[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S DEPLOYMENT TO THE U.S.-MEXICO
BORDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION,
AND OPERATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 20, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-27
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
38-431 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York John Ratcliffe, Texas
J. Luis Correa, California Mark Walker, North Carolina
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Max Rose, New York Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Mark Green, Tennessee
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Van Taylor, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Al Green, Texas Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY, FACILITATION, AND OPERATIONS
Kathleen M. Rice, New York, Chairwoman
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey Clay Higgins, Louisiana, Ranking
J. Luis Correa, California Member
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Al Green, Texas John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex Mike Rogers, Alabama (ex officio)
officio)
Alexandra Carnes, Subcommittee Staff Director
Emily Trapani, Minority Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Kathleen M. Rice, a Representative in Congress From
the State of New York, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 2
The Honorable Clay Higgins, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Border
Security, Facilitation, and Operations:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Witnesses
Chief Carla Provost, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 10
Mr. Robert G. Salesses, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of Civil
Authorities, Department of Defense:
Oral Statement................................................. 13
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Major General Michael T. McGuire, Adjutant General for Arizona,
Director, Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs:
Oral Statement................................................. 19
Prepared Statement............................................. 21
Appendix
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Carla Provost..... 51
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Carla Provost..... 51
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Carla Provost..... 51
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Robert G. Salesses 52
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Robert G. Salesses 56
EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S DEPLOYMENT TO THE U.S.-MEXICO
BORDER
----------
Thursday, June 20, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Border Security,
Facilitation, and Operations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
room 310, Cannon House Building, Hon. Kathleen M. Rice
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rice, Correa, Torres Small, Green
of Texas, Clarke, Thompson, Higgins, Lesko, Joyce, Guest,
Peters, and Jackson Lee.
Miss Rice. The Subcommittee on Border Security Facilitation
and Operations will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting
today to receive testimony on examining the Department of
Defense's deployment to the U.S.-Mexico border.
Good morning. I would like to start by welcoming our
witnesses who are here today to provide information on the
support that the Department of Defense is lending to the
Department of Homeland Security at the U.S.-Mexico border. The
DoD's presence on the border is not new. Their support of DHS
operations has indeed evolved over the past year. Right now it
would appear that this administration is testing the limits of
that relationship.
Since the first large group of migrants began traveling
north from Central America in April of last year, fleeing
violence, poverty, and persecution within their home countries,
the President and DHS have relied heavily upon the DoD to
support their border security operations. It is important to
note here that the April 2018 caravan, the President's
principal reason for first deploying the National Guard, shrunk
down from an estimated 1,500 migrants to approximately 300.
Nevertheless, the President issued a memorandum at that time
directing the Secretary of Defense to deploy as many as 4,000
National Guard troops to the Southern Border. Today,
approximately 2,300 National Guard troops remained deployed in
Texas and Arizona to support more than 16,000 Border Patrol
agents who are also currently assigned to border region.
In early October 2018, there were more reports of another
caravan originating in Central America. Despite advanced
warning and ample time to plan and scale their response, CBP
seemingly did not prepare for the surge in arrivals nor did the
Department ask Congress to increase its capacity so that it
could more effectively process migrant families. In fact, no
such request was made of Congress until earlier this year.
Instead, the President preferred a show of force and requested
the deployment of 5,200 active-duty military personnel to the
Southern Border a week before the 2018 midterm elections. Most
of these personnel were tasked with hardening ports of entry,
providing aerial surveillance between ports of entry, as well
as providing medical care, transportation, and other services
to support Border Patrol.
By December 2018, there wasn't much more for these troops
to do, and their days were largely devoid of any meaningful
duties. Recently, Congress was notified of similar deployment
of DoD personnel to paint 1 mile of border barrier in
California. Personally it is difficult to believe that the
administration is doing everything in its power to resolve the
humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border when Congress
receives notifications such as this one.
In February, the President declared a National emergency
after a 35-day Government shutdown which was caused over a
fundamental disagreement over the necessity of a border wall.
After Congress denied this funding request, the President
sought to divert billions of dollars in previously-appropriated
defense funds to build this wall. Now it seems the
administration is planning a multi-year deployment of active-
duty soldiers to the Southern Border.
Taken together, these actions point to a steep escalation
in the DoD's role at our Southern Border, and these policy
decisions will have consequences and long-term effects. Broad
questions remain about whether the actions this administration
has taken are an appropriate use of DoD and DHS resources.
Continued reliance by DHS on the DoD for handling the
Southern Border will likely have ramifications on both
departments' ability to carry out their respective missions.
Both departments are accountable to the American people through
Congress--both departments are accountable to the American
people through Congress, and I ask that both DHS and DoD
leadership commit to transparency by sharing any and all
requested information with this committee and the other
oversight committees moving forward.
[The statement of Miss Rice follows:]
Statement of Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice
June 20, 2019
Though DoD's presence on the border is not new, their support of
DHS operations has indeed evolved over the past year. And right now, it
would appear that this administration is testing the limits of that
relationship. Since the first large group of migrants began traveling
north from Central Americain April of last year--fleeing violence,
poverty, and persecution within their home countries--the President and
DHS have relied heavily upon the DoD to support their border security
operations.
It is important to note here that the April 2018 ``caravan''--the
President's principle reason for first deploying the National Guard--
shrunk down from an estimated 1,500 migrants to approximately 300.
Nevertheless, the President issued a memorandum at that time directing
the Secretary of Defense to deploy as many as 4,000 National Guard
troops to the Southern Border. And today, approximately 2,300 National
Guard troops remain deployed in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and
California to support more than 16,000 Border Patrol agents who are
also currently assigned to border region.
In early October 2018, there were more reports of another caravan
originating in Central America. Despite advanced warning and ample time
to plan and scale their response, CBP seemingly did not prepare for the
surge in arrivals, nor did the Department or ask Congress to increase
its capacity so that it could more effectively process migrant
families.
In fact, no such request was made of Congress until earlier this
year. Instead, the President preferred a ``show of force'' and
requested the deployment of 5,200 active-duty military personnel to the
Southern Border a week before the 2018 midterm elections. Most of these
personnel were tasked with hardening ports of entry; providing aerial
surveillance between ports of entry; as well as providing medical care,
transportation, and other services to support Border Patrol. By
December 2018, there wasn't much more for these troops to do, and their
days were largely devoid of any meaningful duties. And recently,
Congress was notified of similar deployment of for DoD personnel paint
1 mile of border barrier in California.
Personally, it's difficult to believe that the administration is
doing everything in its power to resolve the humanitarian crisis at our
Southern Border when Congress receives notifications such as this one.
In February, the President declared a National emergency after a 35-day
Government shutdown, which was caused over a fundamental disagreement
over the necessity of a border wall. After Congress denied this funding
request, the President sought to divert billions of dollars in
previously-appropriated defense funds to build this wall. And now, it
seems the administration is planning a multi-year deployment of active-
duty soldiers to the Southern Border. Taken together, these actions
point to a steep escalation in the DoD's role at our Southern Border.
And these policy decisions will have consequences and long-term
effects. Broad questions remain about whether the actions this
administration has taken are an appropriate use of DoD and DHS
resources.
Continued reliance by DHS on the DoD for handling the Southern
Border will likely have ramifications on both departments' ability to
carry out their respective missions. Both Departments are accountable
to the American people though Congress, and I ask that both DHS and DoD
leadership commit to transparency by sharing any and all requested
information with this committee and the other oversight committees
moving forward.
Miss Rice. I thank our witnesses for joining us for this
discussion today. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you, gentlemen
and madam, for your service to our country.
The situation at the Southwest Border is beyond a crisis.
Even the liberal New York Times editorial board, the Wall
Street Journal editorial board, the Senate minority leader,
Chuck Schumer are calling on House Democrats to act.
Unfortunately, our Majority had denied the House multiple
opportunities to fund the needed supplemental humanitarian
assistance that has been called for; 17 times, 17 times House
Democrats have rejected immediate humanitarian border aid.
Increasing numbers of migrants are bringing children on the
dangerous journey to our border more than ever before with the
most significant inflection point being the weakening
immigration laws caused by the Flores settlement extension to
families.
There are more than 17,000 migrants in Customs and Border
Protection custody along our Southwest Border in facilities
designed to hold 4,000. My colleagues are quick to point out
that people have died. But the Majority has repeatedly rejected
our effort to provide immediate humanitarian support.
Customs and Border Protection have been forced to release
more than 77,000 people who have entered our country illegally
on a notice to appear, a summons. This fuels the cartel
propaganda that if you step foot on U.S. soil, you can stay. We
are seeing an increase in apprehensions in migrants originating
outside the Western Hemisphere including Africa underscoring
that this crisis has a global security scope.
More than 40 percent of law enforcement officers tasked
with securing our border are tied up doing administrative and
processing tasks. They have been pulled away from their primary
security mission. Further, 6 Border Patrol interior checkpoints
which catch a significant percent of hard narcotics brought
into our country have been closed to redirect agents to process
migrants. Hundreds of Department of Homeland Security employees
are now at the border to assist with processing which
diminishes the readiness of other components to carry out their
mission. Worsening this crisis, my colleagues across the aisle
have zeroed out funding for additional Border Patrol agents
refusing to provide backup for the men and women on the front
lines. This hearing is well-timed.
Today we have the opportunity to hear more about the
National security aspect of this crisis at the border. There
have been documented media reports that terrorist groups are
calling on followers to blend in with migrants to gain entry
into the United States. We know from DHS intel sources that
cartels are openly chartering buses to drop hundreds of people
at a time in remote areas of the border, and cartels run large
drug loads through while agents are occupied by the migrant
group.
Criminal organizations are charging up to $7,000 per person
to smuggle the human beings across the border. It is
incredible. More than 144,000 migrants were encountered by
Customs and Border Protection in the May time frame at the
border. That is more than a billion dollars last month alone
potentially flowing to criminal cartels.
I am encouraged by the DoD presence at the border to
bolster Customs and Border Protection efforts and help return
agents to the line. Such a deployment is not a new concept. CBP
and the National Guard have a long-standing working
relationship on the counter drug task forces as well as past
operational deployments to the border under President Obama's
administration and President George W. Bush.
National Guard personnel are assisting with logistical and
administrative support operating sensor and imaging detection
systems, providing mobile communications, augmenting border-
related intelligence efforts, and many other functions.
Separately, in response to nearly 8,000-person caravan
approaching the border November 2018, President Trump sent
troops from the Army Corps of Engineers, military police,
command and control teams in aviation, engineering, and
medical, and pilots to fly helicopters to drop Border Patrol
agents in areas where border breaches had occurred.
The Army Corps is efficiently constructing enhanced
physical barriers in some places along the border where it is
needed. We need more. DoD personnel also manage CBP sensors and
surveillance equipment to alert the field agents of illicit
activity.
I would like to thank the witnesses before us here today
and ask that they speak to the situation on the ground and the
current threat environment, the resource constraints you are
operating under, and the long-term strategy for the mission.
Your service is to be noted. You are deeply appreciated.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Higgins follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Clay Higgins
June 20, 2019
The situation at the Southwest Border is beyond a crisis.
Even the liberal New York Times Editorial Board, the Wall Street
Journal Editorial Board, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are
calling on House Democrats to act.
Unfortunately, our Majority has denied the House multiple
opportunities to fund the needed supplemental humanitarian assistance.
Seventeen times. Seventeen times House Democrats have rejected
immediate humanitarian border aid.
Increasing numbers of migrants are bringing children on the
dangerous journey to our border, more than ever before, with the most
significant inflection point being the weakening of our immigration
laws by the Flores settlement extension to families.
There are more than 17,000 migrants in Customs and Border
Protection custody along our Southwest Border in facilities designed to
hold 4,000.
My colleagues are quick to point out that people have died. But the
Majority has repeatedly rejected our effort to provide immediate
humanitarian support.
CBP has been forced to release more than 77,000 people who entered
our country illegally on a Notice to Appear, fueling cartel propaganda
that if you step foot on U.S. soil, you can stay.
We are seeing an increase in apprehensions of migrants originating
outside the Western Hemisphere, including Africa, underscoring that
this crisis has a global security scope.
More than 40 percent of law enforcement officers tasked with
securing the border are tied up doing administrative and processing
tasks. They have been pulled away from their primary security mission.
Further, 6 Border Patrol interior checkpoints, which catch a
significant percent of hard narcotics, have been closed to redirect
agents to process migrants.
Hundreds of Department of Homeland Security employees are now at
the border to assist with processing, which diminishes the readiness of
other components to carry out their missions.
Worsening this crisis, Democrats in Congress have zeroed out
funding for additional Border Patrol agents, refusing to provide back-
up for the men and women on the front lines.
This hearing is well-timed.
Today we have the opportunity to hear more information about the
National security aspect of this crisis at the border.
There have been documented media reports that terrorist groups are
calling on followers to blend in with migrants to gain entry into the
United States.
We know from DHS intel sources that cartels are openly chartering
buses to drop hundreds of people at a time in remote areas of the
border. Cartels run large drug loads through while agents are occupied
by the migrant group.
Criminal organizations are charging $7,000 per person they smuggle
to the border. More than 144,000 migrants were encountered by CBP at
the border in May--that's more than $1 billion last month alone
potentially flowing to cartels.
I am encouraged by the DoD presence at the border to bolster CBP
efforts and help return agents to the line.
Such a deployment is not a new concept. CBP and the National Guard
have had a long-standing working relationship on counter-drug task
forces as well as past operational deployments to the border under the
Obama administration and the George W. Bush administration.
National Guard personnel are assisting with logistical and
administrative support, operating sensor and imaging detection systems,
providing mobile communications, augmenting border-related intelligence
efforts, and other functions.
Separately, in response to the nearly 8,000-person caravan
approaching the border in November, President Trump sent troops from
the Army Corp of Engineers, military police, command and control teams
in aviation, engineering, and medical, and pilots to fly helicopters to
drop Border Patrol agents in areas where border breaches have occurred.
The Army Corps is efficiently constructing enhanced physical
barriers in places along the border where it is needed. DoD personnel
are also manning CBP sensors and surveillance equipment to alert the
field agents of illicit activity.
I want to thank the witnesses before us for being here to speak to
the situation on the ground and the current threat environment, the
resource constraints you are operating under, and the long-term
strategy for the mission. Your service is to be noted. You are deeply
appreciated.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
I now recognize the Chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Thompson, for an opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairwoman Rice and Ranking Member
Higgins for holding today's hearing.
Using DoD resources for border security purposes is not
new. But I support Congressional oversight of the evolving use
of these resources by the Trump administration for what appears
to be an immigration-based agenda.
I don't think it is any secret that I disagree with many of
the Trump administration's policies affecting the border. Some
of these policies directly contradict shared goals of
addressing the on-going humanitarian crisis on the Southern
Border.
For example, last summer the administration moved to
drastically limit, or meter, the number of asylum seekers
processed through land ports of entry along the Southern Border
at the same time DHS Secretary asserted that on-going--that
going through ports was the only legal pathway to claim asylum.
Then-Secretary Nielsen and the Department called this
effort cueing, or cue management. I call metering a violation
of the U.S. asylum law. Our laws do not place a limit on the
number of people who can apply for asylum.
A DHS request for assistance to the DoD from December 2018
confirms that DHS was seeking to deter people by stating that
the successful deterrent at the ports of entry has resulted in
attempted entry between the ports of entry. This is stated as a
reason why DHS would need DoD support on our Southern Border.
This begs the following question: Why has the Trump
administration actively aggravated the challenges on our
Southern Border? Are military resources true and necessary to
handle these challenges? I specifically would like to hear from
our DHS witness on this matter.
In early March of this year yes, then-commissioner
McAleenan stated that the Border Patrol is on track to
apprehend more than a million people this year. This is not a
new feat as Border Patrol has accomplished this 19 times over
the last 40 years with less agents, technology, and other tools
that what Congress has provided over the past decade. However,
the committee acknowledges that the demographics of people
presenting at the border, namely families and unaccompanied
children, present a unique and difficult set of challenges for
the Border Patrol.
We need to reach a mutually-agreeable solution to these
immediate challenges in short order to truly begin addressing
the crisis. But despite seeing this growing trend over the past
5 years, the only solutions the Trump administration continue
to implement are ones that prevent people from reaching the
United States instead of solutions to manage the reality at
hand. The most wasteful of all, the President's continued
obsession with building a big beautiful border wall.
The President has resorted to testing the bounds of his
authority by diverting money from the Department of Defense in
order to build this wall faster as he phrased it in February of
this year. His effort to claim a National emergency and use
previously-appropriated defense funds to build the wall have
encountered multiple lawsuits. These machinations continue at
the same time DoD's manpower and other resources are being
deployed to the U.S.-Mexican border.
I am eager to hear from today's witnesses about the work
and coordinated efforts being undertaken by the National Guard
and DoD with DHS at the border. I would also like to learn more
about the cost both literally and figuratively of having an
extended presence of military personnel in our border
communities. What we discuss today will help the committee
address the issues at the border in a productive manner. I
thank our witnesses for informing our efforts in this by
joining us today.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
June 20, 2019
Using DoD resources for border security purposes is not
new, but I support Congressional oversight of the evolving use
of these resources by the Trump administration for what appears
to bean immigration-based agenda. I don't think it's any secret
that I disagree with many of the Trump administration's
policies affecting the border. Some of these policies directly
contradict the shared goal of addressing the on-going
humanitarian crisis on the Southern Border. For example, last
summer the administration moved to drastically limit or meter
the number of asylum seekers processed through land ports of
entry along the Southern Border at the same time the DHS
Secretary asserted that going through ports was the only legal
pathway to claim asylum.
Then-Secretary Nielsen and the Department call this effort
``queuing'' or ``queue management.'' I call metering a
violation of U.S. asylum law; our laws do not place a limit on
the number of people who can apply for asylum. A DHS Request
for Assistance to the DoD from December 2018 confirms that DHS
was seeking to deter people by stating that: ``The successful
deterrence at the POEs has resulted in attempted entry between
the POEs.'' This is stated as a reason why DHS would need DoD's
support on our Southern Border.
This begs the following questions--why has the Trump
administration actively aggravated the challenges on our
Southern Border? Are military resources truly necessary to
handle these challenges? I specifically would like to hear from
our DHS witness on that matter. In early March of this year,
then-Commissioner McAleenan stated that the Border Patrol is on
track to apprehend more than a million people this year. This
is not a new feat, as Border Patrol has accomplished this 19
times over the last 40 years and with less agents, technology,
and other tools than what Congress has provided over the past
decade.
However, the committee acknowledges that the demographics
of people presenting at our border--namely families and
unaccompanied children--presents a unique and difficult set of
challenges for the Border Patrol. We need to reach a mutually-
agreeable solution to these immediate challenges in short order
to truly begin addressing the crisis. But despite seeing this
growing trend over the past 5 years, the only solutions the
Trump administration continues to implement are ones that
prevent people from reaching the United States instead of
solutions to manage the reality at hand.
The most wasteful of all is the President's continued
obsession with building a ``big, beautiful'' border wall. The
President has resorted to testing the bounds of his authority
by diverting money from the Department of Defense in order to
build his wall ``faster,'' as he phrased it in February of this
year. His efforts to claim a National emergency and use
previously-appropriated defense funds to build the wall have
encountered multiple lawsuits. These machinations continue at
the same time DoD manpower and other resources are being
deployed to the U.S.-Mexico border.
I am eager to hear from today's witnesses about the work
and coordinated efforts being undertaken by the National Guard
and DoD with DHS at the border. I would also like to learn more
about the costs--both literally and figuratively--of having an
extended presence of military personnel in our border
communities.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that, under the
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
Without objection, Members not sitting on the subcommittee
will be permitted to participate in today's hearing.
I welcome our panel of witnesses. Our first witness, Chief
Carla Provost, leads the U.S. Border Patrol. Chief Provost
began her career with the U.S. Border Patrol in the Tuscon
sector. Since then she has served in a number of positions in
the Yuma, El Paso, and el Centro sectors until becoming deputy
chief of the U.S. Border Patrol in 2016. Prior to joining the
U.S. Border Patrol, chief provost served as a police officer in
Manhattan, Kansas.
Our second witness is Mr. Robert Salesses, the deputy
assistant secretary of defense for Homeland Defense Integration
and Defense Support of Civil Authorities. In this position, he
is responsible for the development of National homeland defense
and security policy and oversees DoD's response to National
emergency operations in support of civilian entities.
Mr. Salesses has a long history of service with the Federal
Government including time spent as a deputy special assistant
for the Homeland Security task force. Mr. Salesses is also a
retired Marine Corps officer.
I now recognize the gentlelady from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko, to
recognize today's Minority witness.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I am proud to welcome Major General Michael T. McGuire, the
adjutant general for the great State of Arizona, from where I
am from, who concurrently served as the director of the Arizona
Department of Emergency and Military Affairs. He is responsible
for managing the day-to-day activities of Arizona's Army and
Air National Guard joint programs in the division of emergency
management. He leads an 8,000-member department of which 2,400
are full-time Federal military and civilian personnel and 600
are full-time State employees.
General McGuire received his commission from the United
States Air Force Academy in 1987. He attended undergraduate
pilot training at Shepherd Air Force Base, Texas, followed by
several operational combat and training assignments in the F-16
Fighting Falcon. He joined the Arizona Air National Guard's
162d Fighter Wing, Tuscon International Airport, in 2001 as an
F-16 instructor pilot.
In 2010, commanded the 214th reconnaissance group at Davis-
Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, where he flew the MQ-1B
Predator and led the unit in combat operations in support of
overseas contingencies. Prior to assuming his current duties,
he served as commander, 162d Fighter Wing. General McGuire is a
fighter weapon school graduate and a command pilot with more
than 4,000 flying hours and 250 combat and combat support
flying hours.
I am proud to welcome our very own Arizonan who has served
our country well and continues to serve our country and State.
Thank you, sir, for being here.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mrs. Lesko.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. I now ask each witness to summarize his
or her statement for 5 minutes. We will begin with Chief
Provost.
STATEMENT OF CHIEF CARLA PROVOST, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S.
CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Chief Provost. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman Rice,
Chairman Thompson, and Ranking Member Higgins, as well as the
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. I couldn't be more
proud to represent the men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol
and to speak to the critical support our DoD partners are
providing us each and every day.
In the Border Patrol, we know what it takes to secure the
border, what we call operational control, also known as op con.
Op con requires the right combination of technology, physical
barriers, and manpower to identify, impede, and respond to
illegal cross-border activity.
As you are all aware, I have been forced to divert 40 to 60
percent of Border Patrol's manpower away from the border as we
process and care for nearly 435,000 families and children that
have flooded across our Southern Border so far this year. As
the chief of the Border Patrol, I know that every agent that I
am forced to pull away from border security directly harms our
ability to achieve op con.
People often ask why we need to secure the border when so
many families are turning themselves in. But think about the
number of agents who must abandon their post to assist when a
group of over 1,000 illegal aliens walk into the United States
at 4 in the morning. This happened just last month, and it set
a record for the largest group in the 95-year history of the
Border Patrol.
With 193 of these large groups so far this year, our
operations are now being overwhelmed on a daily basis. At the
same time, our border security mission has not gone away. Many
illegal aliens and smugglers are trying to evade law
enforcement. We have apprehended more than 224,000 single adult
aliens on the Southern Border, a 28 percent increase compared
to last year. We have arrested more than 6,800 criminal aliens
and gang members. We are seeing more high-volume drug seizures,
a sign that smugglers are becoming more brazen.
In just one incident at the Rio Grande Valley, we seized
more than 700 pounds of cocaine crossing the river. Just last
week, agents in RGV again seized a large load of
methamphetamine with an estimated value of over $5.6 million.
This is why the support we receive from DoD is invaluable. With
fewer agents available to maintain situational awareness alone
the border, DoD camera operators have contributed to more than
15,600 apprehensions and the seizure of more than 38 pounds of
marijuana and $2,300 in currency.
On the ground and in the air, the situational awareness
helps keep the limited number of agents we have on the border
safe and aware of illegal activity. So far this year we have
observed more than 100,000 people who have successfully evaded
arrest, a 5-year high in what we call got-aways. These are just
the ones that we know about. Even with DoD's support, I fear
that we are missing far many others.
Not only does this show the value of situational awareness
but that it is only effective when combined with a timely law
enforcement response. Additionally, the National Guard, through
Operation Guardian Support, is assisting our operations in a
range of areas including air support, radio communications,
maintenance, and brush clearing. In fiscal year 2019 to date,
the National Guard has provided more than 5,800 air hours and
contributed to more than 94,000 apprehensions and the seizure
of more than 24,000 pounds of marijuana, 231 pounds of
methamphetamine, and $7,000 in currency. Like the hundreds of
agents that I have redeployed to the Southern Border from other
locations, I know the sacrifice our DoD brothers and sisters
are making to support us.
To all the men and women out there on the border every day,
I cannot thank you enough for the sacrifices you are making.
Many of you are away from your families, working long hours in
harsh border environments and facing overwhelming challenges. I
wish I could tell you when our operations will return to
normal. But as long as we face this crisis, I will continue to
ask for DoD support.
Additionally, I will continue to ask Congress to address
the gaps in our immigration framework that encouraged this
flow. Smugglers falsely advertise a safe journey to the border
misleading families that anyone who arrives with a child will
not be deported under current U.S. policies.
While smugglers primarily target the northern triangle,
family units from 52 countries have illegally crossed the
Southern Border so far this year. In just 2 weeks, more than
740 individuals from African Nations, primarily family units,
have been apprehended in Del Rio sector alone compared to only
108 who cross the Southern Border in the first 8 months of the
fiscal year. Families from countries like Brazil, Nicaragua,
Ecuador, Cuba, Peru, Romania, and Vietnam are taking the same
pathways through Central America and Mexico to take advantage
the gaps in our system.
We are now entering the hot summer months increasing the
risk to migrants and placing more demands on my agents. If
Congress continues to ignore the needed changes in law, I don't
know when I will be able to refocus my agents toward our border
security mission or tell DoD their assistance is no longer
needed.
What I do know is, without a doubt, DoD support has made a
difference in Border Patrol's ability to carry out our mission.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Chief Provost follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carla L. Provost
June 20, 2019
Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, and Members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today.
Our Nation is experiencing an unprecedented border security and
humanitarian crisis along our Southwest Border. We have surging levels
of individuals entering without proper documentation. This fiscal year
through May, Border Patrol has apprehended over 593,000 illegal aliens
between ports of entry along the Southwest Border. CBP's Office of
Field Operations encountered an additional 80,000+ inadmissible
individuals at ports of entry along the Southwest Border. This year-to-
date level exceeds the full-year apprehensions of any fiscal year in
the last decade. We have also set an unfortunate new record of the
largest migrant group ever apprehended--more than a thousand migrants
illegally crossing the border together in El Paso, Texas, in late May.
The demographic shift toward more vulnerable populations, combined
with overwhelming numbers, has caused 40 to 60 percent of Border Patrol
agents to be pulled away from our border security mission to provide
humanitarian support--that's 40 to 60 percent of our front-line
workforce that is not available to stop drugs, gang members, and
dangerous criminals from entering our country. In addition to the
nearly 600,000 apprehensions to date, Border Patrol has documented more
than 100,000 individuals who successfully crossed the border illegally
and disappeared into border communities before agents could respond.
This is the highest level of observed ``got aways'' since fiscal year
2014. This high level of ``got aways'' is a direct result of agents
being reassigned away from the front line to provide humanitarian
support to the unprecedented numbers of individuals and families in
custody. In fiscal year 2019 to date, UAC and family units represent 66
percent of all Southwest Border inadmissible individuals and
apprehensions.
cbp and the department of defense
At CBP, we have a long history of working closely with our partners
at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), united by the common purpose
of keeping the United States and its people safe and secure.
DoD's U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command have long supported our border security mission.
National Guard personnel have provided support--such as counternarcotic
support operations--in areas including Tucson, Yuma, and West Texas for
decades. Previous administrations also directed DoD to temporarily
authorize the use of National Guard personnel to support CBP. National
Guard personnel have assisted CBP by providing aviation, operational,
logistical, engineering, and administrative support in Operation Jump
Start from 2006 to 2008, and again in Operation Phalanx from 2010 to
2016.
Specifically, during Operation Jump Start, National Guard personnel
provided interim surveillance and reconnaissance (air, ground,
satellite imagery), linguists; air and ground transportation,
engineering (fences and roads), and logistics (medical, temporary
shelters, and food service) support to CBP while CBP recruited,
trained, and deployed additional agents. This interim support increased
situational awareness that facilitated more than 173,000 CBP arrests,
the rescue of 100 people, and the seizure of more than 300,000 pounds
of drugs. Most importantly, Operation Jump Start contributed to a
significant decrease in illicit trafficking activity in many areas of
the border.
dod support to the border security crisis
On April 4, 2018, President Trump directed DoD to support the
Department of Homeland Security in securing the Southern Border.
Multiple requests for assistance have further expanded DoD support
efforts to address the continuously evolving border security crisis.
The on-going deployment of DoD and National Guard personnel, equipment,
and assets provide critical support to our law enforcement agents.
In Operation Guardian Support, National Guard personnel are
providing air support in the form of light and medium-lift helicopters;
infrastructure support, such as road maintenance and vegetation
clearing; operational support, such as fleet maintenance and repair and
law enforcement communications assistance; and surveillance support as
surveillance camera operators.
To be clear, National Guard personnel supporting Operation Guardian
Support do not conduct law enforcement activities and do not have
direct contact with migrants. However, they are providing tremendous
assistance to CBP. By taking on these important supporting tasks, such
as infrastructure repair or surveillance assistance, these National
Guard personnel enable Border Patrol agents to focus on law enforcement
activities at the border.
In 2018, in response to a Central American caravan of unprecedented
size, CBP requested additional DoD support during Operation Secure
Line. DoD personnel provided planning assistance; engineering support,
such as temporary barriers, barricades, and fencing; fixed-wing and
rotary-wing aviation support to transport CBP personnel; medical teams
to triage, treat, and prepare for commercial transport of patients;
command-and-control facilities for CBP personnel; temporary housing for
CBP personnel; and personal protective equipment for CBP personnel.
Additionally, DoD personnel are augmenting border security
situational awareness utilizing CBP Mobile Surveillance Capability
(MSC). MSC systems provide long-range mobile surveillance and consist
of a suite of radar and camera sensors mounted on vehicles. Such
vehicles are deployed to operate the system, which automatically
detects and tracks items of interest and provides the operator with
data and video of the observed subject. Agents often work alone in
rugged, remote areas. The surveillance DoD provides helps us keep the
agents on the ground safe and aware of illegal activity happening along
the border.
DoD and CBP have also expanded our partnership of over a decade to
construct new border barriers in key locations across the Southwest
Border. Investments made using DHS-appropriated resources and Treasury
Forfeiture Funds are being executed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Forty-four of the approximately 205 miles DHS has funding on
hand to support are already complete--with many more miles under way.
DoD is also assisting DHS by executing approximately 129 additional
miles with counterdrug funding, adding barriers, roads, and lights that
will block known drug smuggling corridors. A portion of the DoD-funded
barrier construction is currently on hold due to a court injunction
from the United States District Court--Northern District of California.
These barriers provide a tangible mechanism to deter, stop, and/or
delay those illegal entrants that would seek to evade the Border
Patrol. At no time in our history has this been more critical than
today, when a significant portion of our front-line workforce is
focused on addressing the humanitarian crisis at our borders.
making a difference
Since Operation Guardian Support began in 2018, CBP has carried out
thousands of apprehensions, seized thousands of pounds of dangerous
drugs, and performed multiple rescues. In fiscal year 2019 to date, DoD
assistance has contributed to more than 87,000 deportable alien
arrests, and the seizure of more than 24,000 pounds of marijuana, 228
pounds of methamphetamine, and more than $7,000 in currency.
Additionally, DoD's MSC surveillance support missions have contributed
to more than 13,000 apprehensions and the seizure of more than 3,700
pounds of marijuana and $2,000 in currency. Their support has made a
difference in CBP's ability to carry out our mission.
For example, in January of this year, a Lordsburg Border Patrol
agent operating infrared surveillance equipment saw 4 individuals
walking northbound near a smelter on Highway 1113. The individuals were
wearing camouflage clothing and custom-made footwear designed to mask
their tracks. Border Patrol All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Units and a
National Guard helicopter responded to the area, and the helicopter
crew--equipped with night vision equipment--was able to locate the 4
individuals. The helicopter crew guided the ATV Units to the hidden
individuals, who were arrested. The National Guard crew then alerted
and guided the agents to several large rectangular burlap sacks in the
area, which tested positive for marijuana. In total, the bags of drugs
weighed 135.6 pounds, with an estimated street value of $108,640.
In another example, in June 2018 Border Patrol agents from the
McAllen Station in Texas received information from Mexico's emergency
call center regarding a lost Mexican national in distress. Border
Patrol agents operating an aerostat camera located the lost migrant,
who was suffering from dehydration. The Border Patrol agents provided
coordinates to a nearby Texas Army National Guard helicopter pilot who
was supporting Operation Guardian Support. Minutes later, the National
Guard pilot located the subject and quickly guided Border Patrol agents
to the location. There, a Border Patrol agent who is a certified
Emergency Medical Technician treated the lost Mexican national for
dehydration.
In addition, last year in the Tucson Sector, the Arizona National
Guard supporting the Ajo Border Patrol Station provided vehicle
mechanics to help complete an inspection of the station's fleet. During
the inspection, the National Guard mechanics identified and repaired
more than 80 vehicles with suspension issues that could have led to
significant safety hazards for Border Patrol agents patrolling in
isolated areas. While this could have taken weeks to resolve, with the
National Guard's help, Border Patrol was able to complete the
inspections and repairs within 2 days.
conclusion
Border security is National security--there is no difference--and
the crisis on our Southwest Border puts our National security at risk.
I have repeatedly asked Congress to act, to address the outdated legal
framework and broken immigration system that has caused dangerous mass
migration with no end in sight. Without legislative solutions, CBP
expects the need for continued DoD support to help address the
diversion of resources away from the border security mission to the
current humanitarian crisis.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
forward to your questions.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Chief Provost.
I now recognize Mr. Salesses to summarize his statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT G. SALESSES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE, HOMELAND DEFENSE INTEGRATION AND DEFENSE SUPPORT OF
CIVIL AUTHORITIES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Salesses. Good morning, Chairwoman Rice, Chairman
Thompson, Ranking Member Higgins, distinguished Members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
you today on the Department of Defense's support to the
Department of Homeland Security in securing the Southern Border
of the United States.
As already pointed out, DoD has a long history of
supporting border security efforts. Since the early 1990's,
Active Duty National Guard personnel have supported Federal,
State, and countered drug activities with detection and
monitoring, transportation, communications, and engineering
support. More recently, DoD has been called upon to support
Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Health and
Human Services to include, in 2006 to 2008, Operation Jump
Start, nearly 6,000 National Guard personnel deployed to the
Southwest Border.
From 2010 to 2017, CBP's Operation Phalanx, National Guard
personnel again deployed to the Southwest Border. Between 2012
and 2017, DoD provided shelter for approximately 16,000
unaccompanied children for HHS on DoD installations. Since
April 2018, DoD support to DHS has evolved as the border crisis
continues.
On April 4, the President directed that DoD support DHS in
securing the Southern Border. Responding to the evolving
challenges at the border and a marked rise in illegal migration
of approximately 36,000 migrants per month, DoD surged military
support to CBP in all 9 Border Patrol sectors in all 4
Southwest Border States in support of CBP's Operation Guardian
Support. National Guard personnel have been supporting CBP with
aviation, engineering, communications, vehicle maintenance
planning, and other non-law enforcement missions.
This support provides badges back to the border by freeing
Border Patrol agents to execute their law enforcement duties
enhancing situational awareness along the Southern Border of
the United States. As of today, there is 1,900 National Guard
personnel supporting CBP Operation Guardian support.
In October 2018, a series of large migrant caravans, some
deploying violent and dangerous tactics toward Guatemalan and
Mexican authorities approached the U.S. Southern Border ports
of entry. At the request of CBP in response to the magnitude of
these caravans coupled with the unprecedented and simultaneous
influx of 60,000 illegal migrants per month, DoD surged support
to CBP's Operation Secure Line with active-duty personnel to
enhance security at U.S. ports of entry.
Military engineers harden ports of entry by placing over
200 miles of concertina wire, barrier obstacles in and around
33 ports of entry in California, Arizona, and Texas, provided
rotary wing aviation support to expedite moment of CBP agent
between ports of entry and provided military police for force
protection of CBP agents performing their Federal functions.
In February 2019, another caravan of approximately 2,000
migrants secured transportation in Mexico arriving at the port
of entry in Eagle Pass, Texas, within days not weeks. DoD surge
support to Eagle Pass, Texas, to assist CBP.
Following this incident, DHS requested DoD make available a
contingency for a crisis response force including engineers,
medical force protection to support and assist at the ports of
entry along the Southwest Border. As of today, there's 2,600
active-duty military personnel, are supporting CBP's operation
Secure Line.
In February 2019, facing an influx now of over 76,000
migrants and multiple caravans per month, DoD expanded its
support from hardening ports of entry to enhancing the security
between the ports of entry principally providing additional
detection and monitoring capabilities. DoD was asked to provide
1,200 military personnel to man 146 CBP mobile surveillance
camera system trucks between the ports of entry across the 9
sectors for Southwest Border States.
In May 2019, CBP's capacity to process incoming migrants
was exceeded by the approximate 100,000 migrants entering the
United States per month. To deal with the migrant processing
challenge at the Border Patrol stations, DoD is assisting CBP
by providing military drivers to transparent migrants in CBP
vehicles and military personnel to distribute meals and conduct
welfare checks at Border Patrol stations.
DHS has also requested DoD assistance in establishing
temporary detention facilities to house 7,500 single adult
migrants at 6 CBP-designated locations in Texas and Arizona.
DoD is being asked to provide tents and some support services
at these locations.
The Department of Health and Human Services has also
submitted a request for facilities or land to accommodate up to
5,000 unaccompanied children. On the 10th of June, the acting
Secretary of Defense approved the use of facilities at Fort
Sill, Oklahoma, or HHS to shelter approximately 1,400 children.
Since early 2000, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
worked regularly with DHS and CBP on various border barrier
projects. In February 2019, as a result of the increasing flow
of illicit drugs across the Southern Border, DHS requested that
DoD use its authority in Section 284 Title 10 U.S. code to
block drug smuggling corridors.
The Acting Secretary of Defense approved this request
specifically by directing the transfer of $2.5 billion into the
Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter Drug Activities account
for construction of 129 miles of border barrier fencing which
will block drug smuggling corridors in California, Arizona, and
Texas. The Department is also assessing the use of Section 2808
authorities for military construction in support of the
President's declaration of National emergency on the Southern
Border.
In summary, the Department of Defense continues to adapt
its support to DHS and CBP as it responds to this evolving
crisis at the border. I have visited the border on several
occasions, have witnessed the tremendous efforts of our
military personnel supporting and working with their DHS and
CBP counterparts.
Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, distinguished
Members of the committee, thank you for your continued support
of the Department of Defense and the men and women of the U.S.
Armed Forces. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Salesses follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert G. Salesses
June 20, 2019
introduction
Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, distinguished Members of
the subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
Department of Defense (DoD) support to Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Department of
Justice (DOJ) missions related to the security of the Southern Border
of the United States.
the department of defense has a long history of supporting border
security
Using the substantial authorities Congress has provided, DoD has a
long history of supporting efforts to secure U.S. borders.
Steady State
Active-duty and National Guard personnel have supported Federal and
State counterdrug activities (e.g., detection and monitoring of cross-
border trafficking, aerial reconnaissance, transportation and
communications support, and construction of fences and roads) beginning
in the early 1990's. Most recently, U.S. Northern Command's Joint Task
Force-North executed 53 counterdrug support missions in fiscal year
2017 and 23 missions in fiscal year 2018. When the Secretary of Defense
approved the 4 border States' plans for drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities, DoD committed $21 million in funds in fiscal year 2017
and $53 million in fiscal year 2018.
When needed, DoD has provided planners to help DHS develop its
Southern Border and Approaches Campaign (2014) and CBP's Crisis
Migration Plan (2018).
DoD has also loaned facilities and special equipment, such as
aerostats, ground surveillance radars, and ground sensors, to CBP.
Surge Support
Post-9/11 (2002).--1,600 National Guard personnel were
detailed to the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, and the Border Patrol at Northern and
Southern Borders.
2004-2005--Operation WINTER FREEZE.--129 Active-duty and
National Guard personnel were deployed to Northern Border to
interdict suspected transnational threats.
2006-2008--Operation JUMP START.--6,000 National Guard
personnel were deployed at the Southern Border from 2006-2007
and 3,000 National Guard personnel from 2007-2008. National
Guard personnel improved infrastructure at the Southern Border
by building more than 38 miles of pedestrian fence, 96 miles of
vehicle barrier, more than 19 miles of new all-weather road,
and repairing more than 700 miles of roads.
2010-2017--Operation PHALANX (2010-2017).--Up to 1,200
National Guard personnel were deployed at the Southern Border
from 2010 to 2012 and 200-300 National Guard personnel at the
Southern Border from 2013-2017, conducting detection and
monitoring, aviation support, aerial reconnaissance, and
analytical support missions.
2012-Present--Housing Support for Unaccompanied Alien
Children.--DoD has provided temporary housing support to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on a
reimbursable basis, as part of the National response to the
surge of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) at the U.S.
Southern Border. Since 2012, DoD has provided DoD property for
HHS to shelter nearly 16,000 UAC, who receive care, security,
transportation, and medical services from HHS. Consistent with
section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2017 (Public Law 114-328), the Secretary of Defense
has certified that providing this sheltering support to HHS
will not negatively affect military training, operations,
readiness, or other military requirements, including National
Guard and Reserve readiness. A summary of this support is
provided in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD Installation Duration Number of UACs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lackland, AFB, TX................. April 4-June 13, 0
2012.
Lackland, AFB, TX................. May 18-August 8, 4,357
2014.
NAVBASE Ventura, CA............... May 18-August 8, 1,540
2014.
Ft. Sill, OK...................... May 18-August 8, 1,861
2014.
Holloman AFB, NM.................. January 25-February 129
27, 2016.
Ft. Bliss, TX..................... September 6, 2016- 7,259
February 8, 2017.
---------------
TOTAL............................. .................... 15,946
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DoD's presence and support at the Southern Border increases the
effectiveness of CBP's border security operations, helps free up Border
Patrol agents to conduct law enforcement duties, and enhances
situational awareness to stem the tide of illegal activity along the
Southern Border of the United States.
The numbers and types of migrants arriving at the Southern Border
of the United States has exceeded the capacity of CBP, prompting the
need for additional DoD support.
the president directed dod to support dhs
Since April 2018, DoD support to DHS has been provided pursuant to
the President's direction, including his April 4, 2018, Presidential
memorandum, ``Securing the Southern Border of the United States.'' In
this memorandum, the President directed DoD to support DHS ``in
securing the Southern Border and taking other necessary actions to stop
the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and other
criminals, and illegal aliens into this country.'' The President also
directed DoD to request use of National Guard personnel to assist in
fulfilling this mission, including pursuant to Section 502 of Title 32,
U.S. Code. Finally, the President directed the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Attorney
General, to determine what other resources and actions are necessary to
protect our Southern Border, including Federal law enforcement and U.S.
military resources.
dod works closely with dhs
Across the full-range of support that DoD has provided DHS--border
security support, disaster support, special event security support, and
support for protection of the President--DoD has worked closely with
DHS as DHS develops its requests for DoD assistance as deliberately,
expeditiously, and effectively as possible to meet mission needs.
DoD carefully considers all requests for assistance, including in
order to determine whether DoD has the requested capabilities and
resources and whether providing the requested assistance is consistent
with applicable law. When a request is approved, DoD works with the
requesting department or agency to select the right forces and
resources to meet the requested mission needs. DoD has used the same
process for every DHS request for assistance related to DHS's border
security mission.
Specific DoD support is driven by DHS requirements. DoD, consistent
with the President's order, statutory authority, and operational
considerations, helps DHS develop requests that will meet DHS
requirements while mitigating potential impacts on military readiness,
to the extent practicable. Consistent with the law and the President's
order, DoD support is currently being provided on a non-reimbursable
basis, to the extent legally available. DoD support is also provided
consistent with Section 275 of Title 10, U.S. Code, and the Posse
Comitatus Act (Section 1535 of Title 18, U.S. Code), which do not
permit direct participation by military personnel in a search, seizure,
arrest, or other similar activity.
dod support
April 2018 to September 2019--Augmentation (Badges Back to the Border)
In support of CBP Operation Guardian Support, DoD has
authorized National Guard personnel to support CBP in a duty
status under Section 502 of Title 32, U.S. Code, with the
consent of, and under the command and control of, their
Governors.
Types of support: Aviation; communications; fleet
maintenance; intelligence analysis; planning; and surveillance.
At its peak, on November 26, 2018, 2,295 National Guard
personnel supported CBP Operation Guardian Support (369 in
California; 603 in Arizona; 119 in New Mexico; and 1,204 in
Texas). As of June 5, 2019, 1,776 National Guard personnel were
supporting CBP Operation Guardian Support (137 in California;
550 in Arizona; 18 in New Mexico; and 1,227 in Texas).
June to December 2018--Attorney Support for the Department of Justice
DoD detailed 21 attorneys with criminal trial experience to
the Department of Justice (DOJ) to serve as Special Assistant
United States Attorneys (SAUSAs).
This detail of DoD personnel was executed pursuant to the
Economy Act and was on a fully reimbursable basis.
October 2018 to January 2019--Enhanced Security of Ports of Entry
Active-duty military personnel support to CBP Operation
Secure Line. Active-duty military personnel were selected
because the Secretary of Defense determined that such personnel
were the best-suited and most readily available forces from the
Total Force to provide the assistance requested by DHS.
Types of support:
Military planning teams to coordinate operations,
engineering, medical, and logistics support.
Medium-lift rotary-wing aviation support, on-call 24 hours
a day, to supplement the movement of CBP quick-reaction
force tactical personnel in and around locations determined
by CBP day or night.
Strategic lift aviation support, available with 12-hour
notification, to move up to 400 CBP personnel and equipment
to a location determined by CBP.
Engineering capability support that can provide temporary
vehicle barriers and pedestrian-style fencing at and around
a port of entry (POE), including but not limited to:
Continuous anti-personnel intrusion fencing; one-way
retractable vehicle anti-intrusion barricades; configurable
pedestrian fencing; and fixed vehicle barricades. Based on
an additional DHS request, concertina wire emplacement
continued through March 2019. Ultimately, DoD personnel
hardened 33 POEs and emplaced 200 miles of concertina wire.
Deployable medical units to triage and treat, up to 1,000
personnel every 24 hours. Such units were prepared to
stabilize and prepare injured personnel for commercial
transport to civilian medical facilities, as necessary.
Temporary housing for up to 2,345 CBP personnel.
Loan of personnel protective equipment (e.g., helmets with
face shields, hand-held shields, and shin guards) for 500
CBP personnel.
At its peak, on November 7, 2018, 5,622 active-duty military
personnel supported CBP Operation Secure Line.
November 2018 through March 2019--Force Protection for CBP
On November 20, 2018, the President authorized DoD to use
military personnel to protect CBP personnel performing their
Federal functions within property controlled by CBP at or
adjacent to one or more designated POEs.
Although DoD military personnel were prepared to protect CBP
personnel, they were not required to do so.
February 2019--Crisis Support
The Acting Secretary of Defense approved a DHS request for
support at CBP-designated POEs in the Del Rio and Laredo
Sectors in Texas.
Types of support:
Military protection of CBP personnel performing their
Federal functions on property owned by CBP at or adjacent
to one or more designated land POEs where caravan members
presented a risk of disrupting or otherwise interfering
with CBP's ability to carry out its Federal functions.
Immediate life-saving medical care for CBP personnel and
migrants pending expeditious movement to civilian medical
facilities.
Placement of temporary vehicle barriers and pedestrian-
style fencing and emplacement of concertina wire at and
around CBP-designated POEs.
Medium-lift rotary-wing aircraft and support personnel for
tactical movement of CBP personnel (24-hour on-call ability
to employ 2 simultaneous lifts of 6 to 8 personnel and
associated equipment).
March to September 2019--Crisis Response Force
The Acting Secretary of Defense approved a DHS request for
crisis response support.
Types of support:
On a contingency basis (i.e., available when needed), a
medical response capability to treat up to 100 persons
during a violent incident. DoD medical personnel would
provide immediate life-saving care at the point-of-injury.
On a contingency basis, a minimum of 2 Military Police
platoons, and not to exceed one Military Police company,
capable of responding to multiple locations designated by
CBP to provide force protection of CBP personnel performing
their Federal functions on property owned by CBP at or
adjacent to POEs.
One Military Police platoon to conduct, at a minimum,
monthly exercises and training with CBP personnel.
Engineering support to: (a) Emplace temporary vehicle
barriers, temporary fencing, and concertina wire at and
adjacent to CBP-designated POEs; and (b) harden land POEs
at the Southern Border in Texas.
Medium-lift, rotary-wing aircraft and support personnel
for the tactical movement of 6 to 8 CBP personnel at and
around POE locations designated by CBP.
Extension of DoD's loan of personnel protection equipment.
January through September 2019--Detection and Monitoring
The Acting Secretary of Defense approved a DHS request for
DoD detection and monitoring support.
Type of support: mobile surveillance camera operators in 146
vehicles operating in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and
Texas in all 9 Border Patrol Sectors. In May 2019, the Acting
Secretary of Defense approved a request to increase the number
of mobile surveillance camera vehicles to 155.
March through Present 2019--Blocking Drug-Smuggling Corridors
In accordance with Section 284(b)(7) of Title 10, U.S. Code,
the Secretary of Defense may, in support of the counter-
narcotics activities of Federal civilian law enforcement
agencies, construct roads and fences, and install lighting, to
block drug-smuggling corridors across the international
boundaries of the United States.
In March 2019, the Acting Secretary of Defense approved a
DHS request to use this authority to block drug-smuggling
corridors in the Yuma Sector in Arizona and the El Paso Sector
in New Mexico, specifically by constructing 51 miles of
fencing, constructing and improving roads, and installing
lighting.
In May 2019, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction
prohibiting the use of the $1 billion transferred pursuant to
Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2019, into the Defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense, account for construction under Section 284
of Title 10, U.S. Code (i.e., construction in the Yuma and El
Paso CBP Sectors).
In May 2019, the Acting Secretary of Defense authorized
construction of an additional 78 miles of fencing pursuant to
Section 284(b)(7)--this time to block drug-smuggling corridors
in the El Centro Sector in California and the Tucson Sector in
Arizona.
In total, the Acting Secretary of Defense directed the
transfer of $2.5 billion into the Drug Interdiction and
Counter-Drug Activities, Defense account to block drug-
smuggling corridors designated by DHS along 129 miles and in 4
Sectors along the U.S. Southern Border (i.e., El Centro in
California; Yuma and Tucson in Arizona; and El Paso in New
Mexico).
June through September 2019--Migrant Processing Support
The Acting Secretary of Defense approved a DHS request for
support with migrant processing.
Types of support:
160 licensed DoD military drivers to operate secure CBP
vehicles to transport migrants from remote locations, POEs,
and Border Patrol stations.
100 DoD military personnel to heat and distribute meals
and conduct welfare checks.
May through September 2019--Housing
Unaccompanied Alien Children
DoD has agreed to support HHS by being prepared to provide
capacity to temporarily house up to 5,000 UAC on DoD
installations.
Consistent with Section 2815 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328), the Secretary of Defense is required to certify that
providing this sheltering support to HHS would not
negatively affect military training, operations, readiness,
or other military requirements, including National Guard
and Reserve readiness.
DoD is currently providing HHS with capacity to house
approximately 1,400 UAC at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, consistent
with Section 2815.
This support is provided on a reimbursable basis.
Adult Migrants
The Acting Secretary of Defense approved a DHS request for
support to shelter up to a total of 7,500 single migrant
adults in CBP custody at 6 CBP-designated locations.
the president declared a national emergency
On February 15, 2019, the President declared that ``situation at
the Southern Border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis
that threatens core National security interests and constitutes a
National emergency.'' In support of this National emergency, the
President invoked 2 statutory authorities:
Section 12302 of Title 10, U.S. Code, which authorizes the
Secretary of Defense to order to active duty up to 1,000,000
members of the Ready Reserve for up to 24 months.
Section 2808 of Title 10, U.S. Code, which authorizes the
Secretary of Defense to use unobligated military construction
funds to undertake military construction projects, and to
authorize the Secretaries of the Military Departments to
undertake military construction projects, not otherwise
authorized by law that are necessary to support the use of the
armed forces in connection with the National emergency.
conclusion
Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, distinguished Members of
the committee: This on-going, temporary DoD support is a continuation
of DoD's long history of supporting DHS and CBP in their mission to
secure U.S. borders. Thank you for your continued support to DoD and
the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.
Miss Rice. Thank you very much, Mr. Salesses.
I now recognize Major General McGuire to summarize his
statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MAJOR GENERAL MICHAEL T. MC GUIRE, ADJUTANT
GENERAL FOR ARIZONA, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY
AND MILITARY AFFAIRS
General McGuire. Good morning, Chairwoman Rice, Chairman
Thompson, Ranking Member Higgins, thanks to all the
distinguished Members of the committee for allowing me to come
here today and testify before you on behalf of the 7,800
citizens, soldiers, and airmen of the Arizona National Guard.
As you know, the National Guard of today dates its heraldry
back to 1634, and the modern-day militia is funded by Congress
under Title authorities since 1903.
The National Guard clearly is the first choice for homeland
defense missions. We are forward-deployed in 3,300 communities
at 2,700 different installations in 50 States, 3 territories,
and the District of Columbia, each of us serving in 3 unique
statuses.
First and foremost, Governor Doug Ducey can call the
members of the Arizona National Guard to State Active Duty to
support State requirements.
Second, he can collaborate with the Federal Government to
call us to duty under Title 32 authority, a State status which
is Federally-funded which is currently what is happening in its
fourth iteration this time with Operation Guardian Support.
Or he can all us forward under Title 10 authority, the
President can, to support contingency operations overseas as we
have for nearly 12,000 man-years since 9/11.
Since 9/11, the 7,800 soldiers and airmen of the Arizona
National Guard have deployed for 12,000 man-years. That means
if each of us had served continuously since 9/11, we would have
spent 1 year and 4 months overseas. We proudly support this
mission. Governor Ducey came to me, and I'd to give you some
specifics, since we are talking about Guardian Support today,
about how we got to the position we are in today.
In April 2018, President Trump directed the DoD to support
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The Secretary of Defense
then directed the National Guard to deploy up to 4,000 soldiers
and airmen to meet the mission requirement to provide aviation,
reconnaissance, situational awareness for the Southwest Border
region. This directive did not have a formal named operation
but was named Operation Guardian Support by Homeland Security.
Governor Ducey complied with and agreed to do this under
Title 32 authority. On April 6, 2018, the Arizona joint task
force formed a planning cell. Three days later we deployed 225
soldiers and airmen, all of them organic to the Arizona
National Guard, to be in support of the supported command, in
this case, our border protection and JTF West and Chief Karisch
as the operational element subordinate to Chief Provost.
Today, we have 546 soldiers and airmen deployed from 16
States supporting 17 directed missions as requested through
RFAs from DHS. The missions include under the category of
operational support, radio communications, motor transport
maintenance, motor transport operations, range safety officers,
heavy equipment operators, paralegal support, administrative
and clerical support, information analyst. Under the category
of surveillance support: Camera and remote camera operations,
imagery and sensor maintenance, unmanned aerial sensor
operators. In the area of air support, light- and medium-rotary
wing lift capacity and fixed-wing reconnaissance capacity.
The relationship between the Arizona National Guard and DHS
is not new. For over 30 years, the Arizona National Guard has
collaborated with the border protection agents that serve
primarily in our border counties, 4 of them on the 389 miles of
border between Arizona and Mexico.
So there is no misunderstanding, Arizona National Guard
does not act in a law enforcement capacity nor do our citizen
soldiers--or none of our citizen soldiers are placed in a
position to come in contact with migrants and are there for the
sole purpose of providing support to surge posted and armed
officers to do their enforcement duties. Although not
constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act under Title 32 duty, law
enforcement is not our directed mission, and the agreement
between the Governor and the President has stood since April
2018.
I yield back the balance of my time, ma'am. I look forward
to the questions of the committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General McGuire follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael T. McGuire
June 20, 2019
introduction
Good afternoon Chairwoman Rice, Ranking Member Higgins, and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. My name is Major General
Michael T. McGuire, and I am the adjutant general of Arizona and
director of the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs
(DEMA). I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today on
behalf of the 7,800 citizen soldiers and airmen of the Arizona National
Guard to discuss our mission to support the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security as well as our other local, State, and Federal partners
through a whole-of-Government approach to address the various
transnational issues that impact our borders.
From the Pequot War in 1634 to the current Overseas Contingency
Operations around the globe and Emergency Response Deployments around
the Nation, this hearing today highlights a mission that the National
Guard has capably executed for the past 385 years. The National Guard
is the modern-day militia, and has a long and honored history of
service to the country. Although the present-day National Guard was
established with the Militia Act of 1903, the National Guard's heritage
can be traced back to the first State-run militia regiments established
by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636. Since
that day, the National Guard has remained ready to answer the Nation's
call during times of emergency and conflict. In honor of that great
tradition, soldiers and airmen of the Arizona National Guard continue
to stand ready to answer that call.
The National Guard remains the first choice for homeland defense
operations, being uniquely trained and situated as the first line of
support to the Nation's local, State, and Federal first responder and
law enforcement agencies. Consistent with the citizen-soldier model of
the early militias, the present-day National Guard is embedded in the
local communities--policemen and firemen, small business owners,
carpenters, civil engineers, plumbers, and mechanics. This fact
provides intangible benefits--not only can the National Guard bring a
response force with military capabilities but also civilian skills such
as carpentry, mechanical, civil engineering, and business negotiation,
but National Guard troops also have home-town familiarity with the
geographic layout of the affected community, combined with an
understanding of the most at-risk areas. Put another way, with nearly
3,300 installations in 2,700 communities around the country, the
National Guard is America's ``forward-deployed'' homeland response
force.
national guard duty status enables local support
The National Guard is a flexible force provider that can quickly
provide direct and indirect capabilities based on constantly changing
requirements and needs. Arizona National Guard supports Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) requests for mission-enhancing capabilities to
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along the Southwest Border
providing capacity to enhance CBP's ability to impede or deny illegal
activity and enhance situational awareness.
Federal and State constitutions and statutes provide the primary
authority for use of military forces by the Federal and State
governments. These provisions, insofar as they apply to the National
Guard, reflect the Constitutional balance of power between the
sovereign States and the central Federal Government. National Guard
forces are unique among all other military components in that they may
be used in one of three legally distinct ways:
(1) by the Governor for a State purpose authorized by State law
(State Active Duty); or
(2) by the Governor, with the concurrence of the President or the
President's designee (e.g., the Secretary of Defense), for shared
State/Federal purposes or for a primary Federal purpose (Title 32
Duty); or
(3) by the President for a Federal purpose authorized by Federal
law (Title 10 duty).
operation guardian support
In April 2018, President Trump directed the Department of Defense
(DoD) to support the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The
Secretary of Defense directed the National Guard to employ up to 4,000
soldiers and airmen to meet this mission set and provide with aviation,
reconnaissance, operational, and logistical support to enable DHS to
increase operational control and situational awareness of the region.
This directive, though not a formal named operation, has been
informally nicknamed by DHS as Operation Guardian Support (OGS).
Arizona Governor Ducey ordered the Arizona National Guard to
support this Presidential directive, and on April 6, 2018 a planning
cell within the Arizona National Guard Joint Task Force was activated.
On April 9, 2018, the Arizona National Guard deployed 225 soldiers and
airmen to various DHS and CBP outposts along the State's border in
support of this new border mission. An additional 113 soldiers and
airmen were deployed 2 days later as authorized by National Guard
Bureau (NGB). Today, there are 546 soldiers and airmen assigned of 764
authorized positions with support from 16 States and territories. There
are 17 mission sets, per the fiscal year 2019 DHS Request for
Assistance (RFA), operated from 16 Border Patrol and Port of Entry
stations in the Yuma and Tucson sectors. The types of missions include:
Operational Support.--Radio Communications, Motor
Transportation Maintenance, Motor Transport Operations, Range
Safety Officer, Heavy Equipment Operations, Paralegal Support,
Administrative/Clerical Support, Information Analyst
Surveillance Support.--Camera Operations, USG/Imaging Sensor
Maintainer, UAS Sensor Operator
Air Support.--Light Rotary, Medium-Lift Rotary, Fixed-Wing.
The relationship between the Arizona National Guard and DHS is not
new. For 30 years, the Arizona National Guard has worked with various
partners across the Federal Government in areas along the border,
specifically through the National Guard Counter Drug program as
codified in the 32 USC 112 as well as various training missions of
opportunity that present themselves to support both DHS and National
Guard unit readiness. For example, one of our Transportation Companies
obtained valuable training by moving concrete barriers from one Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) Sector to another. In addition, the
National Guard has supported 3 prior iterations of the border mission
by providing aviation, operational, logistical, and administrative
support in Operation Jump Start from 2006 to 2008, and Operation
Phalanx from 2010 to 2016. Only during Operation Jump Start and the
first phase of Operation Phalanx did the National Guard provide
personnel to physically patrol the border to support CBP while
additional agents were recruited, trained, and deployed. I will discuss
both of these previous operations and our Counter Drug program in more
detail in a moment.
The current OGS mission is being accomplished through the
identification of specific RFAs by DHS to DoD/National Guard Bureau
(NGB) for validation and then to the respective State as approved force
authorization. Citizen soldiers and airmen are then assigned to those
specific force authorizations. These RFAs require specific functions
and duties as mentioned earlier--aviation, reconnaissance, and
operational support--and the Arizona National Guard is filling RFAs at
all of the border stations within the Tucson and Yuma border sectors in
Arizona. The current iteration of the border support mission is
informed by our experience with the previous border missions and has
evolved based on the changing nature of immigration, transnational
threats, and technology. Many of these RFAs are administrative in
nature, which is by design to support DHS and allow them to focus on
improving situational awareness and operational control along the
border while they recruit, train, and deploy additional staff and
agents.
So there is no misunderstanding, the Arizona National Guard does
not act in any law enforcement capacity along the border, nor have our
citizen soldiers and airmen been placed in a position that would come
into contact with migrants with the sole exception of providing air
lift capabilities to transport migrants experiencing an emergency life-
threatening situation to a civilian medical facility. Although not
constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act due to Title 32 deployment
status, law enforcement is not our mission. Further, DHS has never
requested the National Guard act or assist in a law enforcement
capacity in any iteration of these border missions, and a long-standing
Department of Defense directive specifically states that the Guard
members will not act in a law enforcement capacity. The Arizona
National Guard is strictly providing support, and, when done right,
that support provides a training value to our military missions--in
particular with the aviation, engineering, and ports of entry mission
sets.
To date through fiscal year 2019 in Arizona alone, CBP has credited
the National Guard with supporting CBP with over 26,500 apprehensions
and seizure of more than 18,000 pound of marijuana, methamphetamines,
and fentanyl. Aviation assets from Arizona and other States have
provided nearly 3,000 flight hours in support of OGS. Arizona and other
Guardsmen have also serviced 3,929 CBP vehicles, qualified 5,100 CBP
personnel with their quarterly firearms requirement, and repaired/
serviced 1,216 miles of roads. Additionally, individual readiness
(medical and physical fitness) among Arizona Guardsmen has remained
higher than State averages and that translates into increased unit
readiness. Other activities like aviation and intelligence analysis
directly align with yearly training requirements. General duties like
Mission Command, Administrative Support, and Logistics enhance the
soldier or airman's practical experience, all of which contribute to
warfighter readiness.
As stated in my opening paragraph, a whole-of-Government approach
is key. OGS supports DHS as a whole, but currently has only provided
support to fill RFAs from CBP. The biggest threats along the border are
not limited to illegal border crossings, but include violence and the
trafficking of drugs, humans, and weapons. Separate from OGS, the
Southwest Border legacy mission appropriation provided in the fiscal
year 2019 DoD budget has allowed the Arizona National Guard to place 14
soldiers on orders to conduct mission analysis and training activities
that support operations in Arizona's counties along the Southwest
Border while improving readiness of the Arizona Army National Guard in
areas such as aviation, transportation, and maintenance. Locally-
developed partnerships like the Alliance to Combat Transnational
Threats is a model for local, State, and Federal law enforcement
coordination. As proof of this whole-of-Government success, we offer
the Arizona National Guard Counter-Drug mission which partners with
over 70 local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. In our
domestic role, the National Guard is always in support of another
agency, whether it is responding to an emergency, combating
transnational crime, or supporting greater operational control and
situational awareness of the border region. Operation Guardian Support
is another opportunity to provide whole-of-Government support to our
local, State, and Federal partners.
current arizona national guard partnerships--counter drug task force
Through the Arizona National Guard Counter Drug Task Force, we
partner with over 70 local, State, and Federal law enforcement
agencies. Authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act in 1989
under 32 USC 112, the National Guard Counter Drug Program authorizes
up to 4,000 National Guard members to perform drug interdiction and
counterdrug activities in all 54 States and territories. The Arizona
National Guard's Counter Drug program, referred to as the Counter Drug
Task Force, began operations in 1989 and is currently the fourth-
largest program in the country. The mission of the Counter Drug Task
Force is based in law and provides military counterdrug and drug demand
reduction support to local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies
and community-based organizations. For the past 30 years, the highly-
skilled soldiers and airmen of the Counter Drug Task Force have
provided unsurpassed operational counterdrug support, and continue to
offer the continuity necessary to foster and maintain positive
relationships with over 70 Federal, State, and local drug enforcement
agencies and community organizations across the State of Arizona,
including: Customs and Border Protection, Homeland Security
Investigations, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Arizona High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Center,
Arizona Department of Public Safety, Arizona Counter-Terrorism
Information Center, Metro Intelligence Support and Technical
Investigation Center, Arizona Alliance to Combat Transnational Threats,
USNORTHCOM, Joint Task Force North, and various county and city law
enforcement agencies.
Serving in full-time National Guard Duty--Counter Drug status in
accordance with 32 USC 112, these soldiers and airmen are under State
control and are not subject to the the Posse Comitatus Act. Counter
Drug Task Force members have been given authorization to perform
``Support Only'' Counter Drug duties. It is this support role that
brings the greatest benefit to our partners. The Counter Drug Task
Force provides specific skill sets in support of civilian agencies,
enhancing their capabilities and at the same time allowing them to
devote their skill sets to their primary mission. These skill sets
include: Investigative Case and Analyst Support, Communications
Support, Ground Reconnaissance, Aerial Reconnaissance, and Civil
Operations, formerly known as Drug Demand Reduction. These skills
exercised through the Counter Drug Task Force in turn keep National
Guard members in ready form when they are needed for other operations
under the Governor's or the President's command.
past support to dhs and cbp
Arizona has a total land area of just over 113,998 square miles and
is the sixth-largest State in the Union. Arizona has an estimated
population of well over 7 million. Arizona shares 389 miles of
international border with Mexico and has 7 major ports of entry. Found
between Arizona's ports of entry are a variety and combination of
barriers that include pedestrian fencing, vehicle fencing, Normandy
barriers, triple-strand barbed wire fencing and cattle guard crossings
located on the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation only. The sovereign
territory of the Tohono O'odham Nation straddles 75 miles (28 percent)
of the Arizona/Mexico border. Nearly one-third of this reservation
extends south directly into Mexico, and members of the Tohono O'odham
Nation living on Tribal lands can freely traverse the border. Last
month, the Tohono O'odham Nation approved a proposal by CBP to
construct a virtual wall of 10 integrated fixed towers on Tribal lands
to deter migrants and smugglers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hennessy-Fiske, Molly. ``Arizona Tribe Refuses Trump's Wall,
but Agrees to Let Border Patrol Build Virtual Barrier.'' Los Angeles
Times, Los Angeles Times, 9 May 2019, www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-
arizona-tribe-border-patrol-trump-wall-20190509-htmlstory.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation Jump Start (June 2006-July 2008)
On May 15, 2006, President George W. Bush declared Operation Jump
Start as a 2-year, $1.2 billion program spread across the 4 Southwest
Border States. The mission required 6,000 National Guard members the
first year, and 3,000 the second year. The Department of Homeland
Security and Customs and Border Protection were allocated forces based
on their assessed needs that resulted in Arizona receiving 40 percent
of the forces; the largest percentage of the 4 Southwest Border States.
The goal of Operation Jump Start was to augment Customs and Border
Protection with additional manpower for administrative and operational
assistance missions, alleviating Border Protection agents of these
responsibilities and allowing those agents to be sent back out to the
field where they were needed most. Guard members from 51 of the 54
States and territories served in Arizona performing duties that
included Entry Identification Teams, camera operators, logistical
support, aviation support and engineering support. In total, 17,750
personnel participated on the mission. These personnel were comprised
of individual volunteers, sourced unit rotations, and unit annual
training rotations. During the first year of Operation Jump Start, an
average of 2,400 National Guard personnel conducted operations in
support of law enforcement efforts in Arizona. That number was reduced
to 1,200 personnel during the second year.
Operation Phalanx Phase One (July 2010-February 2012)
On May 25, 2010, President Obama directed the temporary use of up
to 1,200 National Guard personnel on the Southwest Border to support
Department of Homeland Security requirements. Arizona was authorized
560 of the 1,200 personnel for the mission which equates to 46 percent
of total mission personnel. Like Operation Jump Start, National Guard
personnel are funded under U.S. Code Title 32 502(f), in accordance
with the published Department of Defense order. Operation Phalanx
supports both Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security
Investigations by supporting three key mission sets: Entry
Identification Teams, Video Surveillance System support, and
Intelligence Analysis.
Of the 560 personnel initially authorized for Operation Phalanx in
Arizona, 504 personnel were tasked to support entry identification
sites that operated on a 24-hour basis in close proximity to Arizona's
Southern Border. Soldiers and airmen staffed 25 overt Entry
Identification Team sites across 4 stations in the Tucson sector. Due
to increased threat and violence along the international border,
Arizona National Guard personnel were armed and assumed a higher arming
status than similar missions during OPERATION Jump Start. Rules for the
use of force were clearly defined, published, and provided to each
service member on the mission.
Operation Phalanx Phase 2 (March 2012-December 2016)
In December 2011, the Department of Defense announced National
Guard personnel supporting the Department of Homeland Security would be
reduced from 1,200 to no more than 300 personnel and included a change
in mission. In addition to continuing the intelligence analyst mission,
the National Guard transitioned from a ground observation role to an
aerial reconnaissance mission.
ways to improve operation guardian support
There are limited mission modifications necessary. The CBP and
Arizona National Guard have remained aligned in requests and support.
The highly flexible nature of the National Guard and our constant
communication with CBP has ensured we are meeting the needs of CBP in
this dynamic environment.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Major General.
I thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I will
remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to
question the panel. I will now recognize myself for questions.
Chief Provost, the subcommittee, in planning this hearing,
invited the military adviser to the Secretary of Homeland
Security to testify about these efforts. But we were informed
that he was not ready to do so because he was newly reassigned
to that position and did not feel that he could get up to speed
even with 2 weeks time.
My question to you is, is the U.S. Border Patrol the sole
entity within DHS that is coordinating these joint efforts with
the Department of Defense at this time?
Chief Provost. Thank you for the question, ma'am.
No, Chairwoman, that is--we are not the sole ones. I will
tell you, we work very closely with DoD. We do have planners
that are embedded with them, because the majority of the
support is supporting my men and women between the ports of
entry, though as discussed earlier, a lot of work has been done
within CBP as well at the ports of entry. So we are probably
the main receivers of the support from the Border Patrol side
of the house.
Miss Rice. My question is, when you are in need of
something and you are reaching out to DoD, are you doing that
directly?
Chief Provost. We have planners embedded with them. We
create--from Border Patrol and from CBP, we do create the
request for assistance in conjunction. Then we work with our
partners at DoD. So that is being handled by some of my
personnel.
Miss Rice. So before you make any request, are you running
that up the chain through DHS and the leadership there?
Chief Provost. Yes, ma'am.
Miss Rice. Do you have conversations with anyone in the
administration outside of DHS?
Chief Provost. Outside of DHS? Do I?
Miss Rice. Yes.
Chief Provost. No, I do not.
Miss Rice. OK.
OK. I just want to continue with you, Chief Provost,
because you spent some time during your testimony talking about
the seizure of drugs that we know happens at our border. My
question to you is, has DHS conducted any assessments on the
impact that DoD's planned or proposed border wall projects for
areas between ports of entry might have on the volume of
illegal narcotics entering the country?
Chief Provost. When it comes to the illegal narcotics
coming across, there are really two types. There is what we
know, meaning what we have seized, and then what we don't know,
which is a difficult thing. I know Congress has asked numerous
times on that. The area of 2,000 miles along the Southwest
Border with Mexico, though, is a very vast and expansive area.
As I stated in my opening statement, my concerns are what is
getting across that I do not know about. I do know that the
cartels are taking advantage of the humanitarian crisis. The
example that I gave----
Miss Rice. No. No. No. I don't mean to interrupt, but I
have an limited period of time.
Prior to DoD going ahead with, as Mr. Salesses has talked
about, them building actual barriers at the border, did DHS
conduct a study to see if they were building in the right areas
and what impact that would have on the drugs that are coming
across the border?
Chief Provost. Border Patrol has identified where we need
barrier. We have done that through a field-driven process where
my field leadership and each of their respective areas
identifies, and through the border security improvement plan,
we have identified those miles where we have high traffic of--
whether it is narcotics, illegal activity.
So we had already----
Miss Rice. So you do--so you do the assessment.
Can we see that assessment that you have done?
Chief Provost. The border security improvement plan?
Miss Rice. Well, and any updates to that that may--that are
driving where DoD is doing their work.
Chief Provost. We have provided that to some. I will ensure
that you have our border security improvement plan.
Miss Rice. OK. In May of this year, both Acting Secretaries
of DHS and DoD announced their intent to continue joint efforts
on the Southern Border. The chairman of the joint chiefs of
staff later confirmed this by announcing that the Pentagon is
working with DHS to develop what they called a multi-year plan
for the border suggesting that DoD will deploy personnel to the
Southern Border for at least the remainder of this current
administration.
My question is to you, Mr. Salesses, is you mentioned
previous instances where there was this collaboration that
seemed primarily on a temporary basis. When you used the word
multi-year, that kind-of--that doesn't sound so we are trying
to address a crisis that is happening right now. That seems
more like you are planning on embedding yourselves on the
border for the long haul. So my question is, what is the status
of this planning effort and what are its objectives?
Mr. Salesses. Chairwoman, it is actually a joint venture.
We have provided military planners to DHS. We actually have
provided a general officer to work with DHS and CBP to develop
a longer-term plan. We know that the crisis continues. But we
want to know what the future looks like and to plan for that.
So there is a team that has been put together. They are
developing a what we refer to as campaign plan to make sure
that we understand where all the deficiencies are and the gaps
are, not just at the Southern Border but within the whole
immigration system starting from what happens in Central
America to what happens in the immigration process all the way
to--back to DOJ in that regard.
Miss Rice. OK. Thank you.
Now, I know I am out of time, but I just--Chief Provost,
and I guess to you, Mr. Salesses. It seems to me that the
reason why DoD has to come in is because you, as the CBP and
higher up the chain to DHS, have decided that you are going to
take trained Border Patrol agents away from their--the jobs
that they are trained to do and have them doing different
things that independent contractors could be hired to do so
that you wouldn't create the crisis and need DoD to intervene.
So I just wanted to throw that out, because it seems to me
that, you know, to take Border Patrol agents away from what
they are trained to do and have them doing, you know,
activities that can be done by hiring independent contractors,
which you have been given the money to do, seems a little
shortsighted. But I don't have any time for any more questions,
so I just wanted to comment on that.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, the
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, for questions.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Chief Provost, you mentioned that the decisions made
regarding enhanced physical barriers, the specific miles of
those requested barriers, and some that are under construction
was field-driven. What do you mean by that, ma'am? Would you
clarify? That means that, based upon data, that--provided by
actual boots-on-the-ground knowledge of where enhanced physical
barrier is needed, can you clarify that, please?
Chief Provost. Certainly, sir. I have 9 sectors along the
Southwest Border. In each of those sectors, I have Border
Patrol agents, ground agents that are involved in the process
of identifying where a barrier is needed. That goes all the way
up through the respective chief of each sector. They identify
within their areas of responsibility where they believe that
barrier makes sense in supporting our mission.
Mr. Higgins. Not to interrupt you, madam, but you are not--
you are referring to one continuous long barrier, or are you
talking about 17 miles here, 15 miles there, 10 miles the next
place, et cetera?
Chief Provost. That is correct. It is dependent upon the
traffic. We look at--when we talk about operational control, we
look at the need for situational awareness, which often comes
through technology or personnel, the response, which is our
personnel, and impedence and denial, which is what that barrier
brings.
Mr. Higgins. Yes, ma'am.
You also mentioned, and thank you for clarifying that,
because no one is talking about putting a 30-foot wall on top
of a 200-foot cliff, are we?
Chief Provost. No.
Mr. Higgins. There is already a 200-foot wall there.
Chief Provost. Big Bend sector would be an example of
natural barriers.
Mr. Higgins. You mentioned layers of security in your
opening statement. You mentioned technology to detect an
incoming illegal crossing. You mentioned physical barrier to
deter, I believe was your language----
Chief Provost. To impede and deny.
Mr. Higgins [continuing]. That physical crossing, and to
delay it. You mentioned enhanced capacity to respond. This is
generally the layered security that we have referred to in this
subcommittee. Would you concur that that is the type of
security that we need? That these elements work together.
Chief Provost. In my 25 years now that I am coming up on on
the border, I have seen the benefits of a mixture of these
resources. That mixture varies depending upon locations. But it
is a mixture. It is not one or the other. We need some of all
of this.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you. I'd like to give you an opportunity
to address the status of the spirit of your men and women as
they face unending stress and crisis every day. I commend you,
ma'am, and American men and women that serve our country on the
border. I just cannot imagine how they can continue day after
day after day.
Would you, please, address what I might refer to as a
humanitarian crisis growing within our own forces there?
Chief Provost. Certainly, sir. Thank you for that question.
First and foremost, my men and women are the ones doing the
real job out there, and I am just honored to have the
opportunity to represent them.
This crisis, and it is a crisis, I have stated it before,
is certainly having an impact on my men and women. The hours
that they are working, the things that they are seeing, the
time it is taking them away from their families, this is like
no other crisis that I have seen in my career when it comes to
the humanitarian side of the house. It is certainly draining on
my men and women. When I go out and see them, I am extremely
impressed with their resiliency. But they are working long
hours. Many of them are detailed away from home supporting the
overtime hours. Border Patrol agents already work a 50-hour
week. Then I am asking them to work even more with overtime to
be able to deal with the crisis. So it certainly puts a strain
on them personally, and it has an impact on their families
because they are away from home as well as they are dealing
with this, not to mention the things they are seeing.
Mr. Higgins. Well, they are to be commended and given great
honor for their service.
Do you think that it would do well for the spirit of your
men and women to know that Congress had their back? That
Congress was going to provide the resources that they had been
requesting for a long time and is badly needed?
Chief Provost. Yes, sir, that would certainly help.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, ma'am.
General McGuire, I give you my remaining time, sir, 15 or
20 seconds, just to address the military readiness and if your
deployment has impacted, your overall mission from military
preparedness, as these hours, these flat hours, et cetera, this
active-duty time, has it been helpful?
General McGuire. It actually has been very helpful for us
to develop readiness. I will give you one example. We had a
battalion headquarters deployed down from a State, it was
Wisconsin, a year ago. They were converting to Mike model Black
Hawks, and they were able to do all their readiness level
progression training in support of border protection there from
Silver Bell Army heliport. Got up on step in the new helicopter
much quicker than if they had been home throughout that entire
year.
Mr. Higgins. So this mission has actually, in your opinion,
General, enhanced military readiness and preparedness?
General McGuire. It doesn't degrade military readiness. We
assign soldiers based on their military specialties and airmen
based on their military specialties to expand skills that could
be adapted back. The biggest risk to mission long-term is our
ability to make sure that in States like Arizona and Texas that
are providing the majority of the force that is in support,
that they have the opportunity to do the mission command task
back at their unit so senior NCOs warrant officer and officers
have the opportunity to train, to platoon company level
readiness for those formations on their drill weekends.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you for that clarification, General, and
for your service.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
The Chair will now recognize other Members for questions
they may wish to ask the witnesses. In accordance with our
committee rules, I will recognize Members who were present at
the start of the hearing based on seniority on the committee
alternating between Majority and Minority. Those Members coming
in later will be recognized in the order of their arrival.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chief, will you provide the committee how you are measuring
the effectiveness of this joint deployment with DoD? What are
your matrix?
Chief Provost. Thank you, Chairman. There are numerous
metrics that we track when it comes to the benefits that--
whether it is my men and women or the DoD are bringing. That
has to do with border security and operational control.
We track our interdiction effectiveness rate. I spoke to
got-aways earlier. That is one of the things that we track, as
well as apprehensions, seizures, all of these types of things.
We are tracking the specific numbers. As I stated, DoD has
specifically helped us with over 100,000 apprehensions as well
as drug seizures in marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
That support, as my agents are being pulled away to deal with
the humanitarian crisis, is key when it comes to us having
situational awareness on the border, because my resources are
depleted.
Mr. Thompson. So do you have any resources at this point
based on the Chairperson of the subcommittee's comments to
contract for any of those services you are taking the agents
away?
Chief Provost. We have numerous contracts. I will use the
medical, for example. When it comes to medical care, we have
expanded our contracts there. When it comes to transportation,
we do have contracts. That is just not sufficient to keep up
with the amount of transportation that I need. A part of that
has to do with the contractors' ability to get through--get
enough individuals into the area. So most recent has been----
Mr. Thompson. So is it a matter you don't have money for
the contracts, or is it the contractor you are using, just as
you said, doesn't have the ability to find people?
Chief Provost. It is both, sir. When it comes to the amount
of money that we have been spending on the humanitarian, we
need more funding to support those contracts. At the same time,
working in remote locations, it is difficult to get personnel
into those locations at times. There aren't necessarily just--
there are not necessarily individuals with the correct
background to be able to work in the positions that we need
them in.
Mr. Thompson. What I would like you to provide for the
committee is your efforts to extend the contracts for services
that you presently contract for that you are now deploying your
agents to do. Can you provide----
Chief Provost. Certainly. We have the information on our
contracts to include our transport and our medical contracts.
We can----
Mr. Thompson. I am looking for your efforts to expand those
contracts. You gave medical or any other contracts.
Chief Provost. Definitely.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Chief Provost. Sure.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Salesses, at this point, how much can you
provide the committee in terms of the cost of that--the
deployments up to this point.
Mr. Salesses. Chairman, the estimated cost for the military
support is about $400 million.
Mr. Thompson. To this point.
Mr. Salesses. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Are you familiar with Section 2808?
Mr. Salesses. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. OK. So if you looked at that--have we
accessed any of those funds to build a border wall?
Mr. Salesses. Sir, we have not. There is no decision been
made at that point. The Department continues to assess the use
of 2808.
Mr. Thompson. Do you have any idea when the assessment will
be complete?
Mr. Salesses. Sir, I don't. You know, we have had a number
of reviews and analysis of the border barrier in support of
2808, and that decision is pending. It could come in the next a
couple of weeks.
Mr. Thompson. Well, the reason I ask is the deployment was
predicated on a National emergency, and, you know, we have been
at this a good while. So if it is a National emergency, you
know, it either is or it is not. If it is this emergency, is
that decision a DoD decision, or is it a decision at the White
House?
Mr. Salesses. Sir, it is a DoD decision.
Mr. Thompson. It is DoD?
Mr. Salesses. Yes, sir, it is. It is the Secretary of
Defense's. It is military construction that is necessary to
support the use of the Armed Forces is what the authority says.
So it is the Secretary's decision to make that determination.
Again, he is working with the Chairman and others to assess the
proper use of that. As you know----
Mr. Thompson. I understand. But we have all been told that
we need to build this big beautiful border wall, and so that is
an issue.
So do you think it is appropriate to use DoD assets to
paint a border wall?
Mr. Salesses. Sir, in fairness to you and I, the reason the
wall is being painted is CBP and DHS asked us. This paint that
is being applied has been--has indicated that there is an anti-
climb feature, so if people try to scale the wall, that that
makes it very difficult. So this is a test of 1 mile to see how
effective that anti-climb paint is going to be. That is----
Mr. Thompson. So you are saying it is fine----
Mr. Salesses. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. To paint it?
Mr. Salesses. To support this effort, with everything that
is going on, it seems like a reasonable----
Mr. Thompson. Chief, can you tell why we can't contract for
the painting of the wall?
Chief Provost. I cannot speak to the funding aspect of it.
I identify the operational requirement that I have when it
comes to barriers.
Mr. Thompson. So just for the record, who determined to
paint the wall with military assets?
Mr. Salesses. DHS and CBP asked for our assistance to do
that, asked DoD for that assistance. We are using engineers to
do that, the same engineers that put the concertina wire on
top.
Mr. Thompson. So, Chief, you asked for the military to
paint the wall?
Chief Provost. So we have asked for that support, I
believe, in one of the RFAs. RFA 7, I believe.
Mr. Thompson. Well, can you provide the committee with
whatever direction that request to paint the wall by the
military went to?
Chief Provost. Certainly.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes, for 5 minutes, the gentlewoman
from Arizona, Mrs. Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I am going to start by reading an article that was
published 6 days ago in the Arizona Republic.
``The body of a 7-year old girl was found Wednesday about
17 miles west of Lukeville in a remote desert area, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection said. Officials believe the child
was India trying to cross from Mexico into the United States
with a group from that country, according to the agency. Border
Patrol agents believe human smugglers dropped the group near
the Mexican border where they were told to cross the terrain
into Arizona alone, the agency said. Agents searched for the
missing people north of the border in remote terrain. They
eventually found the little girl's body after a few hours. The
remote area where she was found is a rugged desert wilderness
with few roads and resources. The area had a high temperature
around 108 degrees Wednesday. After agents found the girl's
body, they continued to search for the other 2 people who had
been traveling with her, the release said. The National Guard
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent out aircraft and
helicopters to search the area.''
I am not going to read the rest of it, because I only have
3 minutes and 40 seconds left. But the point of reading this is
that we have a crisis at the border. We have had a crisis at
the border. I live in Arizona. I have been to the border. So it
wasn't so long ago that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer said
this is a manufactured crisis.
So I am very happy to hear today from both the Chairman and
the Committee Chairman that they are actually acknowledging
that there is a crisis now. So I really hope that we will work
together, as I said before, to try to change some of these
policies. Because as you can tell from this story, the
smugglers could give a darn about these migrants. The smugglers
are making money off these people.
So instead of blaming President Trump, I wish we would put
the blame where it belongs, with these smugglers, with the
cartels, with the people that are abusing these migrants. Also
with us, quite frankly, because we are not changing our
policies.
Last year we had two pieces of legislation that I know of
where we could have changed our policies to help stop this flow
of the smugglers exploiting migrants. But not one of my
Democratic colleagues voted yes.
Now, fortunately, we have in the Senate some type of
potential agreement to fund the humanitarian crisis over there
at least, which has been rejected I think 17 times by my
Democrat colleagues in the House.
So I want to work with you. I am not trying to be
disparaging. But I do have a question for you, Chief Provost.
How would the funding for the humanitarian crisis, the $4.6
billion that is being proposed, help you to solve the crisis at
the border?
Chief Provost. Thank you, ma'am.
Well, in numerous ways. You just mentioned it when you
talked about the tragedies that we are seeing out there. The
rescues, we have already rescued over 3,300 people crossing the
border. As you identified, the temperatures are rising. This is
a dangerous time of year.
That funding would help in relation to all of the
humanitarian expenses that are coming out of my operating
budget right now, help support those medical contracts,
transportation, help support when it comes to air support and
getting--being able to get out into those remote areas, all of
the consumables of taking care of these folks when they are
coming into our custody and our care.
Those are expenses that are not in my baseline budget. They
are just not there because of this crisis coming up here over
the last year. It would support all of those efforts, the care
of the individuals in our custody when it comes to the
humanitarian crisis and then dealing with just what we see on a
day-to-day basis on the border.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you very much.
With the short time I have left, General McGuire, can you
provide some examples of the positive impact the National Guard
has had working with CBP on the border?
General McGuire. Well, ma'am, you mentioned the unfortunate
incident we had just a couple weeks ago. Fortunately, the
aviation and rotary wing support that we have had has led to no
less than one humanitarian save of a life in the desert every
time we have done this, and this is our fourth iteration of
this.
We have a great relationship with the JTF West Command and
the Tucson and Yuma Sector chiefs. Because of the nature of us
only getting involved when there is an emergent condition to
answer the call, we have picked up a number of their 9-1-1
calls and been able to be in support of them.
The other thing I would say that has been hugely successful
is it is great for our soldiers and airmen because they get the
opportunity to contribute to their local communities. We just
redeployed 400 soldiers from Afghanistan a month ago. All of
them had been there for 10 months, so 400 of them redeployed,
58 of them asked immediately to turn around and try to fill the
200 soldier and airmen gap we have between what we presently
have on the border and willing to go forward.
They are motivated to help. Fifteen percent of our
guardsmen serve in their civilian capacity in police and law
enforcement. It is the No. 1 sector for our National Guard
formations. So they have a strong kinship with the Border
Protections and Customs, OFO, and all the groups that they work
with along the border. So it has been a great opportunity for
all of them.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for all the men and women that work in CBP,
Department of Defense, the National Guard. You guys are heroes.
Thank you.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from
New Mexico, Ms. Torres Small.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
Thank you, Chief Provost, for your long tenured career and
service in the Border Patrol. Thank you as well, Mr. Salesses,
as well as Major General McGuire, for your service to our
country.
I have the honor of representing New Mexico's Second
Congressional District. I am the only Member of the Homeland
Security Committee that represents a district directly on the
U.S.-Mexico border, and I serve on both House Armed Services as
well as Homeland Security. So this is an important issue.
Chief, I also just want to thank your staff. Dan has been
great to work with, and thank you for that.
So, back to this issue, when DoD redirected $1 billion from
military personnel to build 57 million--or 57 miles of wall, a
lot of it is in some rural parts of my district. That is why
the analysis of why that is going to make impact really matters
to me.
Part of that needs to be--with everything that is going on
in the border, part of that is about the drug interdiction,
sector by sector. I know that the committee has actually asked
for that information, the sector-by-sector analysis, and it
hasn't received it.
So, Chief, would you commit to providing that sector-by-
sector drug interdiction information?
Chief Provost. I will go back to the Department and see
whether or not--I know we provide National. I am not sure when
it comes to specific sector-by-sector. But I can tell you in
the border security improvement plan, that that is part of the
analysis that we do, and we will ensure that you get that plan.
Ms. Torres Small. Well, thank you. The most up-to-date
information is very helpful. We have to make sure we are
adapting to changing circumstances. I really appreciate that
your office has provided the El Paso sector information--drug
interdiction information to my office recently, so I know it is
possible to do.
Chief Provost. Very good.
Ms. Torres Small. So, if you can commit to it, I would
deeply appreciate it.
Chief Provost. OK.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you so much.
Moving on, I deeply also appreciate Border Patrol's
investment in these potential support positions to do some of
the work that is currently taking Border Patrol agents and
Customs officers off of the line and from the ports of entry
when it comes to, for example, hospital watch or
transportation. We are excited to support that effort. So I
wanted to get some more information from you specifically on
the qualifications that you see will be necessary for that
position.
Chief Provost. Certainly. We are in the process, as you
well know, of developing that position and ensuring that--as
well as the training that will go with that new position that
we have created. It is in the final phases of determining
everything that will go into it. So I do not have the full
analysis.
Of course, we have our attorneys and everyone involved when
it comes to what they need for all of the legal aspects of the
position. But that being said, we are very, very close to
having all of that completed and would be more than happy to
get that to you.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. As Congress looks at what and
how to fund this humanitarian crisis, as much information about
this position will be helpful.
The other conversation that you had about contracting
support----
Chief Provost. Yes.
Ms. Torres Small [continuing]. And the challenges, as well
as I am pleased to hear that you are working to expand that
support, will these supplemental, these support positions
supplement the contract support or replace it?
Chief Provost. I apologize, ma'am, if I didn't understand
the question. The supplemental positions?
Ms. Torres Small. Yes, these--sorry.
Chief Provost. Those would be helping in processing,
transport some of those, so it would support it. I would tell
you obviously the time to hire and those types of things will
take some time to hire and train individuals to--so to say
depending--you know, whether it would ultimately fully take
away the need for the contract support, I can't say at this
point.
Ms. Torres Small. OK. Our sense is that the need is so
strong that it doesn't necessarily require replacement. We
would be eager to see you expand as much as possible this--some
of the needs here.
Chief Provost. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. Do you have a hiring target
for these support positions?
Chief Provost. I do not have the total number yet on that.
That is one of the things that we are trying to finalize right
now.
Ms. Torres Small. In my short remaining time, I just want
to switch to military readiness as a member of House Armed
Services. How is--sorry, Mr. Salesses, how is the DoD tracking
potential impacts and declines in readiness?
Mr. Salesses. So, Congresswoman, you can imagine from your
experience on the House Armed Services Committee, we watch that
very closely. So the chairman of the joint chiefs, the
Secretary, the service secretaries, the service chiefs all
monitor the readiness and, in fact, I just received the
readiness briefing last week. Predominantly, it is Army and
Marine Corps forces being deployed right now, and so they----
Ms. Torres Small. Just with the 4 seconds left, how are
they monitoring it?
Mr. Salesses. Well, they monitor it through the process,
the DRRS process that we have, which allows you to--the
commanders at the local level, at the higher levels to input
the readiness of the units based on personnel, based on
equipment, based on their training and those kinds of things.
So it is a very--the DRRS system is a sophisticated system.
Ms. Torres Small. You are tracking the continued impact?
Mr. Salesses. Yes, ma'am, we are.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you for yielding, Madam Chairwoman, and
thank you for convening this hearing on one of the most
critical and important topics that we face in Congress today.
There is an unprecedented crisis that we as a Nation face on
our Southern Border. Over 144,000 immigrants attempted to
illegally enter between ports of entry along the Southwest
Border in May 2019, a 622-percent increase over the same month,
just 2 years ago.
In the face of the inaction by Congress on this matter,
President Trump has had to declare a state of emergency and
direct the Secretary of Defense to deploy National Guard troops
to the border to help CBP deal with this incredible crisis.
It is necessary to point out that the reason for a National
Guard presence at the border, as I learned from taking--talking
to Border Patrol agents in Arizona just a month ago, is that we
currently are overwhelmed at Border Patrol.
We are overwhelmed because my colleagues across the aisle
refuse to take up the necessary legislation to fix the
loopholes in our asylum system and because of the refusal to
allocate the necessary $4.5 billion in emergency aid that the
Department of Homeland Security has asked for in order to feed
and shelter the families and unaccompanied children.
In fact, they blocked legislation that would do so 15 times
in the last month alone. The unwillingness of Congress to solve
this problem prompted me and 4 Members, colleagues from the
Pennsylvania delegation, to ask our Governor to send
Pennsylvania National Guard to the Southern Border.
Unfortunately, the Governor called this a stunt, and he called
the crisis on our Southern Border hyperbole.
So, today, I intend to find out from you, our experts,
whether the Governor's assessment of the situation is correct
or whether more National Guard troops are needed and could be
effective at our border.
Chief Provost, I understand multiple States have sent
National Guard troops and assets to assist with the Operation
Guardian Support mission. Today's statements indicate that
there are currently 546 soldiers and airmen deployed out of the
necessary 764 that are authorized in positions.
If the State of Pennsylvania tomorrow offered you
additional National Guard forces, would you be able to make use
from them and would you be able to better secure and protect
our Southern Border?
Chief Provost. Thank you, sir. Certainly. The--as I stated
in my opening statement, the support from the Guard and DoD has
been invaluable, particularly as my resources have been
diverted away, 40 to 60 percent of my resources being diverted.
It concerns me about border security. We are dealing with a
humanitarian crisis, but that is negatively impacting our
ability to secure the border, and border security is National
security.
Mr. Joyce. Additionally, Chief Provost, do you think that
describing the current situation at our Southern Border as a
hyperbole, do you feel that is correct?
Chief Provost. No. I would disagree wholeheartedly with
that. This crisis, as I said before, is like nothing I have
seen in my 25 years. It truly is a crisis. I have been saying
that since at least February to Congress when I testified back
then.
We need your support. We need the funding as well that you
have mentioned to support throughout DHS, not just for the
Border Patrol, because when my partners don't have the funding
they need, it negatively impacts my operations as well. Because
I am the only one--the Border Patrol is the only one who can't
say no. When these folks are coming in, they end up in our
custody and our care, and we can't say no. So I need funding as
well for my other partners along the way, ICE, HHS to be able
to do their portion of this, automatic way through DOJ.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Chief Provost. Thank you for
addressing the real crisis that you and your team face.
Chief Provost. Thank you.
Mr. Joyce. Madam Chairwoman, I yield.
Miss Rice. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes for 5
minutes the gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to thank our witnesses, Chief Provost, for being
here today. I do a lot of good work with your folks out in
Orange County as well as at the border of San Ysidro.
Secretary of Defense, also thank you very much.
General McGuire, I want to thank all of you for your
service to our country.
You are absolutely right, Chief, we do have a crisis
unprecedented. I think it is one not just in our part of the
world but Central America we have, what, 2 million refugees,
Venezuelans spread around Central America. When you see this,
when you see violence you see people doing what they need to
do, which is flee for their lives. So this is a challenge for
all of us.
Chief, President Trump on June the 8th praised Mexico for a
huge deal in immigration. He says, and this is New York Post,
June the 8th: Mexico agrees to keep Central America migrants
seeking asylum in the U.S. on the Mexican side of the border
until their cases are decided. Tell me how this will affect
your job or how we are going to implement this new immigration
policy.
Chief Provost. You are--the program that you are
discussing, Congressman, is a program that we have been working
with the Government of Mexico on certain individuals.
Mr. Correa. Before June the 8th?
Chief Provost. Yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. How long have you--so was it a big deal on June
the 8th, or was it a deal that had already been in the works?
Chief Provost. The Government of Mexico has agreed to
expand that operation. We had been doing it in--with California
and as well as El Paso.
Mr. Correa. How are they expanding it?
Chief Provost. Accepting more individuals back to wait for
their hearings.
Mr. Correa. So they were--how many were they accepting and
how much are they----
Chief Provost. There wasn't a set number per se, but we had
started it in California and in the El Paso area.
Mr. Correa. If you don't--and I am not trying to be
argumentative with you. I would love to talk to you about this
off-line.
Chief Provost. Certainly.
Mr. Correa. But I am trying to figure out, as this program
expands and this humanitarian crisis in terms of these refugees
being now housed, I should say, on the Mexican side, how is
that going to address our resource allocation north and maybe
in the Southern Border to make sure we do the right thing when
it comes to a humanitarian crisis?
Chief Provost. Well, we work very closely with the
Government of Mexico when it comes to----
Mr. Correa. Do you have any specifics on that, though?
Chief Provost. Are you asking for numbers, or are you
asking for----
Mr. Correa. Specific, yes. Do we have any thoughts of how
we are going to implement this expanded plan?
Chief Provost. Yes. We have coordinated with the Government
of Mexico. It is dependent upon them having the ability to take
a certain number each day. We have already expanded that
number. It does vary from day to day because it is dependent on
numerous factors.
Mr. Correa. Let me shift here real quick. I have got 2
minutes, unfortunately.
Secretary Kelly, when he was head of Homeland Security, he
was in this committee and I asked him a question. In my words,
his answer--we talked about border security--he said: It is not
about border security. It is about regional security and
coordinating with our allies around the world. He considered
Mexico as one of our allies.
You mentioned your issue is you don't know--you are
concerned about the things you don't know. So my question to
you would be, are you coordinating with the Mexican authorities
to identify, and are you in coordination from Mexico and maybe
Colombia on the issues of immigration and possible drugs?
Chief Provost. So we have coordinated with Mexico for
years, and we work very closely with our partners at--in
Mexico. We also have individuals stationed world-wide----
Mr. Correa. We are not going at this alone. We are not
going at this alone.
Chief Provost. We have individuals stationed world-wide in
various countries specific to immigration issues, drug
trafficking, and the such, working closely with various
governments.
Mr. Correa. I am glad to hear you say that because when I
was in San Ysidro about 6 months ago, I went in, and I looked
at your station there, and I looked at their board. They have a
black board or white board of the names of the individuals they
had actually apprehended that evening or the evening before.
Half the names were Hispanic. The other half were actually
Indian surnames. I say this to you because you are right when
you talk about this refugee crisis is not just regional. I
think it is world-wide.
Finally, in the 20 seconds that I have, another article in
The Wall Street Journal, 2 days ago: ``U.S. Seizes Massive Haul
of Cocaine Aboard a Ship in Philadelphia.'' This is the latest
in a series of large cocaine busts along the East Coast.
You mentioned some numbers on drug seizures. How would you
compare the drug seizures along the border inland versus those
at sea?
Chief Provost. Well, it would be difficult. I don't want to
speak for my partners at the ports of entry----
Mr. Correa. Because I have talked to the Coast Guard my
subcommittee addresses, and they have told me that the seizures
off their coast are record-breaking as well.
Chief Provost. I would say that we have--are having a lot
of seizures everywhere, sir.
Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, and I look forward to
talking to you off-line a little bit more. I yield.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
To all of the witnesses, first, I want to thank you for
your service to our country. I want to thank you for what you
are doing as you are attempting to manage what is a very
difficult situation along our Southwest Border. I want to speak
a little bit on drugs, kind-of follow up on the question that
you were just asked.
Do we continue to have a drug crisis along our Southwest
Border?
Chief Provost. Yes.
Mr. Guest. It would be to each witness. Would you agree--
would each witness agree that we currently have a drug crisis
along our Southwest Border?
Chief Provost. Yes, I would agree.
Mr. Guest. General, I think you addressed that in your
report that--or your written testimony that you gave. You state
that, through fiscal year 2019, with the National Guard
support, CBP has over 26,500 apprehensions, 18,000 pounds of
marijuana, methamphetamines, and fentanyl have been seized.
Could you expand on that just a little bit, please, sir?
General McGuire. Those are the numbers that we have through
the Counter Drug Task Force and working with a multitude of law
enforcement, both Federal, State, and local entities. The flow
of illicit narcotics continues on the Southwest Border, and
unfortunately, the Arizona corridor is a heavily-trafficked
corridor. There have been quite a bit of violent activity in
that area over the last 6 years. Most recently with the opioid
crisis, the huge increase in Mexican black tar heroin has been
the one thing that we have seen as a big uptick over the last 2
years.
Mr. Guest. Chief, maybe you can speak on this. How does the
current immigration crisis that we are seeing along our
Southwest Border, how does that affect your operations as you
attempt to stop the flow of illegal drugs into our country?
Chief Provost. It is pulling my manpower away from the
ability to deal with the border security mission. I can tell
you that the smugglers are certainly taking advantage of that
while my men and women are dealing with the humanitarian
crisis.
We have had examples where they have run large groups. We
have apprehended over 193 groups of 100 people or more at a
time already this year, fiscal year to date. They will run a
large group of people, and then, while my agents are distracted
dealing with that, they are running narcotics in other areas,
and this is a tactic that they use.
Mr. Guest. So, because of a lack of manpower to basically
perform both missions simultaneously----
Chief Provost. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guest [continuing]. The drug cartels are using the
human trafficking and the immigration as a way to distract, to
tie up your manpower, your resources. Then at the same time,
they are using that as an attempt or an ability to smuggle
illegal drugs in our country. Would that be correct?
Chief Provost. That is correct.
Mr. Guest. You are saying that the drug cartels and drug
organizations in Central and South America are aware of this
problem, and they are using this problem as a way to continue
to get illegal drugs into our country?
Chief Provost. Yes, they are.
Mr. Guest. How have you seen this recent crisis that we are
experiencing today, how does it differ from past immigration
crises that we have seen along our bother?
Chief Provost. The key is the demographic shift. When we
have had numbers of--and it was mentioned earlier of a million
apprehensions previously--we have--that demographic has been
generally single adult Mexican nationals who could be
voluntarily returned and many of them were.
It also was a difference of--the numbers are--I would--I
call them apples and oranges. You are comparing apples and
oranges. I personally would catch the same group in Douglas,
Arizona, back in the 1990's 3 times, so that was counted as 3
apprehensions. This--the numbers that we are catching now do
not have a--we do not have a high re-apprehension rate because
most of them are being brought into the country.
So the demographic has changed. It takes a lot more for my
manpower to process these individuals. Then there is the
humanitarian care issues that we are dealing with too and the
time that it takes to deal with that, 76 trips to the hospital
a day with individuals that we are apprehending.
Mr. Guest. Chief, too, just very quickly, before my time is
up, if additional funding was appropriated by Congress, could
you use additional manpower along our Southwest Border to
prevent illegal drugs from flowing into our country?
Chief Provost. Most definitely.
Mr. Guest. If Congress were to change our current
immigration laws or asylum laws so that we did not have the
flood of individuals coming into our country seeking asylum,
would those changes, in your opinion, would it also help you
and your agency better be able to keep out illegal drugs from
coming into America?
Chief Provost. Yes, it would.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Peters.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Higgins, for allowing me to join the subcommittee today.
The San Diego sector has seen tens of thousands of
migrants, including unaccompanied children, family units, and
single adults arrive at our border since October. The city and
the county of San Diego, the State of California, and many
local organizations of volunteers have stepped in to take care
of the migrants entering the community. Certainly grateful for
their dedication and hard work.
The relationship between the CBP and the Armed Services is
not new in San Diego, as you well know. Particularly, I visited
with Border Patrol officers most recently in March and saw how
the Coast Guard supports border security operations in a pretty
seamless way. The Coast Guard Medical Corps has been asked to
assess CBP's medical programs, which is critical to make sure
that the migrants are being taken care of, especially after
these treacherous journeys.
I think the concern we have is that the Federal Government
has relied on its military forces to enhance enforcement
outside of the normal relationship and that maybe we are
deploying the military in places where that is really not the
appropriate personnel. I want to talk a little bit about that
today.
Mr. Salesses, the DoD is currently reviewing, I understand,
a request to house an additional 1,400 accompanied--
unaccompanied children. Is that correct?
Mr. Salesses. Sir, that has actually been approved. We are
going to house those children at Fort Sill----
Mr. Peters. Great.
Mr. Salesses [continuing]. And they should start being
housed there sometime mid-July, sir.
Mr. Peters. So tell me how you assign the duties. How does
the Department work with CBP or HHS to set up and maintain the
facilities, and who staffs them and who oversees it?
Mr. Salesses. So, sir, HHS is responsible for the children,
as you point out, and we work very closely with them. They come
to us and ask that we identify facilities and potentially land
to house the children. They would establish soft-sided
facilities if they were going to use the land.
What we have done is that they go out and they do a site
assessment at a military facility like they did at Fort Sill.
They look at the facilities that are available to them to house
the children. They make an assessment based on the location and
their ability to provide the services that are needed. DoD does
not provide any services. We just provide the facility. They
provide the care to the children. That is the way that it----
Mr. Peters. I want to say that, when I visited the border
in March we--it was very--made very clear to us that the DoD
understands this role. They were providing logistics support
and reconnaissance, and I guess that that is within their scope
of their expertise.
But the other thing we heard, Chief Provost, was that there
were authorized positions in CBP that you couldn't fill. So I
understand that there must be some obstacles to getting people
hired. Can you tell me what those are?
Chief Provost. Well, certainly. There is a lot of
competition in the law enforcement world in general right now
when comes to hiring? That being said, we have made--last year
was the first year we made progress. We hired more people than
we lost, and we are on track to do that again this year. But I
certainly need many, many more resources.
We have expanded our recruitment program. We are seeing
more individuals come into the pipeline, as we would call it.
My academy is currently full, which is a good sign, first time
it has been in a few years. All of the classes are full through
the fiscal year, so I am happy to see those kinds of numbers
coming in. But it does take time to hire for Federal law
enforcement and particularly into CBP through the process. We
have expedited the process, the hiring process, and taken
several steps in that area as well.
Mr. Peters. It would be my preference and I suspect that
most of my colleagues would like to see CBP doing the CBP jobs
and for you to hire up so that the military could go back to
more characteristically military functions rather than border
staffing.
But the other side of that is, is this processing
coordinator, which is a new role too for CBP. You may have
touched on this with Ms. Torres Small, but are the
qualifications going to be different for typical agents for
that kind of position?
Chief Provost. It is a lesser qualification, and Ms. Torres
Small did ask about it. We are in the process of finalizing
exactly what that position will be like, the training that is
involved. But the duties will be to be able--the position is
there so that I can put my Border Patrol agents back doing
their main job.
Mr. Peters. Right. What would be the expectation about the
processing coordinator developing relationships with local
organizations that are providing these kinds of humanitarian
services?
Chief Provost. I cannot say at this time in relation to
working with them. I know, you know, we work very closely with
several nongovernmental organizations across the Southwest
Border.
Mr. Peters. I have run out of time, but I just ask you to
look at that because a lot of people are on the ground
responding to the Trump administration's change of policy back
in October. I think we can learn a lot from each other, and I
look forward to that.
I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlewoman from
Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would like to thank the Chairwoman for
her courtesies extended, and I want to thank the Ranking Member
for his.
Also let me thank all of the witnesses that are here today
for their service to the Nation.
This is a committee that I have served on before in the
midst of, however, the heinous and terrorist act of 9/11 as
this whole department was being created, so there is a long-
standing relationship with both the Homeland Security
Department, its creation, the broadness of its jurisdiction,
and then, of course, the committee that has oversight. I would
say that, though we have certainly had common interests with
the Department of Defense, this is an issue of the utilization
of the Defense Department has always been of concern.
So let me, first of all, ask, to General McGuire, how many
troops are there on the border now?
General McGuire. We currently have 564 Arizona soldiers and
airmen deployed in our--or 546. We have a resource allocation
and could be up to 764 in Arizona. The total number between
Arizona and Texas operating under gubernatorial authority, I
think, is just over 2,000.
Ms. Jackson Lee. So these are National Guard?
General McGuire. All of the forces that are subordinate to
Governor Ducey and myself are National Guardsmen. There are
additional title 10 active component, Mr. Salesses has
mentioned, primarily Marine Corps and Army folks don't have
those specific numbers.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Are they in the hundreds? You are saying
there is over 2,000 military personnel?
Mr. Salesses. Ma'am, I could--if it is helpful, I can
answer those questions for you, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
Mr. Salesses. Yes, ma'am. So there is 2,700 active-duty
military members deployed in support of CBP. They are deployed
in all 9 sectors and all 4 border States. As General McGuire
pointed out, there is roughly 2,000 National Guard personnel
deployed. The predominance of National Guard folks that are
deployed are military members that are deployed in Texas and
Arizona. There are a small number in California and New Mexico.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. So the larger numbers are in
Arizona and Texas. Who is defining on a day-to-day basis the
role that the military plays?
Mr. Salesses. Ma'am, that----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, first, there is a leadership
directive from Washington, I assume. Who is doing that, but who
is giving them assignments day-to-day?
Mr. Salesses. The assignments that are happening day-to-day
are done at the operational level. We receive requests--the
Department of Defense receives a request from the Department of
Homeland Security for the specific requirements that they would
like us to assist with, whether that is helicopters or mobile
surveillance camera operators, the type of military support
that we are providing right now.
That is approved by the Defense Department, by the
Secretary of Defense, and then the operational commanders below
that, in this case, the Northern Command for the active
component. The individual TAGs, like General McGuire, who is
managing the National Guard for Arizona, and the TAG from Texas
is managed----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. My time is short, so let me----
Mr. Salesses. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I appreciate it.
Chief, let me ask you questions very quickly. People are
appalled, and we will be providing as much money--I want to put
on the record, it shouldn't be a Republican or Democratic
matter, but the conditions of the border are compounded by the
administration's rules and policies and precipitous
announcements.
Tell me, have you gotten a more credible health structure?
When I was there, the Coast Guard were working off of a table
with some chairs as it relates to health care. Then have you
improved the conditions that women and children are living in,
particularly those who manage to get across the border? I know
there are conditions on the other side of the border with
Mexico, but the conditions and the visuals are dastardly, and
children shouldn't be treated that way. So if you can answer
that, and then a second component is, what participation will
you have if the President goes ahead with, again, a thoughtless
proposal of deporting 1 million people next week? What role
will you have, Chief?
Chief Provost. If I may address the--first and foremost,
the role of interior enforcement is Immigration and Customs
Enforcement.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I know it is, but they have to cross the
border, so you all are at the border.
Chief Provost. So----
Ms. Jackson Lee. If they are not flying, they are crossing
the border. I understand that.
Chief Provost. I do not have a role in relation to----
Ms. Jackson Lee. So you have not heard from them on the
policy as to what you all would be doing?
Chief Provost. That is not something that--within CBP
policy--that CBP----
Ms. Jackson Lee. That you have heard that you would be
participating in. You have not heard anything?
Chief Provost. I have not heard that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Then could you go on----
Chief Provost. To address the issues--and you point out
very relevant concerns that we all have. My facilities were
never built to house this demographic. They were built in the
1980's and 1990's, mainly focused on housing single adults.
Once again, CBP does not do detention. It is my goal to get
everybody out of my custody and care as quickly as possible.
This is why Health and Human Services, when it comes to
unaccompanied children, needs the beds to be able to take them
into their care. When it comes to single adults, I need ICE to
have funding. The family units we are processing and removing
and releasing as quickly as we possibly can.
That being said, we have added some soft-sided structures
to expand. We have added shower trailers, things like that, all
of the consumables for humanitarian care. This is part of the
reason that I need funding to help deal with this humanitarian
crisis.
On the medical, we have expanded the contract. We have a
medical contract. We have expanded that. We are continuing to
try to expand that further. My facilities are restricted
somewhat in relation to what I have available for them to work
in, but we are trying to do the best that we can with what we
have.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, the disaster supplemental is being
worked on. You are absolutely right, we should in a bipartisan
manner, nonpartisan manner get you the dollars that you need to
deal with the population that you have. You are not
establishing the policy. So I hope that we can work together to
get that done.
Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes, the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Green.
Mr. Green of Texas. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the
witnesses for appearing as well.
I too would like to echo the premise that this is not about
conservatives or liberals, Democrats or Republicans. It is
really about people and about our border. I believe that we
have a responsibility to secure our border, and I believe we
also have a responsibility to deal with refugees, persons who
are fleeing harm's way.
My suspicion is that each of you would concur with the
necessity to secure the border as well as follow the law and
deal with persons who are fleeing harm's way. Now, if someone
differs with me on what I have said, I would kindly ask you to
respond. Thank you. I take it you agree with me.
A lot of what we are doing in responding is based upon
perceived facts, perceived facts. You all are honorable people
and you deal with facts. We do have some porous borders south
of Mexico. Is it fair to say that El Salvador has a porous
border? I was there just recently. Chief, would you kindly
respond?
Chief Provost. Yes, I would say so.
Mr. Green of Texas. Is it fair to say that they don't have
the level of border security that we have?
Chief Provost. I am not an expert on their security, but I
would say that is correct.
Mr. Green of Texas. Same thing would probably apply to
Honduras and Guatemala. That would be my speculation. Like you,
I am not an expert, but I have been reading about these things
and it seems like they have some porous borders, and that
contributes, to some extent, to what is happening at our
border. Fair statement?
Chief Provost. Yes, I would certainly say--as I stated in
my opening statement, there are many individuals, not just the
Northern Triangle folks, that are traversing through those
countries to come up to our border.
Mr. Green of Texas. Major, would you concur that we have
these problems with these countries and their borders?
General McGuire. Congressman, I have only visited
Guatemala. I can't discuss at all El Salvador and Honduras,
but, yes, I have been briefed that they have similar problems
with an inability to secure crossborder transnational activity.
Mr. Green of Texas. It seems to me that our military was
deployed based upon facts that were submitted. Is that a fair
statement in terms of the deployment of the military conditions
at our border? Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Salesses. Yes, Congressman, it is.
Mr. Green of Texas. One of the facts that seem to be in
dispute is the fact that our border is the weakest in the
world. Our border is not weaker than Honduras or El Salvador,
Guatemala. We have a border that we want to secure, but I think
we should acknowledge that it is not the weakest in the world.
If you think our borders are the weakest in the world, please
speak up. I take it you agree that it is not the weakest in the
world.
I mention this not because of your honor and your
integrity, but the Chief Executive Officer of the United States
of America, known to all of us as the President, that is his
statement. He made some of his decisions based on his belief
that our border is the weakest in the world. We ought not
deploy our assets based upon fallacious information. Assets
should be deployed based upon certainty and facts.
I lived around military people for a good deal of my life,
all honorable people. This was not a fair statement to be
utilized to deploy our assets, the weakest in the world. We
don't have the weakest border in the world. I do believe that
there are some things we can do, but we ought not fabricate
stories to deploy assets.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Miss Rice. Thank you.
We are going to go into a second round of questioning. I
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Salesses, on May 8, 2019, Acting Secretary Shanahan
issued a memo conveying a new policy for sharing information
with Congress and the GAO, the Government Accountability
Office. This policy states that access to plans, operational
orders, and Executive Orders will be limited based on a number
of factors and could be used to limit access to important
information needed to support Congressional oversight. Can you
tell me what those limitations are?
Mr. Salesses. Congresswoman, I don't know what those
limitations are. I do know that we are working very closely
with the GAO right now to share information on what the Defense
Department is doing. I know there is a GAO audit under way. I
have met with GAO personally. We do have a process in place to
share a lot of information that has been published by the
Defense Department, and we are continuing to do that. I don't
know the specifics of the memo in regards to what will be
shared and not shared.
Miss Rice. Were you part of putting that together? Were you
consulted at all?
Mr. Salesses. The memo, no, ma'am, I wasn't.
Miss Rice. So you can't tell us right now what the
limitations were that then-Acting Secretary Shanahan was
talking about?
Mr. Salesses. No. But I am sure I can find out and provide
that information.
Miss Rice. Well, if you could please let the committee
know----
Mr. Salesses. Absolutely, ma'am.
Miss Rice [continuing]. Because it seems to me that there
are far-reaching implications if there are going to be
limitations put on information sharing for this committee to do
our appropriate oversight. So I would appreciate you sharing
with us those limitations.
In response to DHS's April 2019 request for assistance,
Acting Secretary Shanahan announced that DoD would make an
exception to its practice of prohibiting DoD personnel from
serving in roles that requires interaction with migrants in
their daily activities. What limitations or restrictions remain
in place for DoD personnel who are deployed to the U.S.-Mexico
border, and what are the DoD's red lines for what active-duty
personnel cannot do in terms of border operations?
Mr. Salesses. Well, specifically, as it relates to that
request, that was the request for the drivers. We are going to
provide 160 drivers. We are also providing 100 military
personnel to assist with handing out meals. We have worked very
closely with DHS and CBP in the conduct of our military
personnel that will be in and around migrants specifically on
buses.
The Border Patrol will have a Border Patrol agent. There
will be no custodial requirements for any DoD personnel in that
process of either handing out the meals of those or driving the
buses, and that is what that is focused on, ma'am.
Miss Rice. Ms. Provost, or Chief Provost, do you have
anything to add to that?
Chief Provost. I would just say that is correct. There are
certain duties that, of course, are inherently law enforcement-
related, and we retain those duties. Mr. Salesses was exactly
correct on how that is being carried out when it comes to
transport and the meal prep and assistance.
Miss Rice. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Salesses, if you could follow up and provide the
committee with those limitations that we spoke of before, I
would appreciate that.
Mr. Salesses. Yes.
Miss Rice. Thank you. I now--the Chair now recognizes the
Ranking Member, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
On April 4, 2018, President Trump launched Operation
Guardian Support, which directed the Secretary of Defense to
deploy National Guard personnel under title 32 authority to
support Customs and Border Protection in securing in the
Southwest Border. Operation Guardian Support released Border
Patrol agents from non-law enforcement duties, allowing them to
focus on border security.
Chief Provost, would you agree with that assessment?
Chief Provost. Yes.
Mr. Higgins. Does that clarify what we are talking about
today regarding DoD support?
Chief Provost. Certainly, as well as other support.
Mr. Higgins. My colleague mentioned the need to return to--
I believe the quote was military role rather than border
staffing. Let's clarify for the American people watching
please. Mr. Salesses, you are the Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of
Civil Authorities for DoD. Is that correct?
Mr. Salesses. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Higgins. The DoD forces that are deployed to assist in
Operation Guardian Support, are they not serving in MOS-
specific, Military Operational Special-specific roles?
Mr. Salesses. They are providing support to DHS.
Mr. Higgins. According to their MOS?
Mr. Salesses. In the vast majority of them, yes, sir.
Mr. Higgins. In other words, you have pilots and air crews
flying planes. You don't have them doing vehicle maintenance,
do you?
Mr. Salesses. There are individuals doing vehicle
maintenance.
Mr. Higgins. You have vehicle maintenance MOS guys doing
vehicle maintenance, right?
Mr. Salesses. We do, yes, sir. Correct, sir.
Mr. Higgins. You have truck driver MOS driving trucks. You
don't have them monitoring cameras. So, just to clarify for
America, the DoD personnel deployed in Operation Guardian
Support are performing their military role according to their
training. They are not just randomly performing border
staffing. Is that correct?
General, please answer.
General McGuire. Yes, to the max extent possible, we align
them with their MOS. So an 88 Mike truck driver will be driving
heavy trucks. An engineering soldier will be operating heavy
equipment to support movement of our formations. Our aviation
maintenance guys will be repairing the helicopters that we
sustain. The pilots are flying them.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, General, for clarifying that.
I would like to also clarify, my colleague, whom I greatly
admire, Mr. Green--I wish he was here--he quoted the President
as saying that we have the weakest border in the world. I would
just like to clarify that the quote was actually that we have
the weakest immigration laws anywhere in the world and that
Congress must change our weak immigration laws. I don't believe
that the President has stated we have the weakest border or
border security forces in the world, and I would just like to
clarify that.
Chief, again, please, share with us your thoughts on what
would happen within your forces should Congress act and approve
the supplemental funding and provide the resources that you
have asked for. What would happen with your staffing, your
morale? What would be the response within your ranks, ma'am?
Chief Provost. Well, certainly part of what we have been
asking for is more manpower as well as retention incentives to
support the amazing work that my men and women are doing, but
on top of that all of the support that is needed.
Currently, I am using operational funds to deal with the
humanitarian crisis, and that is taking away from equipment and
resources that my men and women need to do their jobs, as well
as, as I stated before, the funding that is needed for ICE. I
need Immigration and Customs Enforcement to have beds to take
these single adults out of my care and custody.
I have approximately 8,000 in custody right now that I--I
cannot release single adults. If I release single adults, we
will lose the border. I have said that before. If we do not
have some kind of consequence for violating the law and
illegally crossing our borders, then I don't know what I am
here for, in all honesty, or my men and women.
Our border----
Mr. Higgins. So would you----
Chief Provost. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Higgins. So would you concur, Chief, that the
sovereignty of our Nation is at stake here?
Chief Provost. It is. I will tell you that the borders that
I am concerned with and the ones that I am responsible for are
our borders.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the second round of questioning. I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Higgins.
The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
Mississippi, Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chief, I just want to follow up a little bit on what
Ranking Member Higgins was just talking about. In your written
testimony on page 4, the conclusion, you state border security
is National security. There is no difference. The crisis on our
Southwest Border puts our National security at risk.
I have repeatedly asked Congress to act to address the
outdated legal framework and broken immigration system that has
caused dangerous mass migration with no end in sight. Without
legislative solutions, CBP expects the need for continued DoD
support to help address the diversion of resources away from
the border mission to the current humanitarian crisis.
Just giving you a platform, Chief, what do you believe that
we can do as Congress to help stem the crisis that we are
seeing along our border?
Chief Provost. Well, first and foremost, we need to address
the legal framework issues, as I stated. Specifically, we have
to have the ability to hold families together in an appropriate
setting throughout an expedited immigration process. We have to
do that. That is why families are flooding into this country
because the word has gotten out, smugglers, you know, tell
them, bring a child, you will be released into the country. We
have to have that ability.
We need to eliminate the double standard for noncontiguous
unaccompanied children, and that is where we have no ability to
return children to their homeland if they are not Mexico or
Canada. We also need to tighten up the asylum process to
address the low bar for credible fear, as many of those who
meet the bar for credible fear do not meet the bar for asylum,
as well as the supplemental funding that we so desperately
need.
Mr. Guest. Let me talk about that, Chief. Because Congress
has failed to bring to the floor a bill that would provide the
supplemental funding to deal with the on-going humanitarian
crisis, has that made the situation along our Southwest Border
better or worse?
Chief Provost. It has definitely made it worse.
Mr. Guest. Has our lack of ability to, again, pass a
supplemental funding request, has that affected the morale of
the men and women who serve in your agency?
Chief Provost. Yes, I would most certainly say so. As I
stated before, that supplemental is more than just the funding
that I need because my partners don't have the funding they
need. That has a negative impact on my work force. We have to
maintain custody, for instance, longer of single adults, and
that is not the responsibility of my men and women. They should
be out securing the border.
Mr. Guest. I want to talk a little bit about the detention
centers there along the Southwest Border. Are you familiar with
those detention centers, Chief?
Chief Provost. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guest. All right. Recently a Member of Congress has
referred to those detention centers as concentration camps,
remarks which myself and other Members of Congress find highly
offensive. Would you care to comment on that matter,
particularly in light of the fact that you and the
administration has repeatedly requested supplemental funding so
that we can better, in a more humanitarian fashion house
individuals, Congress refuses to act upon that, and yet, we
continue, as certain Members of Congress continue to criticize
what you were doing with the limited resources that you have?
So, in the last minute or so of my time, would you care to
comment on those remarks?
Chief Provost. I personally find them offensive. My men and
women as well as the men and women in ICE are doing the best
that they can with the limited resources that they have. I am
calling agents who are bringing toys in for children and buying
them with their personal money. Agents are bringing in clothes.
They are feeding babies. They are doing--going above and beyond
day in and day out to try to care for these individuals to the
best of their ability, and this is not what they were trained
or what they signed up for to do. So I am extremely offended by
that--those comments.
Mr. Guest. Well, Chief, again, I want to personally thank
you and the men and women that serve under your leadership for
the way that you all are handling this very difficult crisis. I
want you to know that there are Members of Congress who will
work to try to see that you have the resources that you so
vitally deserve.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Miss Rice. Thank you. I want to--I too want to thank all
the witnesses for their valuable testimony and the Members for
their questions. The Members of the committee may have
additional questions for the witnesses, and we ask that you
respond expeditiously in writing to those questions.
Without objection, the committee record shall be kept open
for 10 days. Hearing no further business, the committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Carla Provost
Question 1. Please provide a copy of each of CBP's Border Security
Improvement Plans and any updates or changes to each plan.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Please provide the committee with a copy of each
Request for Assistance and any related attachments submitted by the
Department of Homeland Security to the Department of Defense from April
2018 to date.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. Did DHS submit any request to DoD for support under
section 284, which governs the DoD counterdrug activities, for border
wall construction in 2017 or 2018? If so, please provide the committee
with copies of each of these requests.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. If Congress had appropriated $5.7 billion to DHS for
construction of a border wall, would DHS have requested DoD's
assistance for border wall construction under its section 284 authority
for counterdrug activities?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. What are DHS's future plans for DoD involvement on the
U.S.-Mexico border?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 6. What milestones, if any, are under consideration to
draw down DoD presence in these areas?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Carla Provost
Question 1. In a December 2018 request for assistance to the
Department of Defense, the following statement is included: ``The
successful deterrence at the [ports of entry] has resulted in attempted
entry between the [ports of entry].'' This is given as a reason why DHS
needs DoD support on the U.S.-Mexico border. Is CBP's ``successful
deterrence'' at ports of entry helpful to Border Patrol's overall
mission? Is the policy decision to meter people at ports of entry being
reconsidered due to high volumes of people attempting to enter between
ports of entry?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2. Please provide the committee with any documents DHS
sent to DoD that requests the painting of the border wall for
operational purposes.
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Ranking Member Clay Higgins for Carla Provost
Question 1. Over 500 volunteers DHS-wide have been place along the
border to help your agents with processing to return them to the line.
Border Patrol agents from the Northern Border have been redirected as
well. Unbelievably, in the past 2 DHS appropriations bills drafted by
the Democrat majority, they have zeroed out funding for the hiring of
additional Border Patrol agents.
Are you feeling this on the front lines? How does this negatively
impact our ability to secure the homeland?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2a. Apprehension numbers are on track to surpass 13-year
highs. The demographic, high volume, and means by which individuals are
arriving at and crossing the border illegally is forcing nearly half of
your law enforcement officers to spend time processing migrants that
your facilities are not equipped to hold. At least 6 of Border Patrol
checkpoints used as a second layer of defense to interdict narcotics
and other contraband have been closed due to resource constraints.
Are you concerned that terrorists, gang members, criminals, and
other National security or public safety concerns have an easier time
of getting through our Southwest Border due to the current crisis?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 2b. Have Known or Suspected Terrorist hits increased since
last fall?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 3. Is it safe to say on top of the more than 3,000
identified fraudulent family units, more have slipped through the
cracks? And, how does rapid DNA technology ensure the safety of migrant
children?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 4. Ten years ago, we mandated polygraph exams during CBP
hiring to combat corruption. Are they still an effective tool or is it
time to explore other options? And, would you support the formation of
an expert working group to look at alternatives that preserve officer
integrity but don't trip-up honest candidates?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Question 5. Can you explain the operational requirement that led to
painting the border wall as a result of RFA No. 7?
Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
Questions From Chairwoman Kathleen M. Rice for Robert G. Salesses
Question 1. Please provide the committee with a copy of each
response from the Department of Defense to each Request for Assistance
from the Department of Homeland Security from April 2018 to date.
Answer. Department of Defense responses are included in Enclosure
1.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Response has been identified as For Offical Use Only and has been
retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the DoD
comptroller submitted assessments to the Acting Secretary of Defense
about using section 2808 to construct a border wall on May 10, 2019.
Please provide the committee with a copy of each of these assessments.
Answer. DoD is unable to provide the requested assessments because
they are deliberative materials intended to inform a Secretary of
Defense decision that he has not yet made. Such assessments have not
been produced in related civil litigation, which remains on-going.
Question 3. Please provide a copy of the Campaign Plan between DHS
and DoD regarding the multi-year deployment of DoD to the Southwest
Border to the committee.
Answer. At this time, there is no multi-year Campaign Plan; DoD
support to DHS is driven by evolving DHS requirements to address the
crises at the Southwest Border.
Question 4. What standards are used by the DoD to determine it can
support a request for assistance from DHS? In addition to analysis on
the impact these requests may have on readiness and resources, what
policy deliberations are part of the process? How often does DoD
reassess its support to DHS for Southern Border activities? Has DoD
ever been unable to fulfill a request for assistance by DHS in the past
2 years?
Answer. As part of its standard request for assistance process, DoD
evaluates all requests for assistance based on the following
considerations: Legality; the potential for use of lethal force by or
against DoD personnel; the risk to DoD personnel; cost to DoD;
appropriateness; and potential effect on DoD's ability to perform its
other primary defense missions. Recommendations to the Secretary of
Defense concerning requests for assistance are coordinated within DoD
with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (comptroller)/chief
financial officer, the general counsel of the Department of Defense,
the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, and other officials, as
appropriate, based on the specific request. DoD continually assesses
the DoD capabilities and resources necessary to meet DHS support
requirements, while mitigating the impacts on military readiness and
considering on-going and future operational commitments. DoD has always
been capable of fulfilling DHS requests for assistance; however, there
have been occasions when DoD could not approve a DHS request. For
example, DoD could not approve an October 25, 2018, DHS request for DoD
to protect U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel
performing their Federal functions within property controlled by CBP at
or adjacent to designated U.S. ports of entry because such support
first required the President's approval.
Question 5. What tasks is the military performing at the Southern
Border that DHS does not have the capability to do?
Answer. Generally, DHS requests for DoD assistance seek additional
capacity to augment DHS capabilities rather than military-unique
capabilities.
Question 6. Did DoD request an appropriation from Congress for
border wall construction for fiscal year 2019? If not, why not?
Answer. DoD's budget request for fiscal year 2019 did not include a
request for border wall construction funding. At the time DoD submitted
its fiscal year 2019 budget request, DHS had not requested assistance
from DoD to construct border barriers.
Question 7. When did DoD first consider supporting DHS's border
wall construction efforts under section 284, which governs counterdrug
activities for DoD?
Answer. Section 284(b)(7) of Title 10, U.S. Code, authorizes the
Secretary of Defense to, at the request of a Federal, State, local, or
Tribal law enforcement agency, construct roads and fences and install
lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international
boundaries of the United States. On February 25, 2019, DHS requested
that DoD use this authority to construct fences to block DHS-designated
drug smuggling corridors across the international boundary of the
United States with Mexico. On March 25, 2019, after careful
consideration, the Acting Secretary of Defense approved this request.
Question 8. Do the current conditions on the border present a
military threat to the United States?
Answer. DoD support to CBP is being provided pursuant to the
President's lawful direction, including his April 4, 2018, Presidential
memorandum, ``Securing the Southern Border of the United States.'' In
this memorandum, the President directed DoD to support DHS ``in
securing the Southern Border and taking other necessary actions to stop
the flow of deadly drugs and other contraband, gang members and other
criminals, and illegal aliens into this country.'' This memorandum
stated that ``[t]he security of the United States is imperiled by a
drastic surge of illegal activity on the Southern Border'' and ``[t]he
combination of illegal drugs, dangerous gang activity, and extensive
illegal immigration not only threatens our safety but also undermines
the rule of law.'' In addition, the President's February 15, 2019,
National emergency declaration (Proclamation 9844) stated that ``[t]he
current situation at the Southern Border presents a border security and
humanitarian crisis that threatens core National security interests and
constitutes a National emergency'' [emphasis added].
Question 9. Does the military need a border wall to assist in
supporting DHS at the border? Why or why not?
Answer. On February 15, 2019, the President declared that a
National emergency exists at the Southern Border of the United States
that requires the use of the armed forces, making available certain
emergency authorities, including Section 2808 of Title 10, U.S. Code
(Proclamation 9844). At this time, the Secretary of Defense has not yet
decided to undertake or authorize any barrier construction projects
under Section 2808.
Question 10a. On May 8, 2019, Acting Secretary Shanahan issued a
memo conveying a new policy for sharing information with Congress and
the Government Accountability Office. This policy states that access to
plans, operational orders, and execute orders will be limited based on
a number of factors and could be used to limit access to important
information needed to support Congressional oversight.
What limitations does Acting Secretary Shanahan's May 8 memo have
on providing Congress, including the Government Accountability Office,
documentation related to DoD's support of Southern Border operations?
Answer. The May 8, 2019, memo sets out the factors considered when
determining whether to disclose operational plans and execute orders,
which are some of the most sensitive documents at DoD. Specifically,
when a DoD component receives a Congressional request for access to an
operational plan or execute order, the DoD component is required to
forward the request to the under secretary of defense for policy
(USD(P)) for appropriate action regarding that specific request. The
USD(P) is required to coordinate responses to such requests with the
chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the assistant secretary of
defense for legislative affairs, and the general counsel of the
Department of Defense. In evaluating requests under this policy, the
reviewing officials are required to consider a number of criteria,
including: (i) Whether the request implicates Presidential decision
making or the President's prerogatives as the Commander-in-Chief, such
that coordination with White House staff is warranted; (ii) whether the
possibility of disclosure presents an unreasonable risk to the conduct
of operations, such as the exercise of the command function, force
protection, operational security, or any other risk to the operation or
personnel; and (iii) whether the request has been or may be reasonably
accommodated by means other than providing the actual plan or order,
such as providing a briefing.
Question 10b. Has the Department given GAO access to critical
execute and operational orders that establish the goals and parameters
for personnel deployed to the Southern Border?
Answer. DoD has accommodated all GAO requests for information
consistent with the law and DoD policies.
Question 10c. Please provide the committee with a copy of the May
8th memo from former Acting Secretary Shanahan.
Answer. Acting Secretary Shanahan's memorandum is included in
Enclosure 2.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Question 11a. National Guardsmen called up under Title 32, under
the command of their Governors, are technically allowed to carry out
law enforcement duties. However, in both 2006 and 2010, the Department
of Defense issued guidance that they would not conduct arrests on the
border. This was intentional to avoid the impression of militarizing
the border.
Are National Guard personnel carrying weapons while they are
operating in support of Border Patrol agents? And if so, what are their
rules for the use of force?
Answer. Decisions regarding the arming of National Guard personnel
operating under the command and control of their Governor and the rules
for the use of force will be informed by the mission circumstances and
made by the respective Governor, in consultation with CBP.
Question 11b. Are there other parameters or restrictions for the
military personnel on this mission?
Answer. Yes, there are other parameters and restrictions for
military personnel supporting CBP. For example, although case-by-case
exceptions can be made, National Guard personnel performing DoD
missions supporting CBP at the Southwest Border under the command and
control of their Governor do not conduct civilian law enforcement
activities.
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Robert G. Salesses
Question 1. In regards to section 2808, has DoD lined up potential
contractors so that contracts may be quickly awarded once a decision is
made by the Secretary of Defense? If so, please provide this list of
potential contractors to the committee.
Answer. At this time, the Secretary of Defense has not yet decided
whether to undertake or authorize any construction projects under
Section 2808.
Question 2. Is it possible that, despite the National emergency
declaration issued in February, that the Acting Secretary will decide
not to use any funds under section 2808 for border wall construction?
Is that a realistic scenario?
Answer. To use funds under Section 2808 for border barrier
construction, the Secretary must determine that the proposed border
barriers are necessary to support the use of the armed forces. That
determination, which has not yet been made, will depend on an
assessment of specific proposed border barriers. At this time, the
Secretary has not yet decided whether to undertake or authorize any
construction projects under Section 2808.
Question 3. Please provide the committee with DoD's response to DHS
requests that outlined the need for painting the border wall.
Answer. DoD's responses to DHS requests for assistance are included
in Enclosure 1.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Response has been identified as For Offical Use Only and has been
retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. How is DoD preparing military personnel to operate in
situations where they may encounter migrants?
Answer. Military personnel are highly trained and, for the most
part, require no additional training to provide such support to DHS.
However, as a prudential matter, U.S. Northern Command conducts
mandatory 2-day training with all military personnel deployed to the
Southern Border before those personnel begin support to CBP.
Question 5. How is DoD ensuring that military personnel are acting
within their legal authorities once they are deployed?
Answer. It is the immediate responsibility of unit commanders at
all levels to ensure that their military personnel act in accordance
with the law and DoD policies. In addition, the Department exercises
oversight over on-going military support of CBP.
Question 6. What is the protocol for if or when DoD personnel have
direct contact with migrants? Are there tracking requirements or
incident reports that military personnel need to file?
Answer. Although case-by-case exceptions have been made, most DoD
or National Guard personnel supporting CBP at the Southwest Border do
not conduct civilian law enforcement activities or have physical
interaction with migrants. For missions in which National Guard
personnel under the command of their Governor are conducting law
enforcement activities or in which DoD or National Guard personnel may
have physical interaction with migrants, additional reporting is not
required for contact that is necessary for the performance of such
missions. Units executing such missions are expected to submit standard
military mission reports. The Standing Rules for the Use of Force
(SRUF), (Enclosures L and N (unclassified) to Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3121.01B, 13 June 2005 (SECRET)) include
reporting requirements for circumstances in which the use of force
proved necessary.
Question 7. What are the guidelines for use of force by military
personnel at the Southern Border? Please provide a copy of these
guidelines to the committee.
Answer. The Standing Rules for the Use of Force (SRUF), (Enclosures
L and N (unclassified) to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Instruction 3121.01B, 13 June 2005 (SECRET)) remain in effect for land-
and air-based operations in the United States. No specific additional
guidance was determined to be necessary for DoD support to CBP at the
Southern Border of the United States. National Guard personnel
operating under the command of their Governors would follow their
State's rules for the use of force.
Question 8. Please explain what would happen in a case where
Federal Government personnel, such as Border Patrol agents, may need
protection provided by the National Guard or active-duty soldiers.
Answer. In cases where there is an emerging, imminent threat, the
Standing Rules for the Use of Force (SRUF) (Enclosures L and N
(unclassified) to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction
3121.01B, 13 June 2005 (SECRET)) include guidance and protocols
regarding active-duty military personnel use of force to protect
others. National Guard personnel operating under the command of their
Governors would follow their States' guidance and protocols on the use
of force to protect others. In cases where DHS foresees a high risk of
harm to U.S. Border Patrol agents, the President may authorize the use
of active-duty military personnel to protect these agents while
performing their lawful Federal duties. If the President authorizes
such protection, DHS may submit a request for assistance to DoD. If
approved, active-duty military personnel may provide the requested
force protection support.
Question 9. Previous National Guard deployments to the border have
exceeded $1 billion. What estimates does DoD have for the current
National Guard and active-duty solider operations on the border? Is it
clear on which costs will be reimbursed? Why or why not?
Answer. The total estimated cost of DoD National Guard support to
CBP Operation Guardian Support through fiscal year 2019 is $350 million
(fiscal year 2018, $103 million, and fiscal year 2019, $247 million).
The estimated total fiscal year 2019 cost of DoD active-duty military
support to CBP Operation Secure Line is $184 million. The DoD border
support mission continues to evolve as DHS and DoD refine the
operation. As a result, DoD is in the process of capturing requirements
and estimating the potential costs. The actual final costs will depend
on the total size, duration, and scope of DoD support.