's consular
offices in order to help these diplomats make informed
decisions about whether to grant a visa to a foreign national.
Bringing law enforcement skills to the visa adjudication
process makes a lot of sense, at least to me--I hope it does to
you,
too--and it should probably be, I think, implemented across the
board for all diplomatic posts that issue visas.
We are working on possible legislation on this topic, so I
wanted to ask two questions. Would you support the expansion of
visa security teams to more diplomatic posts? And, is the visa
security team fully funded in the fiscal year 2018 budget
request?
Secretary Kelly. I will have to check on the funding issue,
but I think anything we can do overseas to make better
decisions about who might come to the United States for
whatever reason is a good idea and should be reinforced, and we
should be constantly looking at even better ways to do that.
But, I will get back to you on the funding, if that is all
right.
Senator Hassan. OK. That is fine. Thank you.
I want now to move to a different topic. As you know as
well as anyone, we have seen multiple incidents of violence at
the public or non-sterile areas of our airports. In 2013, a TSA
officer at Los Angeles International Airport was murdered at
the TSA checkpoint by a disturbed individual, while earlier
this year an active shooter killed five people near the baggage
claim at the Fort Lauderdale airport.
Last spring, suicide explosions that occurred in the public
areas at Brussels airport and Istanbul Ataturk airport killed
61 people. Yet, in the President's initial budget release, the
Federal support for securing the public portions of airports
has been gutted. The budget cuts the Visible Intermodal
Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, the behavioral detection
officer program is eliminated, and TSA grants to reimburse
State and local law enforcement for their patrols at airports
are also being slashed.
So, amid this increasing threat to our airports, why is the
Administration cutting these key counterterrorism measures?
Secretary Kelly. The VIPR teams for sure are something that
I am working very hard to save.
Senator Hassan. OK.
Secretary Kelly. As far as the grants go--and this does not
fall under this sanctuary city thing or anything like that. I
think the expectation is that parking lots in areas outside the
immediate, TSA security zones really belong to the State and
local--the airports are great generators of revenues necessary
for various States, and I think the thinking there is that the
State and local folks need to--I am familiar with the Boston
airport. I mean, there is more State police that kind of cycle
around that airport, not to mention Boston police.
So, I think the thinking is that for outside the security
perimeter that is established by TSA, that would belong more to
the local community.
Senator Hassan. Well, as a former Governor, I might suggest
that we discuss that a little bit more, because I know how much
additional work securing even the non-sterile areas are. And,
it is a partnership to be sure, but I am very concerned. Money
is not growing on trees in our State budgets, and so I think it
is something we really need to look at, because the overall
security climate at airports I think will really be compromised
with those grants. So, I would look forward to discussing that
with you more.
I will submit for the record a question on foreign airport
staff screening.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The question from Senator Hassan appears in the Appendix on
page 425.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, I did want to talk a little bit about DHS and cyber
defenses. In an effort to strengthen its cyber defense, the
Department of Defense recently launched two programs to
capitalize on the vast network of U.S. computer security
researchers who may not want to work for the Federal
Government, but still want to help secure our Nation from cyber
threats. The first was a pilot program called ``Hack the
Pentagon,'' and it provided hackers across the country with
legal authorization to spot vulnerabilities in DOD networks in
return for cash payments.
The second program was the establishment of a vulnerability
disclosure policy which provides a legal avenue for these
hackers to hunt for and report vulnerabilities in DOD networks
without fear of prosecution.
I think these are really forward-thinking cyber programs
that leverage an untapped resource in the United States. So,
the question is: Has DHS considered implementing similar
programs?
Secretary Kelly. One of the things--I do not know if the
Senator was here. One of the things now that I have a Deputy--
this is a critically important issue. It goes without saying.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Secretary Kelly. Now that I have a Deputy, this is another
one of those things, the whole cyber enterprise within DHS.
But, another thing we are already doing, and that is, just one
of the reasons I was in Seattle recently, is reaching out--as
is, I think, all of government--reaching out to the commercial
sector, because the answers are just not--they are definitely
not just in the Federal Government.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Secretary Kelly. They are everywhere. So Elaine Duke, now
that she is confirmed--and thank you for that--will take this
on among a number of other things that she will focus on. I am
with you on this. And, I was not aware of these programs, but I
am now, and I could get back to you, come over and talk to you
about it.
Senator Hassan. I think that would be great just because,
again, we have a lot of people with talent, skill, and interest
in serving their country who may not want to come work for the
government, but we really need their skill and their insight.
The last area I wanted to touch on, I know you referenced
this morning the President's commission on the opioid epidemic,
and I was glad to see you were there at the listening session
on opioids and substance misuse last week. And, you and I have
spoken about the issue before, both in our one-on-one meeting
and at your confirmation hearing, and we have agreed on the
need to crack down on illegal opioids, while also dealing with
the demand side of the problem through prevention, treatment,
and recovery efforts.
So, I am looking to find out more about the goals of the
President's new commission on combating drug addiction and the
opioid crisis which he established by Executive Order last
week. And, I want to ensure that the rhetoric here is met by
real action that reflects the seriousness of this crisis.
The news reporting on the commission has been a little
scattered, so the first question for you is: Are you a member
of the Commission?
Secretary Kelly. I am.
Senator Hassan. OK. That is great to know. And, my
understanding from the Executive Order is that the commission
has 90 days to make a report on interim recommendations. Do you
know what the process will be to get to those recommendations?
Secretary Kelly. I do not. It is in the staff realm, but
let me just say this, to say the least, is a passion for me.
And, my entire time in Southern Command, I talked about this,
to the point of getting a fair amount of--getting cross-wise
with a fair amount of people in the White House and other parts
of our government.
The beauty, I think, of this President was--I do not know
if you were in the room when I made this comment before, but
one of the first conversations I had with President-elect Trump
was this issue of drugs, drug demand, what it does to not only
our own country but to certainly the hemisphere.
Senator Hassan. Sure.
Secretary Kelly. And, the money it makes available for
corruption and terrorism and things like that. He has taken
this bit,
and he is going to make this work, I believe. So, it is a
comprehensive--everything from drug demand reduction to rehab
to law enforcement to helping out the Central American
republics, to working with Mexico on the heroin production. We
have great partners down there. So, it is this very long 2,000-
mile, if you will, process of trying to get at the drug demand.
Senator Hassan. Well, I appreciate that very much. I
appreciate your presence on the commission. I look forward to
working with you on it, and I would put a plug in for essential
benefits in our health care so that people can get the
treatment that they need. Thanks.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
By the way, I have seen cherry blossoms growing on trees
here in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, I have not seen money
grow on trees here in Washington either. Senator Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kelly, thank you for being here today. I kind of
figured that when he put a four-star Marine in charge of
homeland security, good things would start to happen.
Secretary Kelly. Not everyone agrees with that.
Senator Daines. Yes, well, I do.
I was struck yesterday--we were in the same room. In fact,
at the same table there was a former Commissioner of the U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, David Aguilar, here testifying.
And, I asked him a question about reductions that we are seeing
in apprehension rates of illegal Southwest border crossings.
That February data point came out and saw a 40-percent
reduction in February. When we typically see, because of
seasonality, anywhere from a 10-to 20-percent increase, we saw
a 40-percent decrease in February.
David then followed up and said, ``I believe we are going
to revise those numbers as we have a little more time here,''
because that release came out on March 8th, and now we are into
April. He said, ``It looks like it is actually a 67-percent
reduction in the month of March.'' This is not a statistical
anomaly. Something is going on. We talked about what that is in
terms of the message that is coming from the Administration
about enforcing the rule of law. So, I just want to
congratulate you and the Administration on some early success.
My question is: These are encouraging results. What
substantive actions will you be taking in order to make sure
that we can sustain these reductions that we are seeing early
on in this Administration?
Secretary Kelly. The first would be to gain control of our
Southwest border. Much of what we are seeing here--and the
second would be to work--I do not know if you were here when we
were talking about this, the Central American issue of helping
them, security and economically. Again, I have traveled there
many times. I call many of them friends. The people from
Central America that are coming here are overwhelmingly nice
people, simple for the most part, rural, not highly educated.
That is just the nature of their societies. But, they come here
for two reasons: one, lack of economic opportunity; and, two,
levels of violence, particularly in the cities, that are
astronomical, although to use Honduras as an example, in the 4
years that the current President is there, he has taken it
from, I think, 91 per 100,000, which is what it was when I was
in Miami on active duty, highest in the world; it is down I
think to 59. That is still astronomical. Violence across our
country is about 5 per 100,000 murders. So, it is still high,
but the point is they are bringing it down.
I was speaking separately with the President of Honduras in
my office just last week. What he has done economically, he
expects to grow his economy by 600,000 jobs in the next 5
years. This is phenomenal information or progress.
Jimmy Morales from Guatemala, similar kind of efforts and
similar kind of successes both in reducing the violence rates
as well as economics. That is why I think this economic forum,
if you will, in Miami in June will add to it.
So, why are they not coming? They are not coming for the
most part because they do not know what is going on. They have
heard of the actions of the ICE agents internal to the United
States, much of it terribly misreported by our press, but that
said, it has added to the deterrent effect.
What we are doing on the border, what we intend to do on
the border, has added to that deterrent effect. These people
are not wealthy people. Oftentimes, their entire life savings
are given to the coyotes, the traffickers, to get one, two, or
three of them into the United States. We know because of the
focus we are putting on the traffickers now, when we catch
them, actually prosecuting them, the traffickers now have
raised their fares, their prices, two and three times. So, what
used to be, say, $4,000 per individual to get into the United
States from, say, Honduras is now $8,000, $10,000, and $12,000.
Well, the people down in those parts of the world cannot afford
that kind of money. They are already paying more than they
could afford.
So, all of that has added to the deterrent effect. My
appeals personally through the press and to the Presidents and
the attorneys general from those three countries, the Roman
Catholic leadership, the Evangelical leadership--I met with the
Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archbishop, spoke with the
Archbishop in Houston, again, asked them to contact their
counterparts, if you will, in those countries to ask, beg the
people not to take that horribly dangerous trip to the United
States because you will be sent back and you will not have the
money, and you will probably, if you are a woman, have been
assaulted--once, if you are lucky--or if you are a young man,
you could be siphoned off into the cartel gang Mexican thing.
So, that is why they are not coming.
Senator Daines. Yes, well, I think you are also
demonstrating, in my opinion, the experience you are bringing
from your Southern Command leadership; I think it is having
already a significant impact on our country and protecting our
Southern border.
Secretary Kelly. Thank you for that.
Senator Daines. Thank you, truly. Also, I appreciate your
compassion as you are looking at the effect it is having on
very poor people who are being taken advantage of as they are
seeking to come into our country.
I am from Montana. We think about our Northern border, but
the Southern border and the methamphetamines that are now
coming into Montana, and they are coming in from our Southern
border, are having a huge impact on our State. Mitigating the
flow of drugs long before they reach our border, as you are
well aware from your time in command of SOUTHCOM, is very
important. We discussed the concept at the confirmation
hearing. What steps have you taken on the job to stymie the
flow of drugs as well as violence into our country?
Secretary Kelly. Great question. One of the things we know
about the flow of hard drugs--marijuana comes in vast amounts,
but it is also produced in the United States in vast amounts.
But, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine are the big killers,
and along with that are opiates that are counterfeited, if you
will, and, of course, not a lot of quality control. But, you do
not know--the average person abusing opiates in the United
States does not know that a lot of it is not produced by
credible--they are produced in labs in Mexico or in other
places. So, the point is most of that comes into the United
States in 10-, 15-, 20-kilo loads via the ports of entry, in
trucks and things like that.
So, what have I done? We are now looking very hard at the
ports of entry, which are not really part of the wall, if you
will, effort. But, look at the ports of entry. If there is
better technology out there, and I think there is, to look into
vehicles without unloading the vehicle, particularly tractor-
trailers, to get after it that way. But, I would tell you,
methamphetamine, helping--working with the Mexicans, they are
good partners in law enforcement. My folks, I am proud to say,
Homeland Security Investigations, working with the Mexicans,
led them--I will just put it that way--to two huge
methamphetamine labs that were destroyed by the Mexican
marines, I think in that case. Working with them and
identifying the poppy fields in the south, the Pacific
southwest of their country, and offering them perhaps help in
how to eradicate those, much as we have done for so many years
in Colombia with coca. That is what we are doing.
But, the big issue really right now in drugs coming into
the United States is the ports of entry, and a part of that as
well is what goes south. We do not look at much going south out
of our country. The Mexicans do not look at that very well
either. I would like to extend the effort to look in vastly
more vehicles going south because bulk money in unbelievable
amounts travels south out of the United States into the rest of
the hemisphere to get laundered, I mean billions and billions
of dollars, and guns. If we point a finger at the Mexicans or
people who produce--countries that produce drugs, if we point
our finger at them about the production of drugs, they will
point their finger right back and say, ``What about guns?'' So,
we need to do better in the southward flow to go after the
money and to go after the flow of guns. And, that will take
some time, some money, some effort.
But, I think there is a next step, and a next step after
that in technology. The stuff we have now is pretty good. I was
up with Senator Peters looking at the busiest traffic point
between Detroit and Canada. Technology that looks into trucks,
tractor-trailers, is pretty good. But, I know there is better
stuff out there, and we will just get after it. But, mostly the
drugs come in, we believe, we know, comes in in relatively
small amounts, 10 or 15 kilos at a time, in automobiles and
those kind of conveyances.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Secretary Kelly. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Daines.
I just want to remind everybody kind of watch the clock. We
have great attendance. I appreciate it. I want to make sure
everybody gets a chance to ask questions. Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
General Kelly, great to see you. How are you holding up?
You have a lot on you? You have had a lot of tough jobs before?
Secretary Kelly. I have been in this job for 15 years, but
it
is--no, 3 months seems like 15 years. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I am sure it does.
Secretary Kelly. This is the most enjoyable thing I will do
this week.
Senator Carper. Well, for us, too. [Laughter.]
We say this often, we say it from our hearts: Thank you for
taking this on. Thank you for being a voice of reason. Thank
you for being just a great patriot.
We have been talking a bit about--I will just follow up on
a number of the questions that deal with the border, border
strategy, and that sort of thing. I think the message I hear
from both sides, on this side and hearing from you as well, is
we need an all-of-the-above strategy on the border. It is not
just a wall, it is not just fencing. Those are important in
appropriate certain places. But, it is comprehensive
immigration reform that includes a guest worker program that
sort of takes away the need for people to come up here and get
stuck up here on this side of the border, but they can go back
and forth and do good work for our country and go back to their
own.
You referenced the Alliance for Prosperity. I am delighted
to hear the economic summit that you are planning for being
held in May. Do you have the dates yet on that?
Secretary Kelly. It is going to be now in June, and that
was based on our Vice President's desire to attend--either the
12th--I think it will be the 12th. It might be a little later.
It will be in Miami just because that is a great place to bring
Latin Americans because of the language and all of this kind of
thing. They are very familiar with the city, so that is the
place to do it.
Senator Carper. OK. Well, I am glad you are doing it. I
think that is a smart move.
One of the things that we need to do is we need to, in
order to incent the private sector and other countries and
other organizations to help out in the work that needs to be
done in Central America so that it actually has some economic
hope and opportunity and do a better job combating crime and
violence. We set the example. Our funding for Alliance for
Prosperity is, I think, very important for that. My hope is
that you can continue to support it, and I think you know it
makes sense.
Secretary Kelly. Absolutely.
Senator Carper. I like to say for the folks down in Central
America, you can do it, we can help. They have to do the heavy
lifting, but we can help, and I think we are doing that.
Border security, the force multipliers, there are just a
ton of them. Innovation, we talked about the innovation of
technology, but it is not just drones and fixed-wing aircraft.
It is not just helos. But, it is those aircraft but with the
right kind of surveillance technology, the Vehicle and Dismount
Exploitation Radar (VADER) system, that kind of thing that is
actually so much more helpful.
I mentioned yesterday in my comments, 23 years in the Navy,
naval flight officer (NFO), P-3 aircraft, mission commander, we
did a lot of anti-submarine warfare, a lot of stuff off the
coast of Vietnam and Cambodia. We also did search and rescue.
And, we did search and rescue with binoculars out of a P-3
aircraft at 500, 1,000, 2000 feet. Good luck. It is hard to
find anything. And so, the VADER systems makes all the sense in
the world.
But, part of the force multipliers is observation towers.
They can be fixed, as you know. They can be mobile. They have
to have the right surveillance systems. Part of it can be
horses. Some of us have been down--the Chairman and I have been
down, I think with Claire, maybe with Heidi, to see the horses
do their work and help be a force multiplier.
There are motion detectors. There is intelligence, better
intelligence. How are we doing on the intelligence in terms of
the intelligence we are sharing with the folks in Mexico and
further south?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir, the law enforcement
intelligence, information sharing is very good.
Senator Carper. OK. Part of the force multipliers are boats
and ramps so we can get the boats in the water, all kinds of
stuff. In some places it makes sense, other places it does not,
but it is an all-of-the-above approach.
I want to ask you to talk a little bit about leadership and
the management, the ability to manage this organization.
Senator Johnson and I and, before that, Tom Coburn and I and
Members of this Committee worked very closely with Jeh Johnson
and with Ali Mayorkas to try to make sure that the Department
had terrific leadership teams, a confirmed senior leadership
team, and I think many of them are gone now, as you know. We
had an election. But, we want to be helpful. Elaine Duke was
confirmed yesterday. We want to be helpful in bringing the rest
of your leadership team in. You will have to tell us who you
want, give us a chance to vet them, so we look forward to
hearing about that.
The other thing on leadership I have found--and we have
talked about this before--it would be nice to have--instead of
all of the Department spread over a half acre throughout the
greater Washington metropolitan area and Virginia and so forth,
it would be nice to have people consolidated in a more close-
knit area. That could be St. Elizabeths. I think it should be.
I was not always a fan of the St. Elizabeths project, but I
have come to believe that it is the smart thing to do, fiscally
smart thing to do. Your thoughts, please?
Secretary Kelly. If I could comment on the leadership.
Senator Carper. Please.
Secretary Kelly. I would tell you, you are right, Elaine
and myself are really the only two political types, and it
almost--I do not know what that--I cannot quite get my arms
around the fact that I am a political appointee because of my
life before this.
Senator Carper. When you look up a dictionary for political
appointee, your picture is not there.
Secretary Kelly. Thank you. But, we have tremendous career
professionals, so the function of the Department has not from
when Jeh left and all the rest of the political appointees
left, stopped at all. We have tremendous long-serving public
servants that are running the Department now, and as time goes
on, of course, political appointees will theoretically be
confirmed by the Senate and will take their places. And then,
they will learn their jobs underneath those tremendous public
servants.
Senator Carper. That is a good point.
Secretary Kelly. On the consolidation, I do not think--two
things. DHS I do not think will ever be a functioning, cohesive
organization to the degree that it should be and could be
unless it does consolidate somewhere in more or less the same
building or on the same campus. The first issue.
And, the second issue is--and as long as the Department
answers to as many----
Senator Carper. Committees and Subcommittees?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, I mean, Jim Mattis has four
committees that he has to concern himself with, and a number of
subcommittees. And, that was my life before. This is a very
different beast, but I do not think it will ever be, as I say,
as cohesive as it could be so long as we have--I think it is
119-plus committees and subcommittees that still have
jurisdiction from the olden days from when the Department was
formed. It is not impossible to function, but it will not be
the same so long as there are so many disparate committees to
answer to and that generates, frankly----
Senator Carper. Does St. Elizabeths make sense?
Secretary Kelly. It does make sense, yes.
Senator Carper. All right. Good. Thank you. My time has
expired. Thank you so much.
Secretary Kelly. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS
Senator Harris. Secretary Kelly, I was heartened to hear
your response to Senator Heitkamp's question about the
separation of children from their parents. I understood you to
say that only if the life of the child is in danger would there
be a separation. Is that correct?
Secretary Kelly. Depending on what is going on on the
ground, but that generally would be my approach.
Senator Harris. And, are you willing then to issue a
statement to your staff that that is your approach and that
that is your policy?
Secretary Kelly. My staff knows already that they will not
separate anyone unless I am informed and get my permission.
Senator Harris. Have you issued a directive to that----
Secretary Kelly. They know that.
Senator Harris. That is not my question, sir. Have you
issued a directive?
Secretary Kelly. My response is they know that, so, yes, I
have through the leadership told them that if that is going to
happen, it will only be me----
Senator Harris. With all due respect, sir, are you willing
to issue a directive to your staff that that is your policy?
Secretary Kelly. I have already done that.
Senator Harris. You have issued a directive?
Secretary Kelly. Through my leadership.
Senator Harris. I would like a copy of that then. Is that
in writing?
Secretary Kelly. It is verbal.
Senator Harris. OK. Are you willing to issue a written
directive to your staff that that is the policy of the
Department?
Secretary Kelly. I do not need to----
Senator Harris. You run an organization of 230,000 people.
Is that correct?
Secretary Kelly. Right at 230.
Senator Harris. And, why are you reluctant then to issue a
directive to your staff if that is, in fact, your policy?
Secretary Kelly. I am not reluctant. I have already given
the verbal--it only really applies to----
Senator Harris. So are you unwilling, sir, to issue a
written directive that it is the policy of the Department to
not separate children from their mothers unless the life of the
child is in danger?
Secretary Kelly. I do not need to do that. I have done it
verbally.
Senator Harris. So is your answer no?
Secretary Kelly. My answer is I do not need to do that.
Senator Harris. You do not need to do it.
Sir, are you aware that Sean Spicer said that with the new
Administration that now, finally, the President wanted to take
the shackles off individuals in this agency? Are you familiar
with that?
Secretary Kelly. No.
Senator Harris. Are you familiar with Brandon Judd, who
testified before our Committee in response to a question from
Senator Daines, said that now we can ``take the handcuffs off
of us and put the handcuffs on the criminals''? Are you aware
of that?
Secretary Kelly. No. Was that a recent hearing?
Senator Harris. Yes, it was. Are you aware that David
Lapan, your spokesperson, said yesterday to the Washington Post
that immigration agents may arrest crime victims and witnesses
at courthouses?
Secretary Kelly. Yes.
Senator Harris. And, are you willing to exempt victims and
witnesses who do not have serious criminal backgrounds from
that policy?
Secretary Kelly. Every case is different, and as the agents
do their work, of course, the people that are taken into
custody are put into a legal justice system. So, that is where
the decision would be made to deport, export, whatever.
Senator Harris. Are you willing to initiate a policy that
says that if that person was a victim or a witness to a crime
who is at a courthouse in any county in the United States,
appearing as a victim or a witness to a crime, that if they do
not have a serious criminal background, that they would be
exempt from a policy of picking them up at that courthouse?
Secretary Kelly. No.
Senator Harris. And, are you aware that local law
enforcement has a concern because this has created a chilling
effect among victims and witnesses to crime and has resulted in
their reluctance to show up to actually testify about crimes
committed in their community?
Secretary Kelly. I have heard some number of law
enforcement people say that. But, I also hear the opposite
view.
Senator Harris. During your confirmation hearing before
this Committee on January 10th, you committed to doing a top-
to-bottom assessment of DHS. Is that correct?
Secretary Kelly. I did.
Senator Harris. And, have you finished this assessment?
Secretary Kelly. No.
Senator Harris. When do you plan to finish it?
Secretary Kelly. I do not know.
Senator Harris. You do not have a goal for finishing it?
Secretary Kelly. I have a general goal.
Senator Harris. What is that date?
Secretary Kelly. Well, one of the things I will task my new
Deputy that was confirmed yesterday, that she will take that
on.
Senator Harris. Have you given her a date for when that
assessment will be complete?
Secretary Kelly. No, because when she was not confirmed, I
did not deal with her as a Deputy. I did not want to presume
confirmation by the Senate.
Senator Harris. So, you do not have a goal for your
Department on when that assessment will be completed?
Secretary Kelly. She and I will discuss the goal.
Senator Harris. And, have you read the--as part of the
assessment that needs to be done, have you read the report
issued by the Inspector General (IG), John Roth, that was
issued just 4 months ago, November 7, 2016, entitled ``Major
Management Performance Challenges Facing the Department of
Homeland Security''?
Secretary Kelly. I am aware of the report, yes.
Senator Harris. Have you read it?
Secretary Kelly. I am aware of it, and----
Senator Harris. So you have not read it?
Secretary Kelly. Executive summary.
Senator Harris. OK. In the report, the IG says, ``This year
we are presenting a broader picture of management challenges by
highlighting those we have repeatedly identified over several
years. We remain concerned about the systemic nature of these
challenges, some of which span multiple administrations and
department leadership.''
Do you agree that many of these challenges are systemic and
deeply rooted in the Department?
Secretary Kelly. Well, of course, that was pre-Kelly, and
it was Jeh Johnson----
Senator Harris. It was 4 months ago that report was issued.
Do you agree with the statement found by the IG based on his
analysis of your Department?
Secretary Kelly. That was pre-Kelly. I am committed----
Senator Harris. I am sorry. Pre-Kelly, meaning yourself?
Secretary Kelly. I was not in the job yet.
Senator Harris. OK.
Secretary Kelly. As I committed to Committee before and to
Congress in general, we are going to take a top-to-bottom look
at how we are organized and how we can do business better, and
that includes how we do the leadership functions.
Senator Harris. Are you aware, sir, that on March 22nd,
union officials and leaders from both ICE and Border Patrol
appeared before this Committee? During that hearing, Chris
Crane, who is the National ICE Council President, said, and I
will quote, there is a ``toxic and failed management culture.''
He went on to say a ``good ol' boy network'' exists within your
Department. He went on to say officers are ``tripping over
managers in the field,'' and then, said also that the agency
has outdated and ``practically no policies'' in place. Are you
aware that that is a sentiment among leadership in your
Department?
Secretary Kelly. Certainly, that is the sentiment
throughout really DHS in terms of how DHS was run for the last
8 years. Going forward, it will not be run like that anymore.
Once I determine how we are going to change the leadership
approach.
Senator Harris. So, you are going to come up with a plan
for fixing this for the 230,000 people in your Department?
Secretary Kelly. Yes.
Senator Harris. And, is this a priority for you?
Secretary Kelly. It is.
Senator Harris. And, at the same hearing, both Mr. Crane
and the National Border Patrol President Brandon Judd spoke of
an extensive morale issue at DHS, which is also reflected in
the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), which is
published by OPM. Are you aware that DHS ranks as the last
among large agencies in terms of its morale?
Secretary Kelly. That was certainly the case under the
Obama Administration, but we are changing that already.
Senator Harris. And, you are going to change that within
what time period for your Department of 23,000----
Secretary Kelly. It is already changing.
Senator Harris [continuing]. Oh, it has changed?
Secretary Kelly. It is already changing.
Senator Harris. It is changing, OK. And, in regards to your
top-to-bottom assessment, has your assessment included looking
into the morale issues at the agency and putting in place
programs and initiatives to actually improve the morale?
Secretary Kelly. It is what I do, yes.
Senator Harris. And, can you provide us with a list of the
policies that you have instituted to improve morale at the
Department?
Secretary Kelly. My leadership is a start point, and we
will continue to look at ways to improve the morale. One of the
issues most focused on by the workforce since--over the last 8
years that affected their morale was an inability to do their
jobs. Now that we have opened the aperture in terms of the
amount of work that they are allowed to do, I am deflecting a
lot of outside influences into the workforce so they can do
their jobs.
Senator Harris. But, my question to you, with all due
respect, my question to you is: What have you put in place to
turn the morale around in this Department, and the morale which
is at the lowest of many large Federal agencies, and the
condition has existed throughout, it appears, the life of the
agency and certainly has passed through many Administrations?
Secretary Kelly. Under the Obama Administration, the morale
has suffered terribly.
Senator Harris. So, what plans have you put in place, sir?
Secretary Kelly. My leadership.
Senator Harris. So, you are saying by virtue of you being
there, morale will now change.
Secretary Kelly. By virtue of the fact--the greatest impact
in raising the morale in the last 90 days or so has been that
the workforce now is allowed do their job.
Senator Harris. And, that would be they are now unshackled.
Is that correct?
Secretary Kelly. They are allowed to do their job as the
professionals they are.
Senator Harris. And the Administration has proposed
tripling the current number of ICE agents and increasing the
number of Border Patrol agents by 25 percent in addition to
requesting $4 billion to begin the construction of a wall,
which has been discussed. Are you in support of actually
bringing on these new agents before you have repaired the
damage that has existed in your agency?
Secretary Kelly. It is simultaneous, sure.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris, we are going to give you
an opportunity----
Senator Harris. So, I will go for Round 2. Thank you,
Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. I am not sure we are going to have Round
2, but we will have opportunities to submit questions for the
record.
Senator Harris. I do have more questions, so if we can do a
second round, I would appreciate that.
Chairman Johnson. I want to be thoughtful of people's time.
Senator Portman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN
Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, General
Kelly, it is good to have you before the Committee again.
First of all, I am glad we finally got Elaine, a great
Ohioan, over there in your Department. You talked earlier about
her being a political appointee. I view her as a career person,
having had 27 years in the Federal Government, and including,
obviously, big roles over at DHS as a career expert on
management and procurement and some of the big challenges that
you face trying to bring together all these departments and
agencies into one. So, I am glad she is here, and I know she
will be a tremendous asset to you.
At your nomination, we talked a lot about this drug issue,
and as you know, I was very complimentary of comments that you
had made to this Committee about a year and a half ago now
regarding the importance of focusing on the demand side. And,
that is where I have focused most in the last 25 years, and I
agree with you that the single most important thing is to
reduce the demand. And, you talked about prevention and
education, treatment and recovery, helping law enforcement and
so on.
I was a little concerned about the comments earlier about
the commission. I do hope the commission heeds your comments
and your thoughts on that. But, you should also know, just by
way of information, Congress just spent 3 years going through
this process that the commission is going to do in 90 days,
apparently, which is helping identify the problem. We had five
conferences here, not just numerous hearings but conferences,
bringing in experts from all around the country, looking at
best practices, and came up with this Comprehensive Addiction
and Recovery Act (CARA), a bipartisan bill that was finally
passed last year. And, one of my concerns is that only three of
the eight programs provided there, including things like
helping out on drug courts and some of the things you have
talked about in terms of diversion--it is not about locking
people up, it is about better prevention and getting people the
treatment they need. But, only three of those eight programs
have been implemented, and, I pushed the Obama Administration
on this, and I am now pushing the Trump administration on it.
So, one, I hope you will get up to speed on what CARA is
about, what it does. It is comprehensive, not just in name but
in reality, and it is based on a lot of work that has been done
not just over the last few years with these conferences but
around the country over time, because I do not think we need to
re-create the wheel. I think we need to go to action. This is a
crisis, and it is an epidemic certainly in my State and many
other States around the country. It is one that is particularly
difficult because of the opioid issue. In other words, crystal
meth is increasing in some communities. I understand that
cocaine is back in some communities. This opioid issue, the
grip of that addiction has been a huge challenge, as you know,
for treatment and recovery. We are beginning to learn more
about it and how to do it better, but we have to get this
legislation implemented and get the Cures Act money
appropriated again. I hope the budget will reflect that, which
is another $500 million. We need an extra budget just for
helping the States to be able to deal with this.
On fentanyl, it is the new issue, as you know, in so many
of our States. We are probably hit harder in Ohio than any
other State, we are told, per capita. But, there is this toxic
substance, as you know, that is a synthetic heroin,
carfentanil, U4, it goes by various names, but it is created by
evil scientists in a laboratory somewhere. And, you mentioned
it coming in from Mexico. Some comes in from Mexico, but
primarily that is coming from China to here, as I understand it
from your people, and then going to Mexico and back to here,
the vast majority of it. And, there is a new commission report
out, the U.S.-China Commission, recently that it is coming from
China. And, it is coming from laboratories in China, and it is
coming by the U.S. Mail system.
You and I talked about this, again, during your
confirmation process and the very difficult job that CBP and
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and others have of
identifying these packages because the U.S. Mail system does
not require advance information as to what is in the package,
where it is from, where it is going.
By the way, Federal Express (FedEx) and United Parcel
Service (UPS) and DHL and other private carriers do require
that. And, what we heard from your folks, including Todd Owen,
Executive Assistant Commissioner in the Office of Field
Operations at CBP, when he testified before this Committee on
this, is that having this advance data from the post office
would be key to helping you to be able to target these packages
to find the ones that are suspect.
We have legislation, as you know, called the STOP Act that
is bipartisan--Senator Klobuchar, myself, Senator Hassan, who
was here earlier, Senator Rubio, and others--that we are
attempting to get passed simply to say let us require that
these packages have this information. This is what we have
heard about from your people as the solution to being able to
target some of this fentanyl, to be able to stop some of this
poison coming into our communities and killing our citizens.
By the way, that opinion was reinforced at a roundtable
discussion I had just 10 days ago in Ohio with your CBP folks.
We had two of your port chiefs there. We also had folks there
who were from your HSI group, your group of individuals who
work with law enforcement every day to try to find this
material. We also had folks from DEA who have testified on
this.
So, my question to you is: What can we do to get this done?
President Trump in the campaign talked favorably about the STOP
Act. You have talked favorably about the need to have this
information. I guess what I would ask is two questions. One, do
you agree with me that having this advance data on shipments
coming into the United States from both the post office and
private carriers would help your officers be able to target
illegal shipments?
Secretary Kelly. I do, Senator.
Senator Portman. Second, would this informed targeting by
CBP potentially reduce the ability of the post office to be
used for illicit shipping of all kinds of contraband?
Secretary Kelly. I think it will.
Senator Portman. And, third, have you had a chance now,
since your nomination, to review the STOP Act? And, what are
your thoughts and comments on the STOP Act and its potential to
be able to help?
Secretary Kelly. Just in preparation for this hearing, we
had a long conversation with CBP people on the issue of the
post office. Apparently--and, of course, they do not work for
us, but the post office leadership is starting to move in the
right direction. Just the other day, again, a DOJ effort, DEA
agreement, such as they are with China, but an agreement at
least that they will get after the fentanyl production and
shipment out of their country. I will see how that turns out.
One of the problems, as I think you know, Senator, that my
folks have pointed out to me is a lot of the countries where
these parcels come from just do not cooperate. But, that is an
effort that we should focus on to have them cooperate in terms
of identifying the package, what is in the package, this kind
of thing.
So, again, I was probably not as aware of this issue 3 days
ago as I am now, and Kevin McAleenan, who we hope someday will
be the Commissioner--he is the Acting now--has this very much
on his front burner, as it is now on mine.
Senator Portman. I appreciate that, and, by the way, we are
asking President Trump to raise this with President Xi because,
you are right, China is not doing enough to close down these
laboratories and keep these materials from being spread. And,
by the way, it is a problem in China as well.
Secretary Kelly. Yes.
Senator Portman. I am told that fentanyl is now leaking out
into the community.
Secretary Kelly. I think that is the only reason now they
are interested because it is a problem in China.
Senator Portman. It is a problem. Three flakes of this
stuff can kill you. It is being put in relatively small
packages and sent, and there are millions of packages. So, do
you agree that the STOP Act would be helpful to be able to
identify these packages?
Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Portman. Thank you for that. And, I guess the final
thing that I want to say with regard to the border, because we
talked a lot about this earlier--and I really appreciated your
comment, which was we are not going to build a wall where it
does not make sense. We do need a wall in certain areas,
including some urban and even some suburban areas, and we do
need, again, the technology that was talked about earlier in
other areas.
You mentioned specifically the Big Bend of Texas. I was
there at the end of the year. I have been there several times.
And, you are not going to build a wall on those canyon walls,
and so we need to reassure people that this is about an
effectiveness way to secure the border, and I appreciate your
comments on it. I think that will help clarify the situation.
Thank you.
Secretary Kelly. Thank you, sir.
Senator Portman. I appreciate your service.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TESTER
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, Secretary Kelly, for your service, and
I mean that. I go back to what the Ranking Member on this
Committee said in her opening remarks, and that is that we have
faith in you. We have faith in you being the adult in the room
because of your past record and your past performance. We
believe that that will carry on as Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security.
I have a number of questions. One deals with there was $20
million worth of reprogramming money that you requested, and
that Senator Boozman and I signed a letter basically stating
utilize the money but utilize it in the best way to protect the
border, not necessarily a concrete wall.
Secretary Kelly. Right.
Senator Tester. It could be a fence. It could be drones. It
could be technology. It could be a number of things. Have you
determined how that $20 million is going to be spent?
Secretary Kelly. Again, Senator, on a barrier wall,
technology, whatever, we will do it where it makes sense and
what makes sense. But, we will not waste any money. But, we
have not determined right now what this thing will look like,
how long it will be.
Senator Tester. And, I appreciate that response, but really
the question is: As we reprogram $20 million, I do not know
that that is the best use of that money, because I think it was
going to be used in technology. But, that is a different
debate. We did it. And, the question becomes: If you use all
that $20 million to put up a prototype concrete wall for a
prototype to be used, that pretty much tells me what we are
going to be doing. If you use that $20 million, part of it, to
put up a concrete wall, part of it to use maybe Blue Rose
technology, part of it to maybe use drones, part of it to maybe
use radar, part of it maybe for manpower discussions, that puts
my heart at more of an ease. So, the question is that if you
have how this reprogramming money is going to be used, I would
like to know it. And, if you have not, could you tell me when
you might have it?
Secretary Kelly. Let me get back to you specifically on
that, Senator, but you can rest assured we will not waste the
money, and we are not going to build one prototype. We are
going to take a look at what makes sense along that whole
border.
Senator Tester. OK. The Secret Service was brought up
earlier, and I also agree that, due to circumstances with this
Administration, your Secret Service is probably stretched more
than it ever has been before. Have you made any requests of
Congress--first of all, am I reading that right? I may be
reading it wrong, and if I am, that is fine. But, have you made
any requests on Secret Service and the demands that have been
put on the Secret Service and if we need to deal with that
through the budget?
Secretary Kelly. Not as of yet. Again, the first thing I
would like to say--and I think you would agree--individually,
the best men and women imaginable.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Kelly. They are just phenomenal people, and they
work so hard, and they max out their overtime. I mean, they are
just meeting themselves coming and going.
Senator, they need--and we will come forward to Congress
and make the case, but they need a lot more agents, not just
because of the Trump era, if you will, although that is
additional because he has a lot of children and grandchildren.
We need more agents, and we need more uniform personnel,
regardless of whether it is a Mr. Trump, a Mr. Obama, or a Mr.
Anybody, because what they do is much larger than simply the
mission there at the White House and with Presidential travel.
Things like any foreign dignitary that comes to the United
States----
Senator Tester. I got you.
Secretary Kelly. It is much bigger than just that, so we
need a larger Secret Service because we need to get some of
these people a little bit of time at home with their families.
Senator Tester. OK, got you. The Coast Guard, you talked
about it in your opening remarks. The President's budget came
out and whacked the Coast Guard, along with TSA and a lot of
other agencies that are under your purview.
Question No. 1 is: How much input did you have in that
budget? Question No. 2 is: What are we going to do about fixing
it?
Secretary Kelly. Question No. 1, very little. I have talked
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) people about the
way forward, and we are going to make the money--we will make
the money good for the Coast Guard. They are too vital in
securing the Southwest border.
Senator Tester. Yes.
Secretary Kelly. And, a lot of other things.
Senator Tester. And, Mar-a-Lago and a lot of other things.
OK. Thank you.
Northern ports, we talked about ports of entry where the
drugs are coming through. And, we are focused like a laser on
the Southern border, and I think that is cool. But, the
Northern border has its challenges, too.
Can you tell me how concerned you are on the Northern
border and if your concern is with--and I do not think this
would be classified information. Is it with drugs? Is it with
undocumented people coming across the line? Is it with
terrorist activities? Where is your concern with the Northern
border? And then, we will have a follow up on that.
Secretary Kelly. Not as, obviously, as concerned with what
comes with the Northern border as the Southern border, but it
is our border, so I am concerned with all the borders. The
absolutely great news story on the Northern border is that we
have Canada there that is----
Senator Tester. That is right, great ally.
Secretary Kelly [continuing]. To say the least, a friend,
an ally. They interact with us at every level. They are very
careful about who comes into their country--maybe not as
careful as I want us to be going forward about who comes into
our country, but the good-news story, again, up there is the
Canadians, their law enforcement, their commitment.
I would say actually this might surprise you. I think not a
concern really. What I would like to see the Northern border be
is even thinner, if you will, so that the movement safely and
securely of commerce and people can be even streamlined more.
Senator Tester. That is a big deal. The last thing, and
excuse me if this has been asked before. I do not know that it
has been or that it has not been. Eminent domain, on the
Southern border, if we are going to build a wall, if we are
going to do anything, it is require permission of the
landowners.
Secretary Kelly. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. On the Northern border, those landowners
are critically important for security, by the way. They are an
extra set of eyes we do not have to pay for. How are you going
to deal with eminent domain on the Southern border?
Secretary Kelly. We will do it judiciously. There may be
places we have to do it. Again, that would be part of the
evaluation about where we build the wall, how we build the
wall.
Senator Tester. Well, I would just say that--and this point
has been brought up in these hearings before--if you want to
get people's attention in rural America, just talk about
eminent domain. The hair will be on fire.
Secretary Kelly. Senator, I am told that back in, I think,
the 2008 effort to put fencing on the border, we are still in
court with people about eminent domain, 9 years ago.
Senator Tester. Look, I get it. I have a farm that has to
be in the family 100 years. Those ones down there, they are
probably 140 or 150. If somebody tried to eminent domain my
place, they would take me off in a box because I would not let
them do it. So, that is where we are at. Thank you.
Secretary Kelly. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. This hearing is setting a lot of hair on
fire. Senator Paul.
Senator McCaskill. And his is so special to be on fire.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL
Senator Paul. General Kelly, thank you for coming. If I
travel abroad and I am coming back home, do you think it is
appropriate to deny me entry to the country unless I let you
search my cell phone?
Secretary Kelly. Under very critical circumstances, I would
say that an American citizen ought to be able to come back in
and not have their electronics searched.
Senator Paul. We have gone from 5,000 people having their
cell phones searched to 25,000. We are denying people entry who
are citizens or green card holders who are coming back home,
and your Department is saying to them, ``You cannot return to
your home without giving us your fingerprint and giving us all
of the data on your phone, access to all of the data on your
phone.'' I think this is an extraordinarily unreasonable
standard.
I also think that you probably can differentiate between
citizens, U.S. persons, and those who are coming to visit. So,
I am not saying you cannot have some standards and that, based
on suspicion, you can deny someone entry to the country--but
not a citizen, not a green card holder. They are denying access
to our own country. I could travel abroad and be told I cannot
enter America unless I let you look at my phone. That is
obscene.
Do you have a response? We are up to 25,000 of these now.
Secretary Kelly. Well, it certainly has not increased
significantly in the 90 days I have been in the job and the 90
days Mr. Trump has been the President. I do not believe we ever
turned back legal citizens or--I mean citizens or legal
residents.
Senator Paul. That is what is in the paper. That is in the
last month. There was a guy that had a green card and his wife
was a citizen, but he lived here for many years. He was told he
could not enter if he did not give his fingerprint to the
government.
Secretary Kelly. Let me take that on, Senator. The one
thing I have learned in this job that everything I read about
this Department or what goes on at our borders, there is always
more to the story. But, in general, just like an American
citizen coming in and having his bag searched at the port of
entry, generally speaking it is done for a reason.
Senator Paul. Right. But, I think there are different--and
I am not blaming you. It may sound like I am blaming you. You
have only been on the job for a month or two. But, in your
nomination hearing, you said you were going to respect the
Fourth Amendment and you were going to respect people's
privacy. So, my hope is that you will go back and ask people,
``Are we really doing this?''
Secretary Kelly. You know I will.
Senator Paul. Because it happened. There have been many
reports of this.
I would also argue, though, that there is a difference
between searching my bag and my cell phone. OK? If I am coming
in, it is known that one of the things that happens at the
border are drugs. We have dogs. We do have random searches of
bags. We are doing that even domestically. So, I think we can
accept that. But, I think that people are going to be horrified
the more they hear that their cell phone, all their contacts--
we do not even know what is happening to our cell phone while
it is gone and in the possession of the government. Are they
downloading--and the story was this, that they are downloading
everybody's contacts and information. There is an extraordinary
amount of information on your phone.
Secretary Kelly. It is not happening.
Senator Paul. All right. But, that is what the stories are
saying.
Secretary Kelly. To citizens. And, in some cases, it is
certainly happening to foreigners coming in, but not routinely.
Senator Paul. But, it has gone from 5,000 a year to 25,000.
If you would not mind, if you would look into it and have your
people get back to my office on this.
Secretary Kelly. Will do.
Senator Paul. But, we put forward legislation, bipartisan
legislation, because we are so upset about this, that really if
you are a green card holder or a citizen, even if you had
suspicion, the way it would probably work if you were, I think,
obeying the spirit of the Constitution, is you might be able to
seize my phone, but we would then go to a court, and a court
would determine whether you had probable cause to actually get
the access to my phone for a citizen. And, for a non-citizen, I
think if you do not give it, you can probably deny entry. I
mean, there are rules on travel to our country. But, I think
for a citizen or a non-citizen to say, ``I cannot come back to
my country without giving you the contents of my phone,'' is, I
think, really----
Secretary Kelly. I just do not believe we are doing it.
Senator Paul. All right. But, please look at the news
reports because it was not just one. There was a whole series
of them in the last couple days and a few interviews of people
who were green card holders not being allowed entry. Thanks.
Chairman Johnson. We will do a second round, but I am going
to limit it to 5 minutes because I want to be respectful of the
Secretary's time. So, Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Following up a little bit on Senator
Paul, I had to smile when Senator McCain said I was being
hysterical. I was being focused and passionate, and I learned
it from him, by the way. So, I want to be very clear. I
completely understand that we have to take steps to keep
terrorists out of our country that are coming here to kill us.
I completely understand that this is a global threat that we
have to pay attention to. And, I understand and completely
accept that there are people being trained in Raqqa to come
here and hurt us.
My point is I want to make sure what we are doing is
effective. It is now out there that we are taking people's
phones. I mean, no terrorist that has the ability to come into
this country and hurt us is going to come in with anything
other than a clean phone. And, the people who are going to get
caught up in this are going to be a lot of people who are not
probably terrorists because if they were, they would be smart
enough to clean their phone. The same thing, like I talked
about, with some of the questions. They are going to lie, and
we are not going to--maybe we are going to do--for some, maybe
we should do polygraphs if we have good information that they
are terrorists.
So, I am not in any way saying I do not want you to go
after terrorists and I do not want you to figure out ways to
find the people. And, we are taking lots of steps around the
globe to do that, and I certainly identify with Senator
Hassan's remarks about the law enforcement teams helping
embassies in terms of screening visa applicants. All great.
So electronic devices. I agree with Senator McCain. I think
we have to be doing some extraordinary steps about electronic
devices, and I was supportive--I appreciated you giving me a
call of you doing the unprecedented step of not allowing
laptops in cabins from certain countries. And, if you wanted to
take a moment--I only have one other brief question, so if you
wanted to take a moment to maybe explain that so we all
understand what steps you have taken and why it is important.
Secretary Kelly. Senator, as we discussed on the phone--and
I made 15 phone calls that day to make sure the leadership on
both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Hill understood
what we were doing, and then we provided classified briefs to
the Hill again. It is a real threat. I mean, we know on any
given day there are dozens of cells that are talking about
aviation, attacking aviation, and you just watch them over time
and see if they develop, if they go from talking to actually
doing something. So, there is a real threat all the time. You
saw the Russian airplane that was blown up coming out of Egypt
as an example, the Somali airplane that thankfully did not
catastrophically come apart, but a hole was blown in the side
of the airplane, and only because the airplane was not at
altitude was the pilot able to bring that aircraft home.
It is real. Based on the threat--and this was my decision,
certainly briefed it to the President but this was my decision,
once I took in all the information from all the sources. There
is a real threat against aviation always, but a specific
threat. And, the airports that I decided to prohibit--or to do
the additional--or the new baggage protocol, that is to say,
the large electronic devices into the cargo hold, are
predominantly Muslim countries. I did not do it because of the
Muslim religion or the color of their skin or, as some have
accused, I was trying to help out the American aircraft
industry in places like the Emirates. It is real. I think it is
getting ``real-er,'' so to speak. We may take measures in the
not too distant future to expand the number of airports. It is
real.
Senator McCaskill. We appreciate your focus on it, and I
certainly support the steps you have taken in that regard.
Missouri is one of the States that has not done REAL ID,
and I just want to make sure that you clarify what is going to
happen next year. And, the reason I say this is the Missouri
Legislature is struggling with this. This happened before I
came to the Senate. Both Republican Senators voted for this in
2005. In fact, all 100 Senators voted for it in 2005. And, I
understand why it is controversial, and, frankly, I kind of
identify with that in many ways because of the State I am from
and our distrust of government in our Deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA).
But, the Governor said recently that he had gotten some
signals from the Trump Administration that would indicate that
it was not going to be enforced, and so as a result, the
Missouri Legislature I think is now struggling with whether
they need to do anything.
I do not know what you are going to do, but whatever you
are going to do, the more quickly you clarify whether or not
this is going to be enforced next year is really important,
because I think there are some mixed signals going on, and as a
result, I worry about Missourians and their ability to
participate in aviation in this country come this time next
year.
Secretary Kelly. Senator, your comment just now is the only
time I have heard anyone say that we are not going to enforce
the law in January. I mean, as I say, I have been saying it to
the press; we have been saying it to the Governors.
Senator McCaskill. Well, you need to call the Governor of
Missouri because the headline was, ``Trump Administration
indicates they may make a change,'' and then it goes on to say
the people who are against doing it in Missouri say, well, we
need to give Trump time to change this.
Secretary Kelly. I will call the Governor right away.
Senator McCaskill. Yes, that would be terrific. I think
that would be very helpful, because I know he wants Missourians
to be able to fly, too. This is not partisan. We want
Missourians to be able to fly next year.
Secretary Kelly. I mean, my advice, again, to all of the
States that are not right now compatible is to just tell their
citizens the best thing to do is get a passport. And, again----
Senator McCaskill. Yes, or a passport card.
Secretary Kelly. Or a passport card. And, again, this issue
up in Seattle this last week where I was with this business
group, all of whom thought that their State license enhanced
will fill the bill, and it will not. And, if they did not know
that, then I would say the average Joe and Jane Doe, they are
probably under that misconception. But, there are about, I
would say, 10 to 12 States, anyways, that are questionable that
they could pull this off. So, I will call the Governor.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The correction to Mr. Kelly remarks appear in the Appendix on
page 346.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator McCaskill. I really appreciate it.
Secretary Kelly. Yes, ma'am.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris for 5 minutes.
Senator Harris. I appreciate that.
Secretary Kelly I represent a State of almost 39 million
people, which is also a State with the largest number of
immigrants, documented and undocumented, of any State in this
country. And, they have a right to have an understanding, a
clear understanding of the policy priorities of your
Department.
At the March 8th confirmation hearing for Elaine Duke, I
asked how the seven enforcement categories from your February
20th memo would be prioritized, and she answered that the
priorities are listed in descending order. Do you agree with
that?
Secretary Kelly. No.
Senator Harris. And so, what is the--can you please rank
then the seven factors and the priority among them?
Secretary Kelly. Those seven factors allow the ICE folks to
make their decision as to who they will develop a target
package on and then go try and apprehend. But, they are not in
descending order. Just those are the categories.
Senator Harris. So, what has been your direction to the
folks on the ground about what the priorities should be,
understanding that they, like all law enforcement agencies,
have limited resources and a very important charge? Are you not
giving them any direction around priorities within the seven
criteria?
Secretary Kelly. The direction they have is the start point
is illegal status and then something from the priorities. But,
they are not going to go after, as an example, all the
murderers and then we get--all the very serious criminals, and
then once we get all of them, go after the next and the next
and the next. They can go after an individual, according to the
law, if they are on the list because they are illegal and then
something.
Senator Harris. So, among the seven categories----
Secretary Kelly. Generally speaking.
Senator Harris [continuing]. You have as number one,
convicted of any criminal offense, and obviously there is no
doubt that especially if someone has been convicted of a
serious and violent felony, they should be apprehended and they
should be dealt with.
Second is anyone charged with a criminal offense, so then
there has not been a finding of guilt.
The third is they have committed an act which would
constitute a chargeable criminal offense, so they have not even
been charged with the offense.
The list goes on to number seven, or in the judgment of
immigration officers otherwise pose a risk to public safety or
national security.
How are you training the folks on the ground to exercise
their judgment as it relates to Factor 3 or Factor 7 as an
example?
Secretary Kelly. They are already trained, and they,
through that direction down through the leadership of ICE down
to the local agents in charge and what-not, they train them to
execute that policy.
Senator Harris. So, as a former manager of a very large law
enforcement organization, the California Department of Justice,
I am well aware that you cannot lead a department just from the
top down. And, it is critical that you communicate the policies
of leadership to everyone at every stage, including those at
the lowest level who, in your agency, as in most law
enforcement agencies, have wide discretion to exert and use
their authority.
I would like to know what specifically you are doing to
train those people, and I would like a copy of what you are
doing that is beyond the conversations that you have had with
managers, but actually what policies you have put in place to
train those folks on how they should exercise the discretion
that you have given them as it relates to this expanded list of
folks that can be contacted by the folks in your agency.
I would like to have a list submitted, sir, and if you
would agree to give us a written copy of the training that you
are instituting in your Department to train folks about how
they should exercise their discretion.
Secretary Kelly. We will certainly provide you the policy
statements, and from that the training takes place.
Again, they are already highly trained individuals.
Senator Harris. Well, we have already discussed how they
have the lowest morale of any Federal agency and that----
Secretary Kelly. Under the Obama Administration.
Senator Harris. OK. So, sir, given the extent and depth of
the problems that exist at DHS and that we have so far received
no assessment or any program that you have or plan that you
have to address these issues, how can you justify such massive
increases in hiring and resources? And, should the American
public really be expected to give you billions of dollars and
provide billions of dollars to your agency on blind faith, in
spite of the fact that there has been no clear change of
direction or course beyond the fact that you were appointed to
lead the agency?
Should the American public believe to have blind faith in
the fact that you are now the leader and, therefore, everything
has changed?
Secretary Kelly. They should have faith in the fact that I
am the leader. They should also have faith that the rank-and-
file have now been allowed to do their job, and we have already
seen a change in the morale, yes.
Senator Harris. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Harris.
Just to add a little perspective and clarity to the device
searches, in fiscal year 2015 there were 77.5 million people
that came into this country internationally in flights. That
included Canada and Mexico. There were 38.4 million that came
in overseas. The 23,877 devices that were searched in fiscal
year 2016 was under a different Administration representing
0.03 percent of total international arrivals, 0.06 percent of
overseas arrivals, just to put it in perspective.
My concern about all of a sudden this new Administration,
now all of a sudden this is a big problem, we are publicizing
this, we may be taking a tool out of the toolbox, kind of like
when Osama bin Laden found out that we could actually track his
location based on his cell phone.
So, again, I appreciate your comments on how it is being
administered in kind of extraordinary circumstances in many
cases, again, 0.03 percent of the time, 0.06 percent on
overseas flights. And, I do not know, it is just unfortunate.
Secretary Kelly. Chairman, if I could, I think--and this
has a lot to do with the press reporting, not against the
press, just they pick up and intend to write off whatever the
base story is. I think an awful lot of people are confusing
what we are doing at the ports of entry today and the kind of
thinking I have in terms of the additional vetting that we will
be implementing, whether it is for overseas--in overseas
locations--whether it is for visa requests to come to the
United States or, for that matter, asylum requests. We are
going to do a lot more of this electronic stuff in addition to
other things, whether it is in refugee camps in Kenya or in
some other country. And, we will do it--but we will not
probably do the same type of additional vetting in, say,
Britain or Japan. It just depends on the country, depends on
the threat.
But, I think an awful lot of people have jumped to the
conclusion a little bit, certainly the press has picked up, for
whatever reasons--and I will assume they were doing it,
honestly--that we are not going to do everyone's phone and
computer at the border.
Chairman Johnson. And, of course, that is the impression
the press leaves, so we blow it out of proportion. We take what
could be an effective tool out of our toolbox, and we make this
Nation less safe.
Again, I just think it is unfortunate. I kind of want to
lay
out--and, again, I think you explained it pretty careful,
pretty well. You look at a phone, you look at the photos. There
is no password required for that. It is just, ``Oh, I see a
potential pedophile in there,'' and that helps prevent
something. And, it is just unfortunate that we do publicize
some of these things that, from my standpoint, ought to remain
more at a classified level or just not really discussed in the
public domain.
Senator McCaskill. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I think
having these hearings is how we get to the bottom of it and
find out the facts. That is why we do this. And, the questions
are important to be asked so we can get the clarification.
Chairman Johnson. I understand.
Senator McCaskill. And so, I think the Secretary now is in
a position to understand the concerns, and I think he will
respond to them, and we will all be in a better place.
Secretary Kelly. I am fortunately way ahead, and I think if
Jim Comey and people like that certainly sitting here at the
table with me, law enforcement in general, these new
applications that will make it impossible to look into
someone's phone or electronic device, right, we will lose a
huge--this country--the good guys and gals in the world, in the
West and other places--well, in the world that are trying to
protect their people will lose a tremendous asset when these
applications become more widespread than they are, tremendous
advantage lost.
Chairman Johnson. And, let us face it, the last time
Director Comey was before this Committee, he was basically
predicting, when we finally end the caliphate a diaspora of
terrorists unlike this world has ever seen, and we are going to
be dealing with that. And, you are going to have to be dealing
with that. So, I want to make sure you have the tools in your
toolkit to keep this Nation safe.
Again, General Kelly, thank you for your service. Thank you
for coming here. Thank you for your testimony and your answers
to our questions.
With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days
until April 20th at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BORDER INSECURITY: THE RISE OF MS-13
AND OTHER TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnson, Lankford, Hoeven, Daines,
McCaskill, Carper, Tester, Heitkamp, Peters, Hassan, and
Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON\1\
Chairman Johnson. This hearing will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
Appendix on page 491.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank the witnesses for taking time and for your
thoughtful testimony. I think it will be a pretty interesting
description of a problem that I think plagues so many inner
cities. And, from my standpoint, really one of the contributing
factors to this--one of the top priorities of this Committee--
is securing our borders. This is, I think, our 25th hearing on
some aspect of border security.
Now, the title of the hearing is ``Border Insecurity: The
Rise of Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and Other Transnational
Criminal Organizations (TCOs).'' Reading through the
testimonies, it looks like we are going to be focusing an awful
lot on MS-13, which is, obviously, in the news today. And, I
will let the witnesses tell the stories, but it is kind of
interesting--the history of MS-13. Originally formed out of
immigrants coming from El Salvador--the war there--in the
Southern California area, and then, based on problems--those
members being deported to Central America--the organizations
grew and thrived in Central America. Now, we are seeing them
come back, sometimes in the form of unaccompanied alien
children (UACs).
I did send a letter yesterday as a result of information we
received from a whistleblower. I sent it to Mr. Scott Lloyd,
Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). And,
yesterday--late breaking news--because of this hearing, we were
informed by a whistleblower of a Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) document from July 2014, describing an incident. This was
right at the height of the surge of UACs arriving at our
border, and the documents appear to indicate that CBP
apprehended self-identified MS-13 gang members at the border.
The CBP Significant Incident Report (SIR), dated July 5, 2014,
basically stated that officers assigned to the Nogales
Placement Center (NPC) identified multiple admitted MS-13 gang
members.
Another document goes on to quote, ``All identified gang
members at Nogales Placement Center have been placed in the
appropriate placement center and are no longer being held at
the NPC. Sixteen identified juvenile gang members were
transferred to placement centers around the country, including
Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center in Virginia, Selma Carson
Staff Secure in Washington, Northern Virginia (NOVA) Staff
Secure in Virginia, the Southwest Key (SWK) Mesa Staff Secure
in Texas, Children's Village New York, and Fort Sill Army
Training Support Center (ATSC) in Oklahoma.''
Now, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, within the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), was responsible,
at that point, for the care and custody of UACs apprehended by
CBP.
Now, why do I point that out? We have a broken system. It
was in 2002, in the authorization of the Department of Homeland
Security, that we split out the responsibility, where now CBP
apprehends, processes, and then turns UACs over to HHS. And, we
have gotten very good at apprehending, processing, and
dispersing, which, from my standpoint, has just fueled this
rise in UACs coming to the border--certainly during the last
Administration.
Just so we understand what we are talking about when we say
``unaccompanied alien children,'' because I know immediately
people think of little children--7, 8, 9, or 10 years old. Here
are the facts. Out of 188,000 UACs apprehended from 2012
through 2016--and that includes from Central America as well as
Mexico, because it is only broken out with that--so it is not
just Central America--68 percent of those UACs were 15, 16, or
17 years old--in other words, prime gang age. By the way, 68
percent are also men. Less than 18 percent were under the age
of 12.
So, the fact of the matter is, so many UACs are, literally,
young men of prime gang age. And, now we have documentation
from a whistleblower that CBP apprehended them, knew they were
MS-13 gang members, and processed and dispersed them into our
communities.
So, again, I think the purpose of this Committee is to
highlight these problems within our government Agencies--within
our government laws and procedures--to make the public aware,
so we can actually keep this homeland safe.
So, again, I appreciate the witnesses coming here to
testify. We will describe the danger--the problems with MS-13--
the barbarity. And, that is what this Committee is all about:
holding these hearings to raise that public awareness--lay out
a reality so we can actually enact public policy to combat it
and keep this homeland safe.
With that, I will turn it over Senator McCaskill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL\1\
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. And, I want to thank the
Chairman for holding this hearing. There is nothing more
important than getting these criminals behind bars. Nothing.
And, if we have, in fact, in any way, allowed criminals to come
into our country, then there is complete agreement, I believe,
of every Member of this Committee that we need to do everything
we can to apprehend them and catch them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator McCaskill appears in the
Appendix on page 492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to begin by recognizing the three witnesses here,
today. And, I have such respect for what you do every day. I
know, firsthand, from my time as a prosecutor, that people that
wear the uniform in law enforcement in this country go to work
each day not thinking about themselves, but thinking about what
they can do to protect--what they can do to make sure that
families are safe in their communities. And, they take a great
deal of risk in doing so. So, I know your job is sometimes
thankless, and it is easy for folks to criticize you. But, I
just want you to know, from the depth of my person, how much I
respect what you do every day.
Gang violence is certainly a huge problem in this country--
and it is tearing apart families and taking the lives of way
too many. They prey on the weak and they prey on the
vulnerable. They provide a sense of family that, many times,
young people have never had. And, they do irreparable damage,
not just to the lives of their victims, but also to the
communities where they live.
Today, we are here to discuss one gang in particular--MS-
13--a gang that was started in Los Angeles in the 1980s and has
since expanded to Central America. I recall the feeling of
hopelessness I used to have when I was the prosecutor in Kansas
City--and we had a huge gang problem--when we would be
confronted with horrific violence that was gang-inflicted. And,
we could not get anybody to talk. I remember sitting and crying
with victims and explaining that, if no one talks, no one goes
to prison. And, that is why these gangs are so insidious. Not
only do they do violence, but also, by the way they commit
violence, they discourage anyone from ever speaking up in ways
that can hold them accountable.
And, that is why I am troubled that we have seen a recent
trend, in some places, of even fewer people willing to come
forward in communities that are full of people who have come to
this country looking for hope from another country. And, I
certainly want to protect our borders. I certainly want to
secure our borders. But, we also have to be cognizant that what
we say and do has an impact on people's willingness to come
forward.
And then, you exacerbate that with the fact that they are
going to be coming forward against gangs--then we give you an
absolutely impossible job to try to hold these gang members to
the standards that we demand--and that is, putting them in
prison for as long as we can possibly put them there--and in
some instances, seeking the death penalty.
So, because of my sensitivity about how hard it is to get
these guys, I just want us to be very careful about documents
that are released, because sometimes information about
individuals is very sensitive--even documents that the
Committee got a hold of last night. These documents did not
come from CBP. They came from a whistleblower, which--we want
to encourage whistleblowers. But, we also have to be very
cautious, if there is sensitive information in any of these
documents, that they have been fully vetted and that law
enforcement in those communities, who may be working
investigations, as we speak, about some of these individuals--
that there is nothing that is released that could ever harm any
of those investigations in any way. Putting these people in
prison is way more important than this hearing. And so, I have
concerns that these documents were released so quickly and that
we did not have a chance to even view the documents, on our
side of the aisle, until they had already been released as now
part of the public discourse on this issue.
So, I understand the concern and I share the concern, but I
think we have to be careful and cautious, because, at the end
of the day, we have to make sure we are supporting you--and
that is the most important thing that we have to do.
So, I look forward to your testimonies, and I look forward
to asking questions about the challenges you face in getting
these gang members that are wreaking havoc in so many
communities across the country.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
witnesses, so if you will all rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God?
Mr. Sini. I do.
Mr. Conley. I do.
Chief Manger. I do.
Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
Our first witness is Mr. Timothy Sini. Police Commissioner
Sini serves as the Police Commissioner for Suffolk County in
the State of New York. Prior to his appointment as
Commissioner, he served as the Assistant Deputy County
Executive for Public Safety in the same jurisdiction.
Commissioner Sini.
TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY D. SINI,\1\ POLICE COMMISSIONER, SUFFOLK
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
Mr. Sini. Thank you very much. And, I want to thank the
Chairman and all of the Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to provide testimony today, regarding MS-13 in
Suffolk County, New York--and ways in which we can work
together to effectively eradicate this gang from our
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Sini appears in the Appendix on
page 496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just briefly, Suffolk County is New York's fourth largest
county, situated some 20 miles east of New York City (NYC),
covering 911 square miles and 1,000 miles of coastline on the
eastern end of Long Island. Suffolk is comprised mostly of
suburban communities with a diverse population of approximately
1.5 million people. The Suffolk County Police Department is one
of the 15 largest police departments in the country, with
approximately 2,500 sworn officers and approximately 1,000
civilian employees.
Contrary to recent sentiments in the national media, thanks
to the hardworking men and women of the Suffolk County Police
Department, Suffolk remains one of the safest counties of its
size in the United States. Presently, crime is the lowest it
has been since we began collecting reliable crime statistics in
1975.
Despite these historic reductions in crime, we have
recently experienced an increase in gang violence connected to
MS-13. Specifically, since January 1, 2016, of the 45 homicides
that occurred in Suffolk County, 17 of those are believed to be
linked to MS-13, which is approximately 38 percent of all
homicides during that time period. And, since 2013, 27 murders
in Suffolk have been attributed to MS-13.
Suffolk County has approximately 400 identified MS-13 gang
members organized in cells called ``cliques.'' Many of these
``cliques'' have connections to other jurisdictions, including
our neighboring county, Nassau County, and New York City.
Active MS-13 gang members are predominantly male and range,
predominantly, from the age of 16 to 29--and the median age of
MS-13 recent arrestees is 18 years old.
In Suffolk County, MS-13 engages in a variety of criminal
activity, such as assault, murder, drug dealing, extortion,
robbery, and burglary. Intelligence indicates that many MS-13
gang members hold wage-paying jobs and are not focused
primarily on income-generating crimes, such as drug dealing,
differentiating them from the typical street gang. Rather, MS-
13 often engages in violence for the sake of violence--to
increase the notoriety of the gang and to cause communities to
fear the gang and its members.
In fact, in 2016, the most frequently reported crime
committed by MS-13 was assault. The signature weapon used by
MS-13 is the machete. As noted, however, MS-13 members also
commit murder, often targeting victims who they perceive as
disrespecting the gang.
For example, in September 2016, MS-13 gang members brutally
beat two young girls to death in a suburban cul-de-sac--Nisa
Mickens and Kayla Cuevas. Nisa and Kayla were 15 and 16 years
of age. They were high school students. Shortly before her
murder, Kayla had a schoolyard argument with an MS-13 gang
member. In collaboration with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI's) Long Island Safe Streets Task Force,
the Suffolk County Police Department arrested their murderers,
and they are currently being prosecuted by the United States
Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York.
In response to heinous acts by MS-13, the Suffolk County
Police Department launched a gang eradication strategy
targeting MS-13, which, to date, has resulted in over 200 MS-13
arrests of more than 150 individual MS-13 gang members. Our
strategy is as follows: We collect a tremendous amount of
intelligence on the gang, with the specific objective of
identifying MS-13 gang members and hangouts. And, we assign
police officers to specific gang members to aggressively and
relentlessly target the members and the locations where they
frequent. This targeted enforcement suppresses crime, results
in the collection of intelligence, and generates valuable
evidence for Federal prosecutions down the road.
As we engage in this targeted enforcement, we are working
hand in hand with our Federal law enforcement partners to
strategically select MS-13 gang members for Federal prosecution
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
statute, which is a very effective tool to dismantle gangs,
such as MS-13.
We recognize, however, that targeted enforcement as well as
enhanced patrols will not, alone, lead to the eradication of
MS-13 from our communities. As law enforcement weeds out gang
members from our neighborhoods, we need to invest in school-
based and community-based programs to reduce gang recruitment
and gang enlistment. MS-13 preys on our most vulnerable young
people. If we do not provide the structure for these young
people, MS-13 will.
To this end, we use an arsenal of community-based
intervention strategies, such as custom notifications, call-
ins, and youth conflict insertions. And, we also work closely
with our schools to identify at-risk children early on, to
intervene in effective ways to prevent them from joining gangs
or to assist them in getting out of a gang.
One specific segment of our population that is particularly
vulnerable to gang recruitment are our UACs. From 2014 through
March of 2017, 4,624 UACs have been placed in Suffolk County,
alone--making it one of the largest recipients of UACs in the
country. While the vast majority of these children are good
kids seeking a better life in the United States, they are
vulnerable, because they are young, unaccompanied, adjusting to
a new country, culture, and language, and seeking a sense of
belonging. And, some of them do not have the structure or
support system in place to help their transition. Due to these
circumstances, we have seen a small percentage of UACs fall
victim to gang recruitment and gang victimization.
In sum, while the vast majority of UACs live law-abiding
lives, the vulnerability of some of these children creates a
source of recruitment for MS-13. And, we must provide necessary
support to these kids--or MS-13 will.
To highlight ways in which the Federal Government can
further assist local governments on this critical public safety
issue, I respectfully suggest the following:
More Federal prosecutors to prosecute RICO cases against
MS-13 gang members. For example, we work with the Long Island
Criminal Division of the United States Attorney's Office for
the Eastern District of New York. They have only 11 line
assistants and 4 supervisors--despite the fact that districts
with comparable or smaller populations have significantly more
Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs). Indeed, if provided
with sufficient AUSAs, the Suffolk County Police Department
could launch a pilot program in collaboration with the FBI and
the U.S. Attorney's Office, whereby every MS-13 arrest could be
screened for possible Federal prosecution. This would increase
the number of Federal prosecutions of MS-13 gang members,
taking dangerous individuals off of our streets--and likely
generate significant intelligence due to the incentives in the
Federal system for defendants to cooperate with law
enforcement.
Second, improved intelligence sharing among law enforcement
agencies throughout the country--perhaps by creating a singular
database with information relating to identified MS-13 gang
members. This system could include automatic notifications to
local agencies when information is added regarding an
individual who is of interest to that agency. Such a database
would encourage multi-jurisdictional operations and allow local
police departments to be more proactive in targeting MS-13 gang
members in our communities.
Third, additional Federal funding to offset patrolling
costs associated with ``hot spot policing'' in areas affected
by MS-13 activity.
Fourth, additional Federal funding to fund gang prevention
and intervention programs tied directly to the number of UACs
placed in our communities, as they are some of the most
vulnerable to MS-13 recruitment.
And, lastly, improvements to the UAC program, including--
but not limited to--increased screening and compliance
monitoring of sponsors, notification of placement to school
districts and local governments, and increased funding for
post-placement services.
In closing, I want to thank the Committee for its time and
its commitment to this very important issue, as well as for the
opportunity to appear before it today. I look forward to
working with the Committee and all of its Members and its
staff. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
Our next witness is Detective Scott Conley. Detective
Conley is the lead investigator for the Chelsea Police Gang
Unit in Chelsea, Massachusetts. Detective Conley has been
serving the public for over 22 years, including serving as the
Task Force Officer in the Boston Field Office. Detective
Conley.
TESTIMONY OF SCOTT M. CONLEY,\1\ DETECTIVE, CRIMINAL
INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, CHELSEA POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHELSEA,
MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Conley. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member McCaskill, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, it is my honor to
address you today on behalf of the citizens of Chelsea,
Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Conley appears in the Appendix on
page 515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Scott Conley, and I have been a member of the
Chelsea Police Department (CPD) for over 22 years. To provide
context for my testimony today, I have included a brief
biography. I would highlight that I currently serve as a
detective with the Chelsea Police Department's Gang Unit as
well as being a Task Force Officer for the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's North Shore Gang Task Force, which is funded by
the Federal Safe Streets Initiative.
Chelsea is a city in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. It is
directly across the Mystic River. As of 2017, Chelsea had an
estimated population of 42,828. It is also the second most
densely populated city in Massachusetts, with a total area
covering just 2.5 square miles.
Chelsea is a diverse, working-class city. It is one of only
three Massachusetts cities in which the majority of the
population identifies as Hispanic or Latino. Chelsea's
residents enjoy a large and thriving Central American
population.
In 2014, our community, as well as surrounding cities and
towns, experienced a significant increase in the number of
teenage students entering the schools from Central America. For
the most part--a large majority of these students were
hardworking in their pursuit of the American dream. But, there
was a second type of student entering our schools as well: the
MS-13 gang member, straight from El Salvador, Honduras, or
Guatemala, with nothing but malice on his mind, looking to
further the influence of his gang and to recruit as many of the
above-mentioned children into the MS-13 gang as possible. These
children were entering our country across the Southern Border
as UACs. They were coming to communities that have a strong
Central American population in an attempt to be reunited with
family members. Upon arrival to the metropolitan Boston area,
they found themselves in a very vulnerable position.
Some of these individuals--some of them were being reunited
with family members that they had not seen for 14, 15, and even
16 years. Some were being reunited with mothers and fathers
that had moved on and started their own families and did not
welcome the child to be a part of it. And, at worst some of
these UACs went into a sponsorship program with a so-called
``concerned adult'' that had no interest in the child's well-
being. As gang investigators, we know that this combination of
breakdown in family structure, individuals wanting to belong,
and the child's thought that they were in need of protection
makes that child a perfect candidate for gang recruitment--and,
in this case, recruitment by MS-13.
I have been investigating the MS-13 gang in Massachusetts
for 15 years. Over the course of those years, I have seen the
gang's membership numbers increase and decline. The most recent
increase--and the most significant increase--began in 2014. The
city of Chelsea, as well as surrounding cities and towns, saw
an uptick in street-level violence associated with MS-13 and
its rival, 18th Street Gang.
At first, this violence was isolated to mostly armed and
unarmed assaults, but it soon developed and evolved into
coordinated attacks on rival gang members and students within
our schools.
Some of these attacks resulted in homicide. Homicide
investigators have detailed the most brutal, premeditated and
horrific crimes committed at the hands of MS-13. They are an
organization that has no respect for human life. They kill on
demand and without mercy. They often use cutting instruments,
like machetes, knives, and even box cutters to inflict the most
damage on the victims as possible. This is how they spread
their influence, this is how they intimidate, and this is how,
if left unchecked, they can take over a community or--in the
case of El Salvador--influence an entire country.
In 2016, as a result of a 3-year investigation conducted by
the North Shore Gang Task Force and Homeland Security
Investigations (HSI), the U.S. Attorney's Office charged 61
leaders, members, and associates of MS-13 in a RICO conspiracy
involving 6 murders and 22 attempted murders. We do not view
this investigation as a case but, rather, as a part of our MS-
13 program. The multi-agency approach is critical to any
successful MS-13 program. That program depends on closely
coordinated investigative measures by a law enforcement team
consisting of the FBI, specifically, in Massachusetts, the
North Shore Gang Task Force, HSI, the FBI Transnational Anti-
Gang (TAG) offices in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, the
Massachusetts State Police (MSP), and various local police
departments within communities containing a strong MS-13
presence. This program also requires close coordination with
the U.S. Attorney's Office and local district attorney's (DA's)
offices.
The multi-agency approach is critical to any successful MS-
13 program. Also critical is an appropriate balance between
criminal prosecution and deportation. To really get to the
heart of the problem in the metro Boston area, we needed to
investigate and prosecute a high volume of MS-13 members,
including the entire leadership. Along the way, we used
deportation, tactically, to remove dangerous individuals whom
we were unable to prosecute either because of age or inability
to gather sufficient evidence. We worked closely with our HSI
partner to ensure that we were targeting the right individuals
for deportation and providing HSI with the evidence it needed
to ensure that the deportation would occur.
Now that we have taken out a large portion of the
leadership and membership, we continue a three-part strategy
consisting of: developing human sources for continued, large-
scale criminal enterprise investigations and prosecutions;
using the intelligence--the sources we have developed for our
prosecutions to assist local district attorney's offices and
investigators in our case with three or four pending
investigations and prosecutions of MS-13 murderers involving
juvenile defendants; and using deportation to disrupt MS-13
criminal operations.
It takes a task force approach with the most sophisticated
investigative techniques to combat a transnational threat. Each
local, State, and Federal partner offers a unique skill set to
the team. It is my opinion that it is critical to mission
success that these efforts are supported with efficient funding
and appropriate recognition by the U.S. Government.
Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Detective.
Our final witness is Chief of Police Thomas Manger. Chief
Manger has been the Chief of Police in Montgomery County since
2004. Chief Manger began his law enforcement career in 1997
with the Fairfax County Police Department (FCPD). Chief Manger.
TESTIMONY OF J. THOMAS MANGER,\1\ CHIEF OF POLICE, MONTGOMERY
COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Chief Manger. Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member
McCaskill, and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name
is Tom Manger. I am the Chief of Police in Montgomery County,
Maryland. It is a community of one million people, one-third of
whom were not born in this country. I am also here representing
as President of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA).
That is an association with the largest 69 police departments
in the United States. I want to thank you for this opportunity
to address the Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Manger appears in the Appendix on
page 522.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson pointed out in his remarks that MS-13 has
been around, in the United States, for over 40 years. They
started on the West Coast. Ten years later, they started
showing up on the East Coast. And, since the time that they
have gotten here, MS-13 has evolved into one of the most
violent and murderous gangs in the world.
It has progressed from a group whose members, certainly in
my jurisdiction, started off committing petty crimes and were
initially considered to be more of a juvenile delinquency
issue, as opposed to anything else. And, now they have
escalated into acts of extortion, aggravated assaults, and
murders. As a result, my department and others in the
Washington, D.C., region formed a dedicated investigative unit
that is solely focused on gangs and continues to target MS-13
and other gangs.
Over the last 20 years, my department, in partnership with
our regional and Federal law enforcement partners--along with
the U.S. Attorney's Office--have prosecuted numerous cases
against MS-13 and its primary rival, the 18th Street Gang. With
each major prosecution, the county experienced a period of
relative inactivity from the gangs--only to have them reemerge
after reconstituting their ranks and reestablishing their
criminal enterprises.
Beginning about 2 years ago, in June 2015, Montgomery
County began to experience a spike in gang-related homicides.
This marked increase correlated with the breakdown of a truce
between the gangs and the El Salvadorean government--and a
significant increase in that country's homicide rate.
This year, Montgomery County has not seen a spike in those
homicides by MS-13, but this is because we have just completed
a major Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations case
that the task force officers from Montgomery County and Prince
George's County, in the D.C. region, and agents from the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Homeland Security
Investigations conducted, which netted several indictments of
top Maryland-based MS-13 leaders.
Coincidentally, we had two MS-13 gang members that were
murdered in an altercation when an unidentified suspect at a
local shopping mall got into a confrontation with them and
stabbed both of the individuals to death.
There was another highly publicized incident earlier this
year, where a 15-year-old runaway from my county was killed in
a neighboring jurisdiction by MS-13 gang members and
associates. This certainly reminds us that, while we have seen
a bit of a decline in the homicides this year, it reminds us
that our work against gangs must continue.
It is important to note that, during this same timeframe,
my jurisdiction experienced seven more homicides that were
attributed to two other local gangs or ``crews.'' These
murders, by the neighborhood crews, appear to be motivated by
illegal drug transactions, whereas, the MS-13 gang murders
appear to be based on the victim's perceived or actual
affiliations with rival gangs. Furthermore, committing a
homicide is a means for gang members to elevate their status
within the gangs. What also distinguishes the MS-13 murders is
the premeditation, brutality, and callousness in which they
were committed--with many of the victims suffering from
multiple blunt force traumas and stab wounds as well as left in
shallow graves in isolated wooded areas.
In addition to the homicides that I have mentioned, we have
also heard from community members that MS-13, which,
historically, extorted money from solely illicit businesses,
such as bordellos and unlicensed cantinas, are now collecting
``rent'' from legitimate Latino business owners and residents
in certain apartment complexes. In some instances, if the
victims of these extortions refuse to pay the fee demanded by
the gang, the gang members return with detailed information on
the intended victims' family members still living in Central
America. The victims here in the United States know that that
threat of violence to their extended family in their native
country is a true possibility and that the perpetrators are out
of the reach of U.S. law enforcement.
This same coercive tactic is used to get young adults to
join gangs or do tasks on their behalf. The UACs that come into
our country are particularly vulnerable to gang recruitment.
The gangs surf the Internet, building dossiers on potential
recruits and gathering information on their social networks,
both here and back in their countries of origin. The data from
social media is then used to entice or coerce new prospects. In
at least two of the recent MS-13-related murders committed in
my jurisdiction, the victims were identified, targeted, and,
ultimately, lured to their deaths after they developed
fabricated social media relationships and accepted false
invitations to meet with female MS-13 associates, posing on the
Internet with promises of having sex with the unsuspecting
victims.
Technology also plays a role in hampering law enforcement's
investigations against gangs and other transnational criminal
organizations (TCOs). In our recent case with the DEA and HSI,
investigators learned that gang members were using commercially
available encrypted applications to plot their criminal
activities. These applications and other technologies are part
of the growing, larger issue of criminal organizations ``going
dark'' and exceeding the current abilities of both local and
Federal law enforcement to legally monitor their
communications--even with a court order.
I want to also mention that my colleagues in corrections
have mentioned that there has been a marked and dramatic
increase in the number of MS-13 gangs in our jails and prisons.
This dramatic uptick in that population has impacted the
ability for our corrections professionals to keep these
individuals segregated. It has impacted staffing and the safety
of corrections officers (COs).
Let me just finish by offering two recommendations to the
Committee to address this growing problem.
First, I believe that Congress can and should fund Federal,
State, and local task forces to focus on gangs. They could be
modeled after the Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF) and should
have a single national and coordinated infrastructure, led,
primarily, by a Federal Agency, with significant input from
local departments. These regional gang task forces will need
the full spectrum of support, from centralized intelligence
sharing and analysis to prosecution in the U.S. Attorney's
Offices, where Federal grand juries and firm sentencing have
had the greatest impact on disrupting these gangs. The Senate
has previously enacted legislation to accomplish this purpose,
but it was never approved by the House of Representatives.
Senator McCaskill, you mentioned that sometimes we have an
impossible job. For my last recommendation, I urge Congress to
act to balance citizens' right to privacy with law
enforcement's need to lawfully monitor and intercept electronic
communications, regarding criminal activity and potentially
deadly plots. The expanding issue of ``going dark'' must be
addressed at the Federal level to afford local law enforcement
and our Federal partners the legislation and the tools they
need to legally access the encrypted communications that are
used to coordinate criminal activities.
Thank you for holding this hearing. And, thank you for the
assistance that you provide law enforcement throughout our
Nation.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Chief. Senator Lankford has to
leave, so I will yield my position to Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you--not only for being here, but also for
the preparation, for this time, for the incredibly compelling
testimonies, and for the issues that you bring and the
complexity of what you deal with every day. We appreciate your
work very much.
All three of you mentioned the interaction between MS-13
and what is happening in Central America. Several of you
mentioned, specifically, the coordination efforts between
Central America and law enforcement here--both Federal and
their law enforcement in that spot.
What can we do to help facilitate greater cooperation--
whether that be fingerprint sharing, identity--background
information between individuals that are being deported from
here to back there--as they are trying to receive gang members
back there--but also individuals that are moving this direction
as well? So, what coordination is missing? Because, MS-13,
obviously, is a strong Central American--especially
Salvadorean--presence there. What can we do?
Chief Manger. I would just say that you touched on a couple
of things that we need to do. The first, is our ability to
remove identified MS-13 gang members that have been arrested or
convicted of crimes. Oftentimes, we have--not only in Central
America, but in other nations in our world--countries that will
not accept their residents back. And, we need to remove them
from our country. And so, if we can work on that issue, it
would be very helpful.
And, as I mentioned in my testimony, the truce that was in
place between gangs in El Salvador and their government really
did impact things in our country. And, when that truce broke
down, it created a spike in violence in our country.
Senator Lankford. What you are saying is, the gang truce
broke down in El Salvador----
Chief Manger. That is correct.
Senator Lankford [continuing]. And it affected the violence
directly, here in the United States?
Chief Manger. Yes, sir.
Senator Lankford. OK. What other resources--what other
cooperation do we need from Central American countries?
Mr. Conley. I had the privilege to just return from El
Salvador. And, with my position with the FBI's task force, I
have been able to go down there approximately half a dozen
times. I just returned as recently as Saturday. The FBI has in
place, in El Salvador, the TAG group. Their success prompted
them to have another TAG placed in Honduras and Guatemala. What
I believe we are seeing up in the metropolitan Boston area is
the inability to refer to a database that does not just cover
local MS-13 members, but MS-13 members nationally, as well as
internationally. And, I feel like a database, where the input
was from both El Salvador and the United States, would assist
in the vetting process of these UACs that are crossing the
border.
A lot of times, in El Salvador, they have information that
the individual may have gang ties--possibly not a member--and,
in return, in the United States, we have information that the
individual has gang ties--whether or not he or she is a member.
And, it would be a great asset if that information found its
way to a clearinghouse, where they would have access to that
internationally, nationally, and even at the local level.
Senator Lankford. All three of you mentioned something
along those lines. Is the FBI the correct depository for that?
Because, trying to set up something new, obviously, is an
additional cost, an additional level of bureaucracy, and
everything else. Is there enough of a relationship with the
gang task forces--locally, with the FBI and their gang task
forces--to say the FBI should be tasked with having this
database--all local folks be able to have access to it--
international and national?
Mr. Conley. In the metropolitan Boston area, which I can
speak on with confidence, we speak to the FBI TAG in Central
America, specifically Guatemala and El Salvador, on a weekly
basis. The Massachusetts State Police speak to the FBI TAG in
El Salvador and Guatemala maybe even more often than that. So,
it would be my opinion that the FBI already has in place those
resources--and to expand those resources would probably be the
best course.
Senator Lankford. OK. Mr. Sini?
Mr. Sini. I agree wholeheartedly. As I mentioned in my
testimony, this database is critical--mission-critical to
facilitating effective collaboration and eradicating these
gangs from our communities here.
What we are seeing for the first time on Long Island, is
direct connections with the young gang members to El Salvador.
So, in the past, we have seen connections from gang members in
Suffolk County and on Long Island to the west coast. Now, it is
directly to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. So, your
question is directly on point.
In addition to the database, I would just add, you know, we
work very closely with the FBI in Suffolk County, through the
FBI Safe Streets Task Force. However, a broad special operation
division may also be worth taking a look at. My understanding
is that that is essentially a multi-Agency organization. And,
that could be a division that could assist in this type of
database.
What is very helpful is, when we have a number pop in
Suffolk County--a phone number--and we share that with our
Federal partners abroad, who have assets in Central America--
and the type of analysis and intelligence that they can gain
from a single number is scary--when you see all of the
connections--but also extremely helpful.
Senator Lankford. OK. So, what is missing in this database
that does not already exist? Because, it sounds like the
cooperation is there and the relationships are already there.
What is missing in this database? Is it just that it has not
been launched? Because, the information is there.
Mr. Conley. It is my opinion that we have a series of
individual databases that do not always connect nationally and
internationally. And, I think it would be an asset to be able
to connect them internationally--again, because that would not
only assist us with knowing who is coming into our community,
but also would assist the governments within Central America in
knowing, at times, who is coming back. And, from conversations
with government officials in El Salvador, that was one of the
things that they were struggling with--is that, as their
resources--to include the FBI's TAG--addressed the MS-13
problem locally, in El Salvador--and they may arrest 20 or 25
individuals--they said that it is just a short time later that
a plane arrives and 50 more gang members are brought back to
their country. And, they have to continue the process again.
So, it is important to address the problem in El Salvador
if we are going to take a really hard look at the problem that
we are experiencing here, in the United States.
Senator Lankford. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I just have a quick comment on this. This is
something that the Senate Appropriations Committee has already
started on. In fact, yesterday, we had a hearing on State and
Foreign Operations, appropriations regarding Central America,
specifically, and some of the investments and the way they have
been targeting how we spend money in our foreign aid and how we
need to be able to target this--specifically, dealing with
violence in those areas, because it has an exact connection to
what is happening here. I would encourage cooperation between
those two Committees and whatever we can do with the FBI to be
able to help them finish this database.
Chairman Johnson. It sounds to be pretty much a common
solution here. So, we will work together with you on that.
Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. When you all identify a gang member who
is in this country illegally, are you getting an immediate
response from ICE for deportation?
Chief Manger. When we arrest them, we typically do. We can
identify them. It is not until they are arrested and
fingerprinted--the fingerprints get to the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS)--that they identify them as someone
they would be interested in, yes.
Senator McCaskill. And, let me ask about the countries who
will not take them back. And, the problem that you just laid
out very well to us, just that, when El Salvador arrests 25
leaders, we send them back 50 more to take their place from
this country. Have we had any problem with either Guatemala or
El Salvador refusing to take any of the people that we have
arrested for gang activity here--to send back there--that are
not in this country legally?
Mr. Conley. I would not be the subject matter expert to
answer that question.
Senator McCaskill. Have you all ever encountered the
situation of not being able to get rid of a gang member that
you are holding because a country will not receive them back?
Mr. Conley. In Massachusetts, and specifically in the task
force that I work in, we have not had a problem--we do not know
of a problem where the country did not take them back. There
have been road blocks at times, when an individual committed a
crime and was placed in custody--was up for deportation--and
the Federal judge refused the order of deportation. But, that
would be completely different than the country not taking them
back.
Senator McCaskill. Right. That is a whole other issue.
I know you all have talked about money for regional task
forces. I think this is one of those areas where we have to be
really careful with the budget the President presented,
because, while they are putting more money into border
security, we cannot forget that a lot of the High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) money--a lot of the money that--
Byrne JAG grant money, I mean--you all know what these programs
are because your departments depend on them--especially for
interagency task forces. Having firsthand experience at this--
this money is not wasted. This is not soft stuff. This is what
is giving you the tools. So, I just want to make that comment,
because the President's budget was not kind. The skinny
budget--and the new budget that has been presented--was not
always kind to programs like that.
Let me ask you about prosecutors. You talked, Commissioner
Sini, about more line U.S. Attorneys--and I get that RICO has
tools that local prosecutors do not have within the RICO
umbrella. But, are you getting cooperation from local
prosecutors on these assaults--on these felonies? Is there not
enough cooperation from your local DAs on this? Because, all of
these crimes, obviously, are State crimes--not Federal crimes.
Assault is not even a Federal crime. Really, murder is not
either. So, I am just curious as to what the local cooperation
has been.
Mr. Sini. So, as I mentioned before, part of our strategy
is to target these gang members and make street arrests. And, I
mentioned we have made over 200 MS-13 arrests. The vast
majority of those arrests are prosecuted by our local district
attorney's office. So, in that regard, we get excellent
cooperation from the district attorney's office.
Where I would improve the collaboration among the police
department, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and the district
attorney's office is--oftentimes you are able to develop
probable cause and have the ability to arrest an individual on
local or State murder charges much sooner than you are able to
make a Federal murder RICO charge.
Senator McCaskill. Right.
Mr. Sini. So, what I would like to see--if the machine was
running perfectly--is that once we have probable cause (PC)--
once we have probable cause to make that State murder charge,
that person is arrested and prosecuted in the State system. If
it turns out that we are able to make that into a Federal RICO
charge, we can bring that case over to the U.S. Attorney's
Office. And, it becomes a collaborative effort. Perhaps, you
have a special assistant district attorney (ADA) in the U.S.
Attorney's Office and a special assistant district attorney----
Senator McCaskill. Right, so it is coordinated.
Mr. Sini. Exactly.
Senator McCaskill. Yes. Improved screening and post-
placement services were also some of your recommendations. I,
certainly, am aware of the post-placement services issue. We
had a whole hearing--Senator Portman and I did on the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI)--about the incredible
problem of HHS not really--I mean, there has been some--put the
gang issue aside. There has been some horrendous treatment of
these children, in terms of being forced into child labor and
other issues. And, clearly, I think that is something that we
need to continue to focus on.
Let me finally just ask you this. It is my understanding,
Commissioner and Chief, that neither one of your departments
will be participating in the 287(g) program. Is that correct?
Mr. Sini. That is correct.
Senator McCaskill. And, would you explain briefly why you
will not be participating in 287(g)?
Mr. Sini. Although we believe that it is mission-critical
to collaborate with the Department of Homeland Security to
remove dangerous gang members from our streets, we also
simultaneously have to create an environment in which
undocumented individuals feel comfortable coming to law
enforcement with information about crimes. So, therefore, we do
not, for example, inquire into the immigration status of those
individuals who are coming to the police as a witness, as a
victim, or as someone merely seeking police assistance. In the
same vein, we believe that, if we entered into a 287(g)
agreement, it could compromise our mission in creating that
environment and could hurt our ability to make cases where we
need to encourage witnesses and victims to come forward.
With that said, whenever we arrest an individual for a
crime--misdemeanor or felony--and that person is not here
legally, we automatically notify the Department of Homeland
Security.
Senator McCaskill. And, Chief Manger, your department was
listed on ICE's list of jurisdictions that supposedly did not
cooperate with them. Obviously, what the Commissioner just
described is the ultimate cooperation. It is paying attention
to your public safety mission, which has to be foremost. You
are the only one that answers 911 calls. I am not aware of
anybody else in the entire criminal justice system that answers
911 calls, besides your departments. And so, what was the
downfall that resulted in you being listed as a department that
failed to cooperate with ICE? And, what was the impact on your
ability to, in fact, put criminals in prison?
Chief Manger. The biggest challenge that I have had is to
try and make sure that what a number of our elected officials
have said is not misinterpreted by our Federal colleagues. The
fact is, we are not now--nor have we ever been--a sanctuary
jurisdiction. We have found, we believe--because, as I
mentioned, Montgomery County is one-third immigrant when you
look at our population. And, I think, the Commissioner
described it perfectly. We have to find that balance for what
is right for public safety in our jurisdiction. If people are
afraid to come forward and report crime--afraid to come forward
as witnesses to crime--our jurisdiction is less safe.
So, we have found that balance. We do not inquire about
people's immigration status. However, if we arrest someone, we
cooperate fully with ICE. We respond to every one of their
inquiries. The issue where I think many jurisdictions run into
a challenge--and we have been talking to the Department of
Homeland Security about this forever--is the issue of the
detainers. And, I think many people look at the issue of
whether we honor a detainer or not--that is, hold someone
beyond when they would normally be released--as a political
decision. It is not. It is a legal decision. We have been
instructed by the Federal Circuit--the Fourth Circuit--we have
been given instructions by our attorneys that we can hold these
folks until the time when they would be released. At that
point, we will notify ICE they are being released. If ICE can
come down and get them, they are welcome to them. We will
notify ICE when they are going to be--we will give them notice
ahead of time when they are going to be released, if we have
that information.
We had a case recently where ICE took the opportunity to
put a press release out, saying that Montgomery County released
a dangerous person back into the community. It was a mistake.
We had a detainer. We should have honored it. It was unexpected
that a judge was going to release this person and we did not
notify ICE. I say ``we.'' It was our Corrections Department.
And, it was a mistake. It was fixed the next day. The person
was taken into custody the next day.
Senator McCaskill. But, that does not overcome the press
release.
Chief Manger. It does not overcome it, but the fact of the
matter is, we are doing the same thing that Suffolk County is
doing--the same thing that about 90-plus percent of the 18,000
police departments in this country are doing. We have found
that balance, where we do not want to be the immigration
police, but we absolutely cooperate and help our Federal
partners.
Senator McCaskill. Make no mistake, you guys are handling
95 percent of the violent crime that occurs in this country--
not the Federal authorities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. I will take Senator Lankford's
questioning. Then, it will be Senator Hassan.
On that same line of questioning, is there any Federal law
that you would want to see changed or modified to help you do
your job, as it relates to this gang activity and your dealing
with ICE, in terms of detainers and immigration law?
Chief Manger. We are bound by case law. And, when we are
informed by our attorneys that we would be liable for false
imprisonment if we do not release someone when they are
entitled to be released, that is a problem. And so, if there
can be a change in the law that gives those detainers the
strength of a warrant--because, if we have a warrant, we will
hold someone. And, that is, I believe, the easiest solution: to
get a warrant to hold somebody. That gives us the legal
authority to do so.
Chairman Johnson. So, again, you are concerned about your
liability. And, I have heard the same thing, in terms of county
sheriff's departments in Wisconsin. There are some civil cases
out there that hold them liable if they detain people. So, it
is really giving you that liability protection to be able to
actually detain people in this country legally.
Chief Manger. That is correct. And, believe me, there is
not a police department in this country that does not want to
hold someone who is a danger to their community. And, if we can
use that person, who has already committed a crime that has
gotten them locked up in the first place--if we can use
deportation as a tool for that individual, I am perfectly happy
to remove that person from my community. But, I cannot run
afoul of the law in doing that.
Chairman Johnson. I am going to come back to the strategy
of using deportation as opposed to arrest and imprisonment.
But, I first want to get to something pretty basic.
It was interesting being briefed for this. I have not been
a prosecutor. I have not been involved in the whole issue of
gangs. My assumption going in was that MS-13 would have been
primarily there as drug traffickers and human traffickers. Kind
of splitting this out, the reason people join gangs--we have
talked about how they do not have people here and they do not
have family here. This is a type of family. But, they are also
extorted to join the gang as well.
Can you just tell me, what is the purpose of MS-13? From
the gang's perspective, why are they recruiting and why are
they extorting? What is their main activity? I will start with
you, Commissioner.
Mr. Sini. Sure. They recruit to sustain themselves. And,
they are a criminal organization. Their main objective is to
exist and to be feared. And, there is no question that they
engage in criminal economic activity. Many of them sell drugs.
Many of them commit extortion, robberies, and burglaries. But,
they do not engage in those criminal activities as their
primary purpose of existence.
Chairman Johnson. Do you understand why that is just
surprising to hear that? Their main purpose is just to exist,
to be an entity, and to have people loyal to them--and the
loyalty extends to killing people with a machete. Does
everybody else agree with that? Is that the main purpose?
Mr. Conley. Just to add to what the Commissioner said, we
have to look at MS-13 in the United States as it evolves--just
like we have to look at MS-13 in El Salvador as it evolved. On
the east coast of the United States, MS-13 is just getting a
foothold. On the west coast of the United States, like Senator
McCaskill and Senator Johnson have said, they have been there
for decades. And, we actually imported MS-13 back to El
Salvador. But, now they have begun to evolve. And, on the west
coast, they do control drug-trafficking markets. They do have
connections with other criminal organizations, such as the
Mexican Mafia, La Eme.
In El Salvador, almost everybody pays. Almost everybody
pays some sort of extortion payment to MS-13. In some cases, it
might be as little as one dollar. But, when a household in El
Salvador might only bring in $250, that one dollar is pretty
significant.
So, we need to learn from the patterns of MS-13 on the West
Coast and the patterns of the criminal activity of MS-13 in El
Salvador in order to be prepared for what MS-13 is ultimately
going to try to put into place on the East Coast. So, to
piggyback on what the Commissioner said, as of right now, they
are just maintaining. And, they really do just go out and
commit the most heinous of violent acts--some of which, as a
22-year investigator, I have never investigated before--to
include cutting off of limbs and the attempt to cut off a
victim's head with a machete.
So, at this moment, on the East Coast and in Boston, like
the Commissioner said, some of them are employed. Some of them
go to work at 6 o'clock in the morning. If you go into certain
restaurants in Boston to arrest an MS-13 member, sometimes the
business owner says, ``He was one of my best workers.''
So, right now, they are maintaining. They are getting their
numbers up--and we can see that, from the metropolitan Boston
area all the way down to Charlotte, North Carolina. But, they
are going to evolve, and they are going to attempt to take over
the trafficking markets of narcotics--just like they have on
the West Coast and just like they have in Central America.
Chairman Johnson. So, again, they have different
specialties. In El Salvador, it is extortion. On the West
Coast, it is drug trafficking. And, we are not quite sure how
it evolves, but you would suspect that it would be drug
trafficking or human trafficking.
Mr. Conley. I believe that, on the East Coast, they are
still trying to get leadership into the right places, including
Boston, Long Island, Virginia, the Carolinas. And, I think once
they establish that leadership base, you will start to see a
more sophisticated gang that does not just solely commit
violent acts, but also controls some sort of narcotics market
and possibly even illegal trafficking.
Chairman Johnson. So, let me ask how they differ and how
they are similar to other major gangs. Maybe Chief Manger can
answer that.
Chief Manger. Our neighborhood crews, which are not ethnic-
based--that is, they are more diverse, in terms of their
membership--they are the ones that typically have--when we have
homicides relating to those, it is usually drug-related. The
homicides related to MS-13, it is just because they can,
because they will, and because they want to instill that fear.
It is because they think, ``If you are not in my gang, then you
are my enemy and I am going to kill you.''
The economic support that MS-13 was engaged in was very
unsophisticated for a long time. They were thinking, ``We are
going to rent an apartment in some old apartment building, and
we are going to put a couple of young women in there and get
$20 for every guy that wants to come in.'' And, this would
operate for about a week. When it would finally come to our
attention, we would be able to shut that down. It would just
pop up somewhere else. Not very sophisticated. And, it was
usually that they were extorting money and making money from
unlawful operations. Now, they are going to Latino-owned
businesses and charging them ``rent.'' And, they are using
coercion, fear, and threats, as the victims know that these
people have the ability and the willingness to carry out--to
now extort money from legitimate business. This is a trend that
we are seeing more recently.
Chairman Johnson. Really quickly, because I did just want
to ask you--you talked about the instances of a couple of
individuals lured through the Internet to their deaths. Was
that an initiation rite? Why would they lure individuals just
to kill them?
Chief Manger. In one case, it was because they believed
that that individual was part of a rival gang.
Chairman Johnson. OK.
Chief Manger. In another case, it was that this individual
had been approached and had been resistant to joining MS-13.
So, it was basically to teach them a lesson. No more reason
than that.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
McCaskill, for this hearing.
First of all, to the three of you, thank you for your
service as law enforcement officers--and please thank your
families for all of us, too. I am the former Governor of New
Hampshire, and I had the great privilege of being the chief
executive over the New Hampshire State Police, so I am very
appreciative of the time, effort, and commitment that you all
provide to your fellow citizens.
And, I am very grateful for your testimonies today. I am
very grateful, not only for the information, but also for the
suggestions and recommendations. I think they will help all of
us as we work together to combat this gang and other public
safety threats.
I did want to delve a little bit more into some of the
discussion of what we think the root causes of gang violence
are. We know we have to ensure that our Federal, State, and
local law enforcement officers have the resources necessary to
keep our communities safe--and I thank you for your
recommendations in that regard.
But, to touch on something that Commissioner Sini talked
about a little bit, having a strong law enforcement presence in
our communities is only really one part of the solution. We
have to ensure, too, that there are social and educational
programs in place--and that those are adequately resourced--to
try to divert young people away from joining gangs in the first
place.
So, in my State, one of the important social programs that
has helped us to address youth violence was a mentorship
program between police and students. It is known as Manchester
Police Athletic League (MPAL). It paired cops with kids in a
mentorship capacity, in order to help kids grow, make the right
choices, and become productive members of the community. Among
other things, they teach kids boxing, how to exercise, and how
to work out. And, it has been an important tool used to combat
gang recruitment and crime, but also to combat drug abuse as
well, which, as you know, is a particularly devastating issue
in my State.
So, I want to ask you all about the social and educational
programs in your communities, and how they seek to address some
of the root causes of gang violence. And, I also just wanted
your thoughts on what we saw yesterday from the President's
budget, which has eliminated Federal support for key
educational programs, such as dropout prevention and after-
school support activities.
I assume that you think Federal dollars for this kind of
work are important, but I would love to hear your thoughts.
And, maybe, Commissioner, we could start with you.
Mr. Sini. Sure. So, that is a critical piece to addressing
this significant public safety issue. In Suffolk County, our
police officers--they do such fantastic work in terms of
mentoring our students--our children in the communities--and
doing outreach to all of our children, but particularly our at-
risk youth. And so, we do that in a variety of different forms.
We do it directly with police officers. We also have launched a
new program called ``Change,'' which is with the Department of
Probation and a not-for-profit organization that specializes in
gang prevention. And, the idea is early intervention, trying to
identify at-risk children early on to connect them to services
that they may need--whether it is social work services,
psychological counseling, or medical services--and providing
that support, so that they can do well in our communities--and
also involving the family, because that is key. The family is
going to have the biggest impact on this child's life, so there
needs to be an approach to involve the family in that process.
And, involving law enforcement in these social programs is
critical for several reasons.
One, police officers tend to be very warm, very
intelligent, and very charismatic individuals, so they tend to
be good at this.
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Mr. Sini. But, also, it creates that trust between law
enforcement and the community. So, to the extent that people
are not comfortable with law enforcement, mentoring programs,
like the one you launched in your home State, help break those
barriers. So, it also achieves that objective.
And, I would just add that, in terms of early intervention,
what better place to start than with the UACs, because we know
they are coming over and they are at risk--they are vulnerable
by nature of coming to this country illegally, by not being
with their parents, by being so young, and by being new to this
country. And, to identify them early on would be key, which is
why notification to local governments, I think, would be very
helpful. And, yes, I vehemently support Federal dollars for
community policing.
Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. Detective.
Mr. Conley. I will be brief. I feel that the two gentlemen
to the left and right of me are in a position to speak on
policy better than I am. But, I will tell you, in Chelsea,
Massachusetts, my chief, Brian Kyes, has always said that if we
are reacting to a crisis, then we have already lost. We need to
be proactive and prevent the crisis. And, in Chelsea, we have
many programs, especially addressing the UACs--whether it be
after-school programs that involve policing or whether it is
the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Chelsea that
provides social resources to these children.
Like the Commissioner said, you have to involve the family.
You cannot take a 15-year-old and think that 30 minutes after
school playing basketball is going to have a lasting effect. It
may open up some doors for a relationship, but, once that door
is open, you need to find out where that individual is going
home to--because we can spend all day playing basketball, but
where is that 15-year-old going home to? And, as law
enforcement agents, it is our job to know where that 12-year
old, 13-year old or 14-year-old individual is going home to.
And so, we spend a lot of time--I probably spend just as
much time fighting gangs as I do trying to spend time with
individuals in Chelsea, preventing them from joining the gangs
in the first place.
So, you have to get the families involved. And, when it
comes to these UACs, it is important to help us identify what
the crisis is. A lot of these individuals are coming here
across the border, and they already have Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) setting in. Just the crossing, in and of
itself, we have heard horror stories about.
One of the important things that I think would greatly help
the State of Massachusetts, and specifically my community,
Chelsea, is if we knew--if there was some sort of notification
that came to the police department or came to the city,
notifying us that a UAC was about to join our community. That
way, we can search them out to offer resources, instead of them
having to seek us out.
And, lastly, when it comes to MS-13--inherently they are
not very trusting of the government. And, a lot of the social
programs that we have in Chelsea--to include what is called
Reaching Out to Chelsea Adolescents (ROCA)--the MS-13 members
see that as a government agency. They do not know that it is a
social agency. So, it does hinder their ability to do reach-out
work.
But, just in closing, the proactive approach--the reach-out
work, preventing these individuals from joining the gang at the
recruitment stage is critical.
Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you. Chief.
Chief Manger. Every single one of us, when we were 12 years
old or 13 years old started to sort of mature out of always
being under Mom and Dad's umbrella. And, you want to have--
every one of us wanted a sense of belonging to something--a
sense of being able to be somewhere where we had people that
cared about us--friends. For some of us, it was sports. For
some of us, it was other school activities. For some, it was
church.
The UACs that come here are just a perfect recruitment
opportunity for gangs, because they come with none of that, but
they all want that.
Senator Hassan. Right.
Chief Manger. So, the key, I think, is to be able to--as
soon as possible--when we identify those folks--is to give them
the wrap-around services. And, I am telling you, Scott is right
on. And, I wrote down, ``walking home,'' because we can do
that--we can, for these kids, but then, they have to walk home.
And, that is where they are vulnerable.
Senator Hassan. Yes.
Chief Manger. So, the early intervention programs--the
intervention programs--we have something called a ``street
outreach network,'' where we have counselors who are specially
trained--many of them are former gang members, who, actually,
intervene with these kids. They help them get out of the gangs
and, if possible, keep them from joining gangs in the first
place. The challenge, I think, is to identify these kids, and
the one place where these kids will all end up where you might
be able to connect with them is schools. And, the problem is,
the schools are hesitant--and I understand this--why they are
hesitant. They are hesitant to get involved in the gang issue.
But, that is where you can actually find these kids. But, the
schools have been reluctant--understandably--to start getting
involved in those gang intervention kind of programs. But, if
we can somehow coordinate a little bit better--without running
afoul of all of the protections that are in place for these
young kids--the early intervention is the way to go,
absolutely.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for
your indulgence. Gentlemen, thank you all very much--and be
safe.
Chairman Johnson. Sure. By the way, I just have to chime
in. You were talking about how, if you are dealing with a
crisis, you are already too late. The primary goal, I believe,
of Federal policy should be to stop the flow or drastically
reduce it. If we focus on that, then you are not having to
worry about dealing with all of these UACs--because it has been
a crisis level. It is creating all kinds of havoc. So, our
focus ought to be on how we stop or dramatically reduce that
flow. Senator Harris.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS
Senator Harris. Thank you. Chairman, as Attorney General
(AG) of California, I convened a group of law enforcement
leaders in our State--and other experts--over quite some period
of time to produce this report, ``Gangs Beyond Borders.'' And,
it is an examination of transnational criminal organizations
and what we need to do to stop them. I would like to submit
that for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Report submitted by Senator Harris appears in the Appendix
on page 532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Johnson. Without objection. I appreciate it.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
I want to thank each of you. As a career prosecutor, I
started out as a baby DA, and I have prosecuted, personally,
everything from low-level offenses to homicides. I was the
elected DA of San Francisco and the Attorney General of
California. And, I cannot thank you each enough for the work
you do, in particular as local law enforcement. Perhaps, it is
a bit of my bias, but I do know that local law enforcement
disproportionately shoulders the burden and responsibility for
dealing with these issues, including transnational criminal
organizations. And, it is too bad that others--when we talk
about transnational criminal organizations, they automatically
go to international law enforcement or Federal, when, in fact,
local law enforcement really does carry an extreme burden for
dealing with it at the local level. So, I want to thank each of
you and the men and women of your departments for the work they
do.
So, as local law enforcement, we know that, first,
transnational criminal organizations--and it is in the report
also--certainly they are involved in the trafficking of guns,
drugs, and human beings. They also, like everyone else in
society, have adopted technology in the way they do their work.
Among their many reasons for being--the Chairman asked that
question--one of the highest reasons for being is to make
money. But, they profit off of illegal activities that rise to
the level of also being lethal. And so, they are also involved
in money laundering. They are involved in government fraud.
They are involved in piracy. They are involved in identity
fraud. All of those are pursuits of illegal and organized
criminal associations.
But, as local law enforcement, one of the things that we
know is that one of the best tools that we have is the trust
that we have between ourselves and the communities we serve.
And, when there is a break in that trust, it breaks our ability
to do the work that we need to do--and the men and women of
your departments need to do, which is to concern themselves
with public safety. So, I would like to talk for a moment about
the importance of the relationship of trust between local law
enforcement and the communities you police.
You are aware that this Administration has been looking at
a policy of withholding Byrne JAG and Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS) funding--Federal funding to local law
enforcement if you do not cooperate with immigration
enforcement. We have talked about that previously.
First, tell me, how much do your departments rely on Byrne
JAG and COPS funding to do your everyday work? Can you tell me?
Each of you, if we can just go down the line.
Mr. Sini. We are a recipient of Byrne JAG grant money in
excess of $1 million, and it helps us fulfill many of our
mission-critical objectives.
Senator Harris. And, if that funding were withheld, what
would that mean, in terms of your ability to perform your
everyday duties and responsibilities?
Mr. Sini. We would have to secure funding from another
location, which, in these days, in my county, that would be
extremely challenging.
Senator Harris. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Conley. I would mirror what the Commissioner said. My
department relies greatly on that funding. And, if that funding
was taken away, it would seriously inhibit our ability to do
what we do every day.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Chief Manger. Ditto. We typically have around $1 million at
any given time of that kind of grant money. The programs that
we operate with that money are absolutely critical to our
mission and are doing phenomenal things for the residents of
our county.
My hope is that with--there is beginning to become--we are
getting more clarity as to what a sanctuary jurisdiction is and
what would make a jurisdiction ineligible for these kinds of
grants. As we get that clarity, I think that my concern is
lessening a little bit--because nowhere did I see that a place
like Suffolk County or Montgomery County would have to change
what we are doing. We do, in fact, cooperate with Federal
authorities. But, again, we have--but the fact that we have
elected not to become 287(g) jurisdictions and do immigration
enforcement ourselves would not make us ineligible for those
kinds of grants.
So, I am hopeful that, as we get more clarity, it will not
impact the majority of jurisdictions.
Senator Harris. Thank you, Chief. And, on your point about
your department's statement to your community that you will not
be a 287(g) city and department, let us talk a little bit
about, again, the relationship of trust, as it relates to what
we ultimately want to do, which is to not just arrest the bad
guy, but to prosecute him, get a conviction, and lock him up.
What we want to do is make sure that there is going to be
serious, swift, and severe accountability and consequence, in
particular for those who commit violent crimes in our
communities.
As we both know, the only way that we get to that goal is
to prove a case in a court of law. And, the only way we are
going to prove a case in a court of law is if we present
evidence to a jury or a judge. Correct?
Chief Manger. Yes.
Senator Harris. And, most of the time, that evidence is not
going to be coming from the bad guy himself. It is going to be
because we have produced witnesses to the crime who will come
and testify before a jury in an open courtroom. Is that
correct?
Chief Manger. That is correct.
Senator Harris. And, would you not agree, then, that what
has happened over the course of many months, since these
statements have been made about a policy that would have local
law enforcement cooperate with ICE, is that there has been a
chilling effect, in particular around witnesses who are
immigrants--be they documented or undocumented?
Chief Manger. Certainly, when the Executive Orders (EOs)
were first issued--right after the new Administration came into
office--there was absolutely great fear in our community about
just how those Executive Orders were going to be implemented.
Senator Harris. And, you mentioned you are the head of the
Police Chiefs----
Chief Manger. The Major Cities Chiefs Association, yes.
Senator Harris. Yes, and thank you for that. So, you
probably know Chief Charlie Beck in Los Angeles (LA).
Chief Manger. Very well, yes.
Senator Harris. So, Chief Beck has reported that, in March,
he witnessed a 25-percent drop in reports of sexual assault and
a 10-percent drop in reports of domestic violence among Latinos
in Los Angeles from the same time in 2016. Similar reports have
come from Houston, Texas, and Salt Lake City.
Would you agree, that when the people of our communities
think that they are going to be deported, many victims--in
fact, especially victims--will endure crimes like domestic
violence or sexual assault, rather than be deported and removed
from their children or the community that they know?
Chief Manger. I do believe that. And, when we became--we
were very quickly aware of the fear in our community, and we
redoubled our efforts to ensure--to let the folks in our
community know that our policy has not changed and that they
had no reason to fear coming forward to report crimes or being
witnesses.
Now, I will just tell you a very quick story. We had a
domestic homicide where a man driving down a busy street had
abducted his estranged wife, and she tried to jump out of the
car. He grabbed her by the hair, pulled her back in, shot her
in the head, and then pushed her out onto the street. There
were two men who were within the distance that you and I are
away from where this happened. They heard her scream. They
heard the shot. They saw what occurred. Both of these men were
day laborers. They were standing in a parking lot at a
convenience store waiting to be picked up for work. Neither man
spoke English. I do not know their immigration status, but
people can certainly speculate.
As we arrived, these men came forward and spoke to one of
my officers about what they saw. And, had we not had the
relationship with the community that we have and the policies
that we have, my guess is that both of these men would not have
been there when officers arrived to start investigating that
case.
Senator Harris. Thank you. Thank you all for your service.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Heitkamp.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HEITKAMP
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, we
are all announcing our street credibility on this. I, too, was
the Attorney General of my State, like Attorney General
Harris--and I had the wonderful opportunity of leading teams in
drug enforcement, which inevitably led to gang enforcement.
And, it was very difficult sometimes for people in a State like
North Dakota to understand that gangs have infiltrated their
community. I think sometimes one of the challenges we have in
States--unlike California--is getting people to admit they
actually have a problem.
I do not think there is any doubt that MS-13 has become a
cancer in our society and that it is metastasizing in every
community, including communities in my State, especially Native
American communities, where it is easier to infiltrate.
I will tell you, like any cancer, we need a whole range of
treatments. If you get breast cancer, you cannot just rely on
surgery. You are going to have chemotherapy; you are going to
have radiation; you are going to have after-treatment. And so,
I want to focus, as my colleague Senator Hassan focused, on
prevention--and Senator Harris focused on what we need to do to
actually have prosecutions. I want to talk about deportations.
I, through an interesting set of circumstances, actually
spent about an hour and a half--2 hours in an El Salvadorean
prison with leaders of MS-13. They rely on those gang leaders
to maintain some kind of order within the prison system,
because, otherwise, with the overcrowding, there is no way they
could maintain that population. And so, you see MS-13 basically
embedded throughout the culture and throughout the society--the
civil society of these communities.
In San Salvador, I also went to a religious-based anti-gang
program where a lot of it was job training and a lot of it was
trying to find opportunities, so that future gang members or
people who were just on the cusp of recruitment could find an
opportunity other than joining the gang for economic stability
in their lives.
Now, with that said, I will tell you that the biggest
problem I see is extortion. And, when you deport a gang
leader--an MS-13 gang leader--back to the community--they are
going to find a family member--and they are going to extort.
And, all of the great wishes and outreach that you are talking
about today may not be all that valuable if they think that if
they do not join in this country, that Grandmother will not be
alive the next day.
And so, the extortion piece of this is incredibly difficult
to get at. And, I think we cannot solve this problem without
thinking about stabilizing the Triangle countries--especially
the country of El Salvador. They are still suffering from the
residuals of a civil war. That created the vacuum, in terms of
security and safety that gangs moved into. And, there has never
been, in my opinion, a very effective reestablishment of the
rule of law. And, they act in that way.
Chairman Johnson and I also witnessed some of the
collaborations between our institutions. And, we actually saw
the Colombian folks come up and try and help to establish a
rule of law and order in these communities.
My question to all of you is--and then I will just let you
take it from here: When you are arresting or when you are
dealing with the community, how much of this do you hear? And,
have you thought about how, if only we could have a program in
El Salvador and if only we could work more collaboratively with
our counterparts in the Triangle countries--particularly, El
Salvador--we could get a better handle on what is happening
here? How much thinking have you done about international
collaboration? I guess that would be my question.
Mr. Conley. To answer that, I just want to touch base on
what Senator Harris was asking. In my community, where the
majority of the community identifies as Hispanic or Latino,
promoting trust of law enforcement is priority number one. A
lot of our community is made up of undocumented residents. And
so, furthering trust with that sub-community is priority number
one. And, we have gone to great lengths to assure them that,
yes, since January, ICE has had more of a presence in our
neighborhoods. But, the Chelsea Police Department does not
assist ICE operations when they are solely for immigration
issues.
Senator Heitkamp. I can appreciate that one of the
challenges that you have is just within the community, writ
large, where you are. But, it is going to be really hard to
convince that kid not to join a gang and not to act the way
they are going to act if they think that their parents or if
they think that their grandparents are at risk back home in El
Salvador.
Mr. Conley. Right, and that is a true----
Senator Heitkamp. How do we solve that?
Mr. Conley. And, that is a true statement. We do have
evidence of individuals being pressured into joining gangs
because of some sort of tie directly with El Salvador. Senator,
I think you said it at the beginning of your question. We need
to secure--we need to stabilize those countries. They are
fleeing for a reason. And, when they do, they are coming to
this country under the worst possible conditions.
So, like yourself, I have been to many of the jails and
prisons in El Salvador. And, they have resources that are
minimal at best. And so, there is no reason for that individual
to actually attempt to reform while they are in prison. They
are just looking to get out and just go right back to where
they were before they went in.
So, to answer you directly, yes, we need to make an effort
to assist those Central American countries--specifically, El
Salvador, where I have been--in stabilizing.
Senator Heitkamp. From the standpoint of the chiefs of
police, how do you see an opportunity to collaborate with your
counterparts in the Triangle countries, particularly El
Salvador?
Chief Manger. It is a challenge. I mean, we certainly have
partnered with our international partners--and 10 of our
members are from police departments from Canada. We have had
associate members from the United Kingdom (U.K.). The
relationship between law enforcement agencies--especially our
Federal partners--and the law enforcement agencies of some of
these countries
is--we have to build the trust there. You have to be able to
trust that that information that you are sharing is not going
to be misused.
There is no question that the premise of your remarks--that
what is happening there has an impact on what goes on here.
Unfortunately, as a local police chief--even as president of
Major Cities Chiefs--I am not sure that local law enforcement
has much control or much influence over the issue that you are
asking about.
Senator Heitkamp. And, I think my point would be, then we
are just treating symptoms, because we are not going to get
ahead of this unless we work collaboratively. And, I completely
understand the hesitation to share intelligence or any kind of
information back and forth. You do not know who you are talking
to. And, I think these are all efforts that we are working on
to try and improve the professionalism, the honesty, and the
integrity of police departments. We have seen some steps in the
right direction. They definitely are not there.
But still, like Senator Harris and Senator Hassan, I
understand the critical role that local law enforcement plays.
And, when we make mistakes here, in terms of national policy
and national cooperation as well as the utilization of the
resources we have in this country--when we do not do our job
internationally, you guys are going to continue to be stressed
and have this same issue.
And so, I just wanted to bring that up, because I think a
lot of people think, ``Well, deport them home.'' Deporting
people home may, in fact, mean sending one of the worst
perpetrators, who now has the ability to extort any number of
additional people, home to achieve a criminal result right here
in the United States.
So, thank you so much for everything that you do. We want
to be great partners with you. And, thank you so much for your
testimonies.
Chief Manger. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Senator Daines, good timing.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES
Senator Daines. Thank you. Precision, like the Blue Angels,
here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, thank you all for
testifying today--and for your service in the law enforcement
community.
You all mentioned brutal crimes in your testimonies. These
are hard to stomach. We just had a very brutal crime in Montana
last week, where we had a deputy sheriff that was murdered by a
man, who was eventually killed by law enforcement. We had the
funeral yesterday. We need to do everything in our power to put
an end to the violence and to cut off the flow of resources
that fuel it.
In Montana, while we do not have a sizable transnational
criminal organization presence, we do feel the impacts of their
illicit activities. MS-13 has established relationships with
drug-trafficking networks that distribute in Montana. Virtually
all methamphetamine in Montana is trafficked from south of the
border.
We have seen the price drop in half with the influx. And,
now, more than 90 percent of all drug offenses in Montana are
methamphetamine-related. Additionally, we have seen a nearly
fivefold increase in positive heroin drug tests. This impacts
our communities, from increases in violent crime to a
disturbing rise in child endangerment and foster care
caseloads.
Detective Conley, at previous hearings with Homeland
Security Secretary Kelly, we discussed domestic demand for
drugs as a key contributor to the violence in Central America.
I understand that you recently returned from El Salvador,
training their police. From your perspective, how can we
reinforce their law enforcement efforts?
Mr. Conley. While I was down there, I had the opportunity
to speak to high-ranking officials within their law enforcement
community. And, what they said over and over again was that
what they were experiencing in El Salvador was the
sophistication of gang members that were coming back from the
United States. Just recently, in El Salvador, they started
doing Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (Wiretap Act) wiretaps. Up until 2015, they did not
even have the ability to do that.
In El Salvador, what they need most, in regards to
combating MS-13 and their rival, the 18th Street Gang, is not
just the technology, but also the personnel that knows how to
utilize that technology. And, most importantly--and I know the
Department of Justice (DOJ) has gone to great lengths to
provide this--they need training for their prosecutors. A lot
of their prosecutors did not have the adequate training needed
to prosecute a sophisticated gang, like MS-13 or the 18th
Street Gang.
When I was down there--not just this most recent time, but
a couple of years ago--we found that their homicide detectives
did not do homicide investigations. For the most part, they
just responded, wrote a report, and then moved on to the next
homicide.
So, to answer your question directly, training is what they
need. They want to combat the gang. El Salvadoreans that live
in El Salvador--they despise the MS-13 gang just as much as El
Salvadoreans that live in Massachusetts. They despise the gang,
and they applaud all efforts to rid their area of the gang.
But, to answer your question, it is training.
Senator Daines. So, to follow up, what else do you think
these countries could be doing to stop the production of
methamphetamine--to stop the production of these other drugs,
before they are even shipped to the United States?
Mr. Conley. I think it would be outside of my scope of
expertise if I were to answer that. I am sure that the same
techniques that we would use here in the United States--I mean,
it would require a joint approach--a joint effort to totally
stop the traffic of narcotics.
Senator Daines. Commissioner Sini, in your testimony, you
discussed the surge to over 400 MS-13 gang members in your
county, in just a few years. How in the world did that happen?
Mr. Sini. These are identified gang members in Suffolk
County, in a handful of hamlets. These individuals are
certainly comprised of mostly males. They are mostly Latino,
coming from countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras. Many of them came to the country illegally. A small
percentage of them are UACs and a small percentage are also
lawful residents--and even American citizens.
Certainly, we are concerned that MS-13 is recruiting
younger people. As we target them, they recruit even younger.
And, as we mentioned earlier, the UACs are certainly vulnerable
to MS-13 gang recruitment. And, that is why it is so important
to address that population.
Senator Daines. So, speaking of gangs--and I hail from a
State that has a number of Indian reservations. I am told, by
State law enforcement, that gangs often find Indian
reservations to be a safe haven. Do you have any thoughts--and
I will open this up to the panel. Do you have any thoughts on
how we can boost collaboration between the tribal communities
and law enforcement?
Mr. Sini. Suffolk County has reservations in its
jurisdiction. And, we have had issues involving crime--
particularly, gangs--on our reservations. In one instance, what
we have done is we have entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with the tribe to essentially provide
police services to that reservation. There are obviously very
complex issues involving jurisdiction and sovereign territory.
And, that memorandum of understanding set forth clear terms,
upon consent with the reservation and the tribe, to accept
police services. That document has gone a long way in improving
relations between the Native Americans living on that
reservation and the Suffolk County Police Department. And, we
have been able to collaborate with the tribal council to target
those criminals, because the----
Senator Daines. How long ago did you put that MOU in place?
Mr. Sini. The MOU has been in place for several years.
Senator Daines. And, have you seen actual results?
Mr. Sini. Yes, absolutely. We were able then to work hand
in hand with the tribal council to target problem individuals
and problem locations, because there is no arguing and there is
no debating whose role it is, who is allowed to be there, and
when we are allowed to be there. So, it facilitates that
collaboration, and we have an excellent relationship with the
tribal council on the reservation with which we have that MOU.
And, just like we would work with a town or a municipality,
where we partner with their code enforcement and their public
safety to target, say, a problem home--we have zombie homes in
Suffolk County--these abandoned homes--or a problem location,
like a drug spot. We do that with the reservation, and it is
very effective.
Senator Daines. Thank you.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Just to give you a little further insight on your opening
line of questioning, in terms of the law enforcement in Central
America, when we were down there--one of the biggest problems
they have--first of all, they are combating impunity and
corruption. When I first heard that, I kind of--impunity--that
is a different term. But, then you find out that local law
enforcement has been provided a not-so-subtle threat when they
have been given a video showing their families going to church
or their children going to school. So, that is a pretty brutal
reminder of why it is pretty tough being local law enforcement
down in Central America.
Senator Hoeven--further evidence that we are committed to
securing our Northern Border--well represented on our
Committee. You are next.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HOEVEN
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
calling a hearing on this important issue. And, I guess I would
start out by asking each of you the following: What are we
doing--what is Customs and Border Protection doing at the
border, particularly in regard to unaccompanied alien children,
to make sure that we are trying to prevent the growth of MS-
13--in other words, looking at people who may be trying to come
across to join MS-13 in this country? And, what is the average
age for MS-13 gang members?
Mr. Sini. So, in Suffolk County, the median age of recent
MS-13--I should say active MS-13 members, based on our arrests,
is 18. And, it certainly ranges from--the largest age range for
active MS-13 gang members is 14 years old to 29 years old. And,
certainly, there are younger MS-13 gang members--and older--but
that is our biggest bulk.
In terms of what the Department of Homeland Security is
doing, my understanding is, they are transferring
responsibility over to the Department of Health and Human
Services at an early stage. And, I think I will speak for
Suffolk County--what we would like to see is more collaboration
between local governments and the Department of Health and
Human Services and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), in
terms of the placement of these children in our communities--
including notification to school districts and local
governments, so that we can be proactive in dealing with this
very vulnerable population.
Senator Hoeven. Well--and also the immigration courts,
because if unaccompanied alien children, particularly, say,
young males in that 14 year old or 15 year old to 18 year old
age bracket--if they are being released into the community,
then does that not create a real concern that some of them may
get recruited and end up as MS-13 gang members?
Mr. Sini. Yes, and we have seen that some of them have.
Now, it is still a very small percentage of the UAC population,
but, nonetheless, it is of concern to us, which is why we think
local notification and funding to provide services to these
children is so important.
Senator Hoeven. Where is MS-13 drawing their ranks from? I
mean, you talked about significant growth. Where are they
drawing that growth from? Where is it coming from?
Mr. Sini. They are recruiting young people in our
communities and they are recruiting recent immigrants, because,
oftentimes, they prey on people's fears. So, recent immigrants
may not feel comfortable coming to law enforcement. They are
adjusting to a new culture and society, so they are vulnerable
at that point. And, they are recruiting also very young people.
There is one instance where, in Suffolk County, we have
intelligence of MS-13 gang members recruiting a 10-year-old.
Senator Hoeven. And, what is the draw?
Mr. Sini. I think it is a combination of factors. There is
the draw that ``You can belong to something and we can put some
money in your pocket. You can get high with us. You will have a
family. We will protect you.'' There is a sense of cultural
unity as well. And then, there is the other part: ``By the way,
if you do not join, you are going to have problems.'' So, there
is the fear factor as well--the coercion, if you will.
Senator Hoeven. I guess the same questions, Mr. Conley.
Mr. Conley. I just wanted to add to what the Commissioner
said. I could tell you, in my community, if you are a 17-year-
old El Salvadorean that just arrived in the Massachusetts area
as a UAC, all you have ever known is MS-13 and the 18th Street
Gang back home. From childhood, that is all you have ever
known. They control complete city blocks--multiple city blocks.
They control multiple cities. So, a lot of times, when that
child comes here and they are confronted--like we spoke about a
few times--under the worst possible conditions and they have
one individual come up to them and even speak about MS-13 or
the 18th Street Gang, that child goes back to what he or she
knows, which is what MS-13 is in El Salvador. And, they know
that, once that contact has been made, they only have really
one choice--and that is to join.
Now, we have had success with individuals resisting at the
beginning of that recruitment process, locally. I am talking
about success locally. We have had success with having that
individual resist that gang recruitment, and then actually the
gang, at some point, kind of leaves them alone, because a lot
of times MS-13 is only looking for individuals that want to be
MS-13.
But, under the UAC program, a lot of these individuals were
coming to homes that did not want them--a parent that did not
want them--and sometimes we have even had interviews done with
individuals that did not want to be here--that their
grandparents said, ``We have raised you long enough. It is time
for you to go live with your Mom.''
And then, in the worst-case scenario, the sponsorship
program, where there was not any vetting taking place--and we
have horrific stories of individuals living in the worst of
conditions. And, like everyone on this panel has said in our
opening briefs, that is the classic vulnerable 15-year-old
individual that seeks out the identity of the gang and replaces
it for a broken family structure.
I have just one more point. I cannot comment on what goes
on at the border, but I can tell you, from a local law
enforcement perspective, like the Commissioner said, if we had
some sort of notification that came to the community--and I am
not sure how that notification would be made--so that when the
individual comes here, they have resources provided to them--
whether it be through the schools or whether it be through
mental health services. But, the worst-case scenario is the
scenario that we are living with right now, where we get
notified from the school that 38 new students just arrived from
Central America. Some are thriving and some are not. And, those
are only the ones that we can identify, because they are
seeking out education through the schools or social services
through medical facilities.
So, it would greatly assist local law enforcement if some
sort of notification was done--especially when we are talking
about 13-year old, 14-year old, and 15-year-old kids.
Senator Hoeven. Well, that actually goes right to my next
question. Are our laws sufficient to try to deal with the MS-13
problem? It sounds like that right there is something that
would be helpful--and that is some type of notification
requirement for people coming across the border, so as to
address where they are going--and that law enforcement would be
one of the entities at least notified, so that you are aware. I
mean, we would have to give some thought as how to do it. But,
that would be my question. Are our laws sufficient so that you
can try to deal with this problem?
Chief Manger. I think that our criminal laws are
sufficient, in terms of dealing with criminal behavior by
gangs. Where I think we need help--and I do not know whether it
is new laws or different laws, but if our Department of Health
and Human Services folks--and they are notified in my
jurisdiction. Somehow, they are notified when we get these UACs
sent to our jurisdiction. But, as Detective Conley mentioned,
oftentimes, these kids--they say, ``I am going to my uncle's
house. This is where my uncle lives.'' They verify that. What
they do not do is get enough information about whether the
uncle is even capable of taking this person in. And then, what
happens when the uncle does say, ``OK, I will take him,'' and 2
weeks later says, ``This is not working. We cannot do this.''
Where are the wrap-around services to help that family and
to help that child--that individual? And, we need, perhaps,
better standards in place to make sure that whatever situation
we are sending that person to is viable--and viable for some
longer period of time.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Thank you for your work.
Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
Again, I just want to thank the witnesses for taking the
time, for your testimonies and for your thoughtful answers to
our questions. But, primarily, thank you for your service. We
all know the risks you are taking. We all have, I am sure, in
our States, people--police officers and other public safety
officials--that have given their lives in the line of duty. So,
we understand that and truly appreciate your service.
With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days
until June 8 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and
questions for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]