diff --git "a/data/CHRG-116/CHRG-116hhrg35335.txt" "b/data/CHRG-116/CHRG-116hhrg35335.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-116/CHRG-116hhrg35335.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,3863 @@
+
+ - [H.A.S.C. No. 116-2]DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S SUPPORT TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER
+
+[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
+[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
+
+
+ [H.A.S.C. No. 116-2]
+
+ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S SUPPORT TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER
+
+ __________
+
+ COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
+
+ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
+
+ ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
+
+ FIRST SESSION
+ __________
+
+ HEARING HELD
+
+ JANUARY 29, 2019
+
+
+ [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+
+ ___________
+
+ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
+
+35-335 WASHINGTON : 2019
+
+
+ COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
+ One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
+
+ ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
+
+SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY,
+JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island Texas
+RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
+JIM COOPER, Tennessee ROB BISHOP, Utah
+JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
+JOHN GARAMENDI, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
+JACKIE SPEIER, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
+TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
+DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
+RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
+SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
+SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
+ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice PAUL COOK, California
+ Chair BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
+RO KHANNA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
+WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
+FILEMON VELA, Texas SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
+ANDY KIM, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
+KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
+GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
+ California MATT GAETZ, Florida
+CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DON BACON, Nebraska
+JASON CROW, Colorado JIM BANKS, Indiana
+XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
+ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
+MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
+KATIE HILL, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
+VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
+DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
+JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
+LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
+ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
+
+ Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
+ William S. Johnson, Counsel
+ Kim Lehn, Professional Staff Member
+ Justin Lynch, Clerk
+
+
+
+ C O N T E N T S
+
+ ----------
+ Page
+
+ STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
+
+Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman,
+ Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
+Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac,'' a Representative from Texas,
+ Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services.................... 3
+
+ WITNESSES
+
+Gilday, VADM Michael, USN, Director of Operations (J3), Joint
+ Staff.......................................................... 6
+Rood, Hon. John, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Office of
+ the Secretary of Defense....................................... 4
+
+ APPENDIX
+
+Prepared Statements:
+
+ Rood, Hon. John, joint with VADM Michael Gilday.............. 59
+
+Documents Submitted for the Record:
+
+ [There were no Documents submitted.]
+
+Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
+
+ [The information was not available at the time of printing.]
+
+Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
+
+ Mr. Bacon.................................................... 75
+ Mr. Brown.................................................... 73
+ Ms. Escobar.................................................. 75
+ Mr. Garamendi................................................ 72
+ Ms. Houlahan................................................. 73
+ Mr. Smith.................................................... 67
+
+
+
+
+ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S SUPPORT TO THE SOUTHERN BORDER
+
+ ----------
+
+ House of Representatives,
+ Committee on Armed Services,
+ Washington, DC, Tuesday, January 29, 2019.
+ The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
+2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
+of the committee) presiding.
+
+ OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
+ WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
+
+ The Chairman. Call the meeting to order, if everyone could
+please take their seats. Welcome. Since this is our first
+hearing as a new committee, just one quick sort of housekeeping
+measure. We talked a little bit during our organizational
+meeting about the 5-minute rule. I didn't get into the
+specifics of it.
+ So now that we have witnesses here, when each of you are
+asking questions, the 5-minute rule applies to the totality of
+your conversation, or at least I am going to try to have it be
+that way. So in other words, if you ask a question for 5
+minutes, it doesn't mean that the witnesses then answer it for
+another 10; we try to stop it at 5.
+ Now, for the witnesses, I will not cut you off in mid-
+sentence, but the second it hits that 5 minute, there will be a
+light little tapping, just to remind you that we are supposed
+to move on to the next person and if you could summarize at
+that point that would be great.
+ I will try--like I said, I will try to let you finish the
+thought, and then also we always have the option of, you know,
+if you don't get to everything that was asked, there's the
+fail-safe, you know, we will take it for the record, we will
+submit it to your office when we get a chance.
+ But that is because, as you can see, we have a large
+interest in this subject and we want to try to get to everybody
+today, give every member a chance, if possible, to ask
+questions.
+ So the purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the
+deployments to the border that have been done of both Guard,
+Reserve, and Active Duty members of the military.
+ To help us understand this policy, the Pentagon has sent us
+the Secretary of Defense for Policy John Rood, thank you very
+much for being here; and the Director of Operations for the
+Joint Staff, Vice Admiral Michael Gilday. I appreciate you both
+being here and look forward to your testimony.
+ We have a number of questions we want to figure out. First
+of all, it's just sort of the basics. How many Active Duty
+members have been sent? What is the plan going forward, how
+does that compare to the Guard and Reserve? Why did we choose
+Active Duty for part of this instead of the Guard and Reserve?
+ Because as most members of this committee know, there is a
+fairly substantial history of Presidents using members of the
+Guard and Reserve under title 32 for border security
+operations. What is a little bit more unusual is sending Active
+Duty personnel to the border. It's not unprecedented, but it
+has not been done before very often.
+ So this was an unusual step, and one of the biggest areas
+of question we have there is what is the impact of this on DOD
+[Department of Defense]? As this committee well knows, we fell
+way behind in readiness as a result of the Iraq war and the
+Afghanistan war, and just the tempo that the military had to go
+through, and we began to catch up on that, which is good.
+ But what impact does it have to readiness to send several
+thousand troops down to the southern border? It interrupts
+their training, it interrupts their dwell time. How is that
+impacting it? And also, we don't, to my knowledge, have a
+figure for what this has cost the Pentagon yet, so we want
+those details.
+ Another big piece of this is the reason Active Duty troops
+and Guard and Reserve were sent there in the first place was
+because there was a perceived crisis at the border. There
+really isn't that much evidence of that crisis.
+ Now, that is not to say that border security isn't a
+challenge, and in speaking for myself but also I believe for
+all of the people on this committee, we believe border security
+is enormously important and a challenge, something we have to
+continually try to figure out how to get right.
+ Not the primary jurisdiction of this committee, other
+committees are supposed to handle it, but we acknowledge its
+importance and the role that the military will occasionally
+play in helping it. But when you look at the statistics, the
+peak of our problem on the border was in 2004 and in 2005.
+ Consistently up to that point, there was over a million
+apprehensions of unauthorized attempted border crossings at the
+border. For the last several years, that number has been below
+400,000, so roughly one-third of what it was.
+ And this didn't happen by accident. We made an investment
+in a bipartisan way. From 2005 forward, we have nearly doubled
+the number of Border Patrol agents. We have built 700 miles of
+wall. We have drones and sensors, and all manner of different
+efforts that have been taken to reduce the amount of
+unauthorized border crossings.
+ And as a result of that, we have actually had zero net
+migration from Mexico for I think going on 4 or 5 years. So
+while border security is always a challenge, there's really not
+much evidence that right at the moment it is a crisis that
+would call for the, if not unprecedented then highly unusual,
+step of sending Active Duty troops to the border.
+ We need to better understand not just that border security
+is a challenge, we get that. We get that drugs come across the
+border, although as has been very well documented they do not
+usually come across--you know, they come across through ports
+of entry. There are other areas where we need to spend money if
+we are going to try to get at that issue.
+ So if it is an issue, why all of a sudden now is it a
+crisis and what impact is it having on the military? And
+lastly, we have all heard much of the discussion about the
+possibility of the President declaring a state of emergency and
+taking money from a variety of different places in order to
+build a wall.
+ And when he is talking about a state of emergency, he is
+talking about taking the money pretty much exclusively to build
+a wall. And, you know, that is not this committee's primary
+area of debate, but certainly I think all members here have a
+strong opinion and don't be surprised if you get a question or
+two about that.
+ But when it comes to the declaration of the emergency, the
+President has fairly broad authority under a 1976 law to do
+that. He would have to justify that emergency, and I am certain
+it would be challenged in court, but the real big concern here
+is where does he find the money?
+ And if he is talking about building a wall, I know we have
+talked about $4 or $5 billion right now, but the long-term cost
+of what he is talking about is much, much more than that. And
+the main--the only pot of money, as I understand it, in the
+Pentagon that the President could go after, would come out of
+military construction.
+ I think there is a bipartisan opinion on this committee
+that we should not be taking Department of Defense dollars out
+of military construction, well, for anything, for a wall or
+anything else, because again we have a readiness challenge,
+that money needs to be spent there.
+ So what would the impact of that be is something we are
+going to be interested in. There are other pots of money that
+the President can go to. The primary one is the Army Corps of
+Engineers and those are for projects that are primarily focused
+on flood relief, not necessarily, not DOD priorities.
+ There are other pots of money but none of them are that
+big. I mean let's face it, when you look at the discretionary
+budget, the Department of Defense is where the money's at. So
+we are deeply concerned that if an emergency is declared, that
+money is going to be taken out of DOD for what some of us think
+is a questionable purpose, but whether you support the purpose
+or not, where that money is right now is important and we would
+not like to see it taken away.
+ With that, I will yield to the ranking member for his
+opening statement and I thank our witnesses again for appearing
+before us.
+
+ STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, A
+ REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
+ SERVICES
+
+ Mr. Thornberry. Let me join in welcoming our witnesses,
+thank you all for being here today. In my view, it is perfectly
+appropriate for our committee to examine the mission and the
+activities of our military on the southern border.
+ And I think that the questions the chairman asked at the
+beginning of his statement, what are we doing down there, how
+much does it cost, what effect does it have on readiness, and
+so forth are perfectly legitimate questions.
+ I do have concerns that the broader issues related to the
+immigration debate that are not the purview of this committee
+may be brought into this room, even though we have no
+jurisdiction and even though it threatens, at least, to begin
+us this year on a more partisan contentious note than we
+otherwise might.
+ I hope that does not happen. When it comes to DOD, I note
+that the briefing material prepared for us by the staff say
+that the previous five administrations have authorized the use
+of Armed Forces operating under title 10 authorities in support
+of border security.
+ And as a matter of fact, we tried to look at the various
+functions going back to at least the early 1990s that include
+things like surveillance and logistics and command and control
+and aviation support and a whole variety of things.
+ I noticed that in 1997 under President Clinton, the
+military was used for construction to build and improve
+physical barriers. I noted in 2012 under President Obama, the
+military was used for construction to install sensor equipment
+and so forth.
+ So I guess my takeaway, trying to put this a little in
+context is, number one, what the administration has done is in
+line with, consistent with, the sorts of things that we have
+asked the military to do for a long, long time.
+ My second takeaway is that under administrations of both
+parties and Congresses of both parties, we obviously aren't
+providing for adequate resources for border security, because
+we keep having to use the military to back up the Border Patrol
+when it ought to be their job to do it.
+ Now again, some of that takes us into areas outside of this
+committee, how much we do on border security, but clearly it
+has implications for us. And I hope that as we not only look at
+what we are doing today but put today's mission in context,
+going back what, 30 years or more, that it at least informs
+maybe decisions that are made outside of this room.
+ Thank you all again for being here, we look forward to your
+testimony and I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. That, gentlemen--please, it was--
+Mr. Rood you are going to go first.
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, thank you.
+ The Chairman. Okay. And for the record, in your--in your
+books, there is a joint statement that they both provided for
+the committee.
+
+ STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ROOD, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR
+ POLICY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
+
+ Secretary Rood. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
+Thornberry, other distinguished members of the committee, thank
+you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the
+Defense Department's support to the Department of Homeland
+Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection mission to secure
+the southern border of the United States.
+ The Department of Defense has a long history of supporting
+border security. DOD has supported efforts to secure U.S.
+borders since the early 1990s. DOD has supported civilian law
+enforcement border security activities, counter-drug
+activities, and activities to counter transnational organized
+crime and other transnational threats.
+ Active, Reserve, and National Guard personnel have provided
+operational military support such as aerial reconnaissance,
+ground surveillance, search and rescue support, and medical
+support. DOD has loaned facilities and special equipment such
+as aerostats, ground surveillance radars, and ground sensors to
+CBP, or Customs and Border Protection.
+ DOD has also provided temporary housing support to the
+Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, as part of the
+national response to the surge of unaccompanied alien children,
+or UAC, at the U.S. southern border.
+ From 2012 to 2017, DOD provided shelter for nearly 16,000
+unaccompanied alien children who received care, security,
+transportation, and medical services from HHS.
+ Consistent with section 2815 of the National Defense
+Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, the Secretary of
+Defense certified 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.
+ At the direction of President Bush, in support of CBP's
+Operation Jump Start, DOD provided National Guard personnel--
+some 6,000 from June of 2006 to July of 2007 and some 3,000
+from July of 2007 to July of 2008--to augment and enhance CBP's
+ability to execute its border security mission.
+ National Guard personnel provided aviation, engineering,
+medical, entry identification, communications, vehicle
+maintenance, administrative, and other non-law enforcement
+support. In addition, the National Guard improved the southern
+border's security infrastructure by building more than 38 miles
+of fence, 96 miles of vehicle barrier, more than 19 miles of
+new all-weather road, and conducting road repairs exceeding 700
+miles.
+ At the direction of President Obama, DOD provided up to
+1,200 National Guard personnel annually from 2010 to 2016 in
+support of CBP's Operation Phalanx. National Guard personnel
+provided aerial reconnaissance, analytical support, and support
+to counterdrug enforcement activities that enabled CBP to
+recruit and train additional officers to serve along the
+southern border.
+ DOD works closely with the Department of Homeland Security
+[DHS] on requests for assistance. 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 that department develops its request for DOD assistance
+as deliberately, expeditiously, and as 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 the law.
+ When a request is approved, DOD works with the requester to
+select the right forces and resources to meet the requester's
+mission needs and to avoid or mitigate potential impacts on
+military readiness. DOD has used the same process for every DHS
+request for assistance related to DHS's border security
+mission.
+ In our current type of support, in his April 4, 2018,
+memorandum titled, Securing the Southern Border of the United
+States, the President directed the Secretary of Defense to
+support DHS in, quote, 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, end quote.
+ The President also directed the Secretary of Defense to
+request the use of the National Guard to assist in fulfilling
+this mission, pursuant to section 502 of title 32, and to use
+such other authorities as appropriate and consistent with
+applicable law.
+ The President also 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.
+ All of this military support has been, and will continue to
+be, provided consistent with the law, including the Posse
+Comitatus Act, section 1385, title 18. Military personnel have
+supported civilian law enforcement efforts but do not directly
+participate in law enforcement activities such as search,
+seizure, and arrest.
+ Military personnel protecting CBP personnel performing
+their Federal functions at points of entry are consistent with
+the April 1971 opinion of the Department of Justice Office of
+Legal Counsel, also complying with the Posse Comitatus Act.
+ So, Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, let me say the military's
+presence and support increase the effectiveness of CBP's border
+security operations, free U.S. Border Patrol agents to conduct
+law enforcement duties at the southern border, and enhance
+situational awareness to stem the tide of illegal immigration,
+human smuggling, and drug trafficking along the southern
+border.
+ The ongoing temporary DOD support is a continuation of the
+Department's long history of supporting DHS and CBP in their
+mission to secure the U.S. border. These decisions are far from
+static, and we continue to work with the services, the National
+Guard Bureau, and U.S. Northern Command to evaluate mission
+requirements and associated risks.
+ Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
+today.
+ [The joint prepared statement of Secretary Rood and Admiral
+Gilday can be found in the Appendix on page 59.]
+ The Chairman. Thank you.
+ Admiral Gilday.
+
+ STATEMENT OF VADM MICHAEL GILDAY, USN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS
+ (J3), JOINT STAFF
+
+ Admiral Gilday. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking
+Member Thornberry, distinguished members of the committee.
+Thank you for your support of the men and women in uniform who
+serve our Nation. And thanks for the opportunity this morning
+to address our military's support to the Department of Homeland
+Security in their mission to secure our southwest border.
+ As Secretary Rood mentioned, DOD has a well-established
+relationship with DHS. This includes our recent efforts to
+support the responses to hurricanes Michael and Florence, the
+wildfires in California, and our joint cybersecurity
+initiatives protecting our Nation's critical infrastructure.
+ DOD's mission of homeland defense is inextricably linked to
+DHS's mission of homeland security. There is no better example
+than the ongoing efforts of our Active and Guard personnel
+supporting Customs and Border Protection along our southern
+border today.
+ Since the Commander in Chief directed the military to
+support DHS in securing the southern--the southern border in
+April, National Guard personnel have supported CBP Operation
+Guardian Support, augmenting CBP efforts to secure the border
+by performing administrative, logistical, and operational
+support tasks from April to the present day.
+ Active Duty military personnel have supported CBP's
+Operation Secure Line since October in the areas of aviation,
+engineering, facilities, and medical support, and by providing
+protection for CBP personnel while they perform their Federal
+functions at our ports of entry.
+ This support is now transitioning to the operation of
+mobile surveillance cameras in support of CBP in all nine
+border patrol sectors across four States and the placement of
+concertina wire on existing barriers at areas designated by CBP
+between ports of entry in Arizona and in California.
+ We believe that our military's presence and support have
+served to increase the effectiveness of CBP's border security
+operation by enabling them to focus on their law enforcement
+duties at our ports of entry.
+ Our strong partnership with DHS has allowed us to match
+their mission requirements to existing core competencies of our
+Guard and Active force, while operating under existing DOD
+authorities. Thus far, the results have been very successful.
+ I would like to thank you again for your support and for
+the opportunity to appear before the committee. I look forward
+to taking your questions.
+ The Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen. Could you give us the
+specifics, as a starting point, on the Active Duty troops that
+were deployed, when they were first deployed, how many are
+there now, and how long they are supposed to be there for.
+ Secretary Rood. With regard to Active Duty troops, sir, we
+presently have just a little under 2,300--or excuse me, just
+over 2,300 Active Duty troops. They are scheduled, right now,
+to be deployed through January of 2019.
+ One portion of them has been approved to be deployed
+through January of 2019. There will be additional deployments
+of Active Duty troops that will go through the end of this
+fiscal year, September 30th, in response to the latest request
+from the Department of Homeland Security.
+ The Chairman. And what was the original number was, like,
+5,600 I believe, something like that? How long were that many
+troops there?
+ Secretary Rood. There's a combination, sir, of National
+Guard and Active Duty troops that were deployed, and the
+numbers fluctuate. And so as you recall----
+ The Chairman. I know the numbers--I am sorry, I know the
+numbers fluctuate. But the number of Active Duty troops that
+were sent there in the first place--and I am focused on the
+Active Duty piece--I believe was 5,600. Is that correct?
+ Secretary Rood. It was about 5,900.
+ The Chairman. 5,900. Okay.
+ Secretary Rood. And that was at the beginning of November.
+ The Chairman. And that is the part that is kind of
+different from everything else, here. Most of what Mr.
+Thornberry referred to in terms of the Active Duty side of it
+is under title 10. We have provided equipment, sensors, and
+various other things.
+ It is very, very rare to send Active Duty troops to the
+border. We have used the Guard and Reserve consistently. And
+what was different about this set of circumstances that made us
+send, 5,800 Active Duty troops to the border? I don't see it.
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, I will provide some context----
+ The Chairman. I am sorry, could you pull the microphone a
+little closer to you, there?
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir.
+ The Chairman. These things are not as sensitive as they
+could be.
+ Admiral Gilday. Is that better?
+ The Chairman. That is much better, yes.
+ Admiral Gilday. At that particular time, the group of
+migrants that were massing in southern Mexico was approaching
+about 10,000. And at that time, we weren't sure, DHS wasn't
+sure, which route or routes that they were going to take to the
+southwest border. There were four or five different routes that
+they could have come by.
+ There was some concern with respect to timing, on whether
+they were going to go by foot, whether they were going to go by
+vehicle, or whether they were going to go by rail.
+ So at that time, the President directed that we examine
+options to augment CBP at the border so that they could mass
+their personnel at the ports of entry, and we could provide an
+augmentation force to allow them to do that.
+ The Chairman. And did those--those border caravans all went
+to the ports of entry, did they not?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, they actually all went to the ports of
+entry in California, initially.
+ The Chairman. Right.
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir.
+ The Chairman. It's kind of what they said they were going
+to do, from what I was reading, anyway.
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, not initially. So they made that
+determination when they arrived in Mexico City, but at the time
+they were down in Hidalgo, we didn't know where they were going
+to go. We didn't know if they were going to go to Brownsville
+or if they were going to go to New Mexico.
+ The Chairman. Just for reference, Mexico City is a pretty
+fair distance from the border. And for the most part, these
+people are walking. And that was one of the things that struck
+me at the time, every estimate that we got out of you folks was
+that they were going to get here in roughly January.
+ And the border deployment--I believe the Active Duty troops
+were first sent to the border in September, correct?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, the Active Duty----
+ The Chairman. October----
+ Admiral Gilday. The Active Duty troops, the request came in
+the end of October.
+ The Chairman. End of October, okay.
+ Admiral Gilday. And we deployed them in early November.
+ The Chairman. I just--one final question this morning
+because I want to let my other colleagues get in here. You said
+that, you know, it's worked, basically; the Active Duty troops
+have improved the situation. What is your metric for that?
+Because as near as I can tell, you know, we have made
+substantial improvement since 2005 on border security, but what
+metric has changed since we sent the Active Duty troops there
+that shows that there has been some sort of improvement on any
+of these issues that you list in terms of, you know, drugs and
+border crossings and all of that?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, in terms of metrics, the initial
+deployment consistent with a heavy deployment of engineering
+personnel, so along 22 of the ports of entry we laid some 70
+miles of concertina wire to make it more difficult for somebody
+to cross over illegally at those ports of entry. This made it
+easier for--it allowed CBP, we believe, to be able to spread
+their manpower more efficiently across a large number of ports
+of entry that could have potentially been at risk.
+ Additionally, we sent medical personnel down to help with
+initial screening. And we also sent down some facilities people
+to provide facilities for CBP.
+ But in terms of the metrics, sir, I would say that the fact
+that we hardened those ports of entry is probably probably the
+best answer that I can give you.
+ Secretary Rood. The only thing I would add, Mr. Chairman,
+as we look to the Customs and Border Patrol and the Department
+of Homeland Security as the primary mission-holder. Our role,
+of course, is to augment their efforts.
+ The Chairman. Right.
+ Secretary Rood. Their statements to us and their assessment
+of the efforts that DOD has provided is that it has allowed
+them to focus their resources elsewhere and assisted in their
+mission accomplishment.
+ The Chairman. None of that is an actual metric measurement.
+That is just sort of the opinion. But one final question--
+sorry, I do have one final question. When are we going to be at
+the point where you can say we don't need Active Duty troops?
+Because we haven't needed them for a long time before that, now
+we apparently need them.
+ What are we looking for where we can get to the point where
+we no longer are going to send Active Duty troops to the
+border? What needs to be accomplished before we can stop using
+this somewhat unprecedented step of actually sending Active
+Duty troops to the border?
+ Secretary Rood. Mr. Chairman, of course, the Defense
+Department acts in support of request from the Department of
+Homeland Security/CBP, they are the primary mission-holder. As
+we look to how we will choose to augment those resources and
+respond to those requests for assistance, we look across the
+total force, Active, Reserve, and National Guard, to determine
+what is the right mix and the appropriateness of the force to
+respond.
+ And that is where our decision was made in terms of the
+timeliness----
+ The Chairman. Got it. So you don't really know basically
+what we need to accomplish. At the end of the day, it's DHS
+that makes that call. They decide that they need. They ask you
+for help. They work through it. But surely as the one providing
+the resources and trying to plan for the future, they have
+given you some idea of what it is they are trying to accomplish
+so that they won't need you anymore.
+ Secretary Rood. They do give us an idea and we work with
+them to scope the requests and to understand what they are
+trying to accomplish so that we provide the right capabilities.
+ The Chairman. And what would your take on that be?
+ Admiral Gilday. It depends on the specific request, sir.
+You know, for example, some of the requests where they have
+asked for surveillance capabilities, we delve into a little bit
+of what are you trying to detect and why and what are the
+circumstances?
+ With regard to the National Guard, of course, we work with
+the National Guard Bureau and----
+ The Chairman. Sorry, but that is--I don't want to
+interrupt, I am asking specifically about the Active Duty
+troops who have been sent to the border. I understand all that
+other stuff. All that other stuff, if that was all you are
+doing, was all that stuff that you have talked about, we
+wouldn't be having this hearing.
+ It is the Active Duty troops that sort of caught the
+attention of the committee.
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, if I can give an example, but before
+that, back to the metric----
+ The Chairman. Microphone again, sorry.
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, just for a moment on the metric. We
+really are trying to prove a negative if we are trying to
+prove, you know, how many people didn't cross the border. We
+just don't know, except for the feedback that we receive from
+CBP that, you know, at the time we deployed, you know, those
+initial numbers were 10,000; now 10,000 never reached the
+border. But, you know, we felt that we were better prepared--or
+CBP was better prepared because of the work that we did.
+ In terms of the work that we have done and are doing, it's
+not, it's not a steady-state demand signal. So although we
+deployed 5,900 in early November, by Christmas those numbers
+are down to 2,400----
+ The Chairman. Why?
+ Admiral Gilday. Because we had--we finished laying the
+concertina wire. When that mission was complete, we redeployed
+those people home. When we determined that the flow of migrants
+that had to be screened by our medical personnel wasn't as high
+as originally estimated, we downsized and we brought those
+people home.
+ When the facilities that we built were no longer required
+by CBP, they had initially surged their forces--their personnel
+down there, we had provided temporary housing. When that wasn't
+required, we sent our people and we sent the equipment home.
+ And so we have tried to adjust, keeping in mind readiness,
+keeping in mind cost. And so it has been fairly evolving and
+dynamic.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Thornberry.
+ Mr. Thornberry. Admiral, I want to go back, because I am
+not sure we got the rest of the story. You started your answer
+a few moments ago on why Active Duty, with 10,000 folks coming
+up through Mexico, didn't know for sure where they are going to
+go. The decision was that the Border Patrol folks would focus
+on the ports of entry, and that left the rest of the border to
+be covered.
+ And so can you continue then? And back to the chairman's
+question, why Active Duty in that circumstance versus Guard?
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. So broadly we are taking a look
+at these requirements across the total force. And we are trying
+to see which forces are best suited for the task and who is
+readily available. And so in one's mind's eye, they may think
+that the National Guard is just a gigantic organization that we
+continue to draw from for years and years, for a decade, in
+fact. And we just can't.
+ And so at the time when those forces were massing and we
+weren't sure whether they were going to come by foot, by
+vehicle, or by train, the decision was made within the
+Department given the options that we laid out in terms of
+timing, to send Active Duty, because we get those troops down
+there within a week.
+ And so I hope that gives a little bit more context, sir, in
+terms of what drove the Active Duty. But we did look at the
+Guard, and we did look at Guard capacity for the missions--for
+those particular missions or the requirements that DHS and CBP
+had requested, and we just did not have those. We didn't have
+that--those skill sets available in the Guard to draw upon at
+the time.
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman Thornberry, if I may add just
+briefly to that?
+ Mr. Thornberry. Yeah.
+ Secretary Rood. In evaluating the present request, in
+working with the National Guard Bureau and the state adjutant
+generals, part of the reason, or the reason that we have
+selected from the Active Duty to fill part of those requests
+going forward is that the Guard satisfies those requests from
+19 Guard units, 19 States. And there's a limit to the number of
+volunteers, which is the way they have sourced them, that they
+can do.
+ And so the feedback from the National Guard Bureau and the
+adjutant generals is that about the present state, a little
+over 2,000, is what they can sustain. And therefore the delta
+between that sustainable rate and the new request from the
+Department of Homeland Security is what we are going to source,
+therefore, from the Active Duty.
+ Mr. Thornberry. Okay. Yeah, that really gets to where I
+wanted to go. So if I can just summarize my understanding of
+this, Homeland Security says, we need help doing X, Y, Z, and
+then you--can you, DOD, help us? And then you look at what
+those specific requirements, or asks, are, and figure out what
+forces can fulfill their requests?
+ And in this case, one of the key things was how quick can
+you get them there, because you didn't know where the caravan
+was going. And, secondly, what sort of specific capabilities
+did you need, because a lot of the Guard folks, at least the
+ones that you could deploy, didn't really have it. Does that
+sum it up?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, I think so. I would like to add,
+though, that these requirements from CBP just don't drop as a
+surprise. And so we work with CBP on a daily basis to refine
+these requirements so that we can be more predictable, so that
+we can ask hard questions, so that we can look at legal aspects
+and make sure that, you know, the force is going to be used in
+a way that is consistent with the authorities that we have.
+ And so it is ongoing partnership to get to what we think is
+the right answer. And the right answer isn't always
+satisfactory for all parties.
+ Mr. Thornberry. But you have got to be flexible with
+events, because, for example, there are stories that there's a
+new caravan that is forming in Central America, headed this
+way. So you have got to, in your conversations with them, be
+ready to adjust to changes in the situation, don't you?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, that is right. And you are correct,
+current information shows a caravan of over 12,000 people.
+There are three that we are tracking--the Department of
+Homeland Security is tracking--en route, and one of which is
+over 12,000 people, in the latest estimate.
+ And so, yes, we do have to be flexible on those events. As
+Admiral Gilday mentioned, the number of troops and the mix of
+them has varied over time and it will need to do so. And we do
+work very closely with DHS and CBP to understand the ``what''
+they are trying to accomplish more fully so that we can source
+it and provide the type of assistance that will be meaningful.
+ Mr. Thornberry. Okay. I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Larsen.
+ Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could, Mr.
+Chairman, I would like to yield my time to Representative
+Torres Small. Microphone.
+ Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Under Secretary Rood and
+Admiral Gilday, for being here. I really appreciate the
+dialogue about the choices that you are making when it comes to
+National Guard versus deployment of Active military. And you
+listed some of the components: timeliness, the scope of the
+request, the cost, and available troops.
+ One thing I would like to dig into more is readiness.
+Admiral Gilday mentioned it briefly. We ask a lot from our
+troops, and it's critical that we provide that readiness,
+specifically through rest and refit between missions and
+deployment.
+ So what impact does an increase in deployment of troops
+used along the border have on soldier readiness?
+ Admiral Gilday. So far, it has been manageable. So as I
+explained a few minutes ago, we try to----
+ The Chairman. I am sorry, microphone.
+ Admiral Gilday. As I explained a few minutes ago, we try to
+rotate the troops in about every 6 to 8 weeks. And so we are
+trying to make sure that we maintain that deployed-to-dwell
+ratio at a manageable level, because we may have to call on
+those same forces to deploy to another mission.
+ The border security mission is obviously a high priority
+for the administration, and so we are balancing that
+requirement along with Syria, Afghanistan, ongoing commitments
+in Africa, the Western Pacific, and so we are trying to balance
+all of that.
+ But in this particular case, we have been using troops that
+are based here in the continental United States and we have
+been trying to rotate them in at a fairly--I don't want to say
+it is a revolving door, but you know, that first group went in
+at the beginning of November, they were out before Christmas,
+the next group will come out at the end of the month here, and
+so we try to manage it in that manner.
+ Ms. Torres Small. Shifting gears just a little bit, CBP
+personnel, it's my understanding, are meant to be the primary
+and principal members who interact with migrants on the border,
+but we have already discussed somewhat the medical component of
+the mission.
+ Can you give me a little more clarification on how the
+medical part of the mission is limited based on interactions
+with migrants and how that is controlled?
+ Secretary Rood. Congresswoman, you are correct, the Customs
+and Border Patrol is the primary mission holder and the law
+enforcement agency. They have the responsibility to interface
+principally with the migrants. DOD personnel, medical
+personnel, are there to assist after screening has been
+conducted by CBP personnel.
+ If there's someone they believe presents an illness or an
+issue that they would like to refer them after that screening
+to DOD personnel, we can assist with medical treatment.
+ Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. Just shifting a little bit to
+the National Guard. I represent New Mexico. We have had a long
+history of National Guard working on the border as part of the
+anti-drug task force. Can you explain a little bit the
+differences between that longer history and the current
+National Guard operation?
+ Secretary Rood. Well, as you mentioned, Congresswoman,
+National Guard members and indeed other members of the force
+have been deployed over the years to the border, in addition to
+those deployments that the current President, President Trump,
+has directed.
+ Of course, President Obama directed several deployments.
+Those occurred during President Bush's tenure and during
+President Clinton's tenure. Their mission is always--the
+primary mission holder is the Department of Homeland Security,
+Customs and Border Protection.
+ Ms. Torres Small. And I am sorry, just because we are
+running short on time, the differences?
+ Secretary Rood. The differences--it is a very similar
+mission and it depends on what the DHS requests of us
+specifically to augment their forces. And that varies over
+time, whether it is surveillance or it's monitoring of
+different border areas, or in this particular case, emplacement
+of barriers between ports of entry.
+ Ms. Torres Small. So National Guard is also placing
+barriers at ports of entry?
+ Secretary Rood. That mission--my understanding is it will
+be done by Active Duty.
+ Ms. Torres Small. Okay.
+ Secretary Rood. About 150 miles of concertina wire in
+between ports of entry between now and the end of the fiscal
+year.
+ Ms. Torres Small. So any specific differences between this
+National Guard deployment and previous ones?
+ Admiral Gilday. I think it's relatively the same. I can't
+speak to the previous mission that you referred to, but I can
+give you some examples of what we are relying on the Guard for
+now.
+ Heavily--with respect to aviation--and so they have a
+number of rotary-wing aircraft with electro-optical and IR
+[infrared] sensors that we don't have as many of in the Active
+force to be honest, and so they have about 17 aircraft that we
+rely upon heavily, particularly in New Mexico and Arizona.
+ The other place where we are providing a lot of support is
+vehicle mechanics for CBP vehicles, intelligence analysts that
+help at CBP headquarters, paralegals, administrative
+assistance, and so the hope is that we are freeing up--or the
+goal is that we are freeing up CBP agents to actually do law
+enforcement.
+ Ms. Torres Small. Thank you.
+ The Chairman. Mr. Wilson.
+ Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Rood and
+Admiral Gilday, thank you so much for being here today. We are
+so fortunate to have the military personnel, the personnel that
+we have with the U.S. Custom and Border Protection agents on
+our border to protect American families, to address the issues
+that we have on the southern border, and I want to thank both
+of you for your service.
+ In particular, I have a firsthand experience of the
+benefits of being activated. I served 31 years in Army Guard, I
+am very grateful to have three sons who have served in the
+National Guard. We have found that being activated--for us, it
+was hurricane recovery and relief--but being activated and
+mobilized actually enhances training and the camaraderie of our
+members has never been better.
+ And so I want to thank you for the opportunities that you
+actually give, and as has been indicated, 19 different States
+have had Guard members at the southern border. And I just know
+how positive that is for our Guard members.
+ A precedent exists with the last five administrations for
+the use of DOD personnel, and Secretary Rood, for surveillance,
+logistics, aviation support, and other assistance. This support
+on the southern border has been carried out with Operation Jump
+Start under President George Bush and Operation Phalanx under
+President Barack Obama.
+ Can you discuss the relationship between the DOD and
+Customs and Border Protection personnel on the ground and do
+you see this relationship changing on the extension of Active
+Duty mission? And of course, we understand that it's backing up
+the law enforcement and personnel.
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman, as you correctly point out,
+the Defense Department has a long history of supporting Customs
+and Border Protection as well as other Federal agencies in
+support of their civil missions. And the relationship is really
+a very close one, both here in Washington and in our deployed
+units in the field, they live and work together.
+ And so as CBP performs their primary mission and their law
+enforcement duties, we assist them, and that takes various
+forms. As mentioned, construction at 22 ports of entry
+recently, not only concertina wire but jersey barriers, vehicle
+obstructions, emplacement of shipping containers and other
+temporary barriers to control the flow of individuals, and then
+medical support, aviation support, things of that nature.
+ But it is just a day-to-day working relationship, sir.
+ Mr. Wilson. Well the backup and support makes such a
+positive difference and it is so meaningful. With the military
+mission extended to September 30th, 2019, what if any does the
+Department have for transitioning the mission from Active Duty
+to National Guard? What conditions are going to be met? As
+indicated, it's ever changing.
+ Secretary Rood. As mentioned, Congressman, when we receive
+requests for assistance from the Department of Homeland
+Security, we look at them for legality, whether we have the
+capability and the appropriateness of the request, and then
+work with CBP in this particular case. In other cases, we do
+other support.
+ To refine that here, the National Guard Bureau and the
+State adjutant generals have indicated there's a predicted
+steady state, if you will, that they think they can source in
+terms of their provision. And so where we are unable to meet
+those requests from the National Guard, that is where we have
+looked at Active Duty through the end of this fiscal year, sir.
+ Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and Admiral Gilday,
+what opportunities exist for units mobilized to the border to
+maintain a high level of readiness? This is a concern by all of
+us. Can you address the training that DOD personnel receive on
+the Standing Rules for the [Use] of Force?
+ Admiral Gilday. I will. So I will take each of those. On
+the first point, sir, I think it ties back to a point that you
+made earlier about readiness. And so when we deploy our forces,
+most people just think that we are consuming readiness. But we
+are also producing readiness during those deployments.
+ So as you know, sir, many times at the end of that
+deployment, you are at a higher state of readiness than you
+were going into it because you just accumulate that type of
+hands-on deckplates, leadership, and experience that you
+typically wouldn't get at home station.
+ One really good example is the military police that we
+have, under DOD authorities, providing protection for CBP
+should they be overwhelmed at the border; and so the way that
+we have had to train with CBP personnel to make sure that we
+are clear on each of our authorities, to make sure that our
+communications are compatible, to make sure that we understand
+each other's tactics, techniques, and procedures. We ran those
+teams together with CBP through 10 different vignettes,
+training scenarios, both day and night.
+ And so we try to expose them to a wide range of
+possibilities. Some of the best training that we have had is
+with the military police. In terms of----
+ Mr. Wilson. Enhances readiness. Thank you very much.
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Courtney.
+ Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a quick yes-
+or-no question. Given the threat description that surrounded
+this order, are the service members at the borders receiving
+imminent danger pay?
+ Secretary Rood. No.
+ Admiral Gilday. No, sir.
+ Mr. Courtney. Thank you. I would just yield the balance of
+my time to Congresswoman Luria.
+ Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you, Under Secretary Rood and
+Admiral Gilday. You stated that the military support is for
+three main purposes. In providing forces to stop the tide of
+illegal immigration, stop human trafficking, and stop the flow
+of illegal drugs.
+ I would like to hear, Admiral, which of these three
+missions do you think is the most pressing?
+ Admiral Gilday. Drugs----
+ Mrs. Luria. Human trafficking----
+ Admiral Gilday. Trafficking----
+ Mrs. Luria. Or personnel crossing the border.
+ Admiral Gilday. Difficult to prioritize. All pretty
+important. I would say that I think as we transition to our new
+mission set from the ports of entry to the areas between the
+ports of entry, we bring a skill set with respect to detection
+and monitoring that I think is going to be very valuable for
+CBP in trying to get their arms around all three of those
+problems----
+ Mrs. Luria. Okay.
+ Admiral Gilday [continuing]. Which could be present at any
+point in the border.
+ Mrs. Luria. Well, in that case, I would like to focus on
+the flow of illegal drugs. And it has been reported that, you
+know, a large portion of the drugs do not in fact come across
+the border. They come by sea and our ports of entry.
+ And as you know, also myself, as a surface warfare officer
+for 20 years, we know that the Navy used to supply forces
+frequently in support of SOUTHCOM [U.S. Southern Command],
+JIATF [Joint Interagency Task Force] South, to stop that flow.
+ I met with Admiral Grady, who's the executive agent for
+Global Force Management for Fleet Forces, and he confirmed that
+the only forces that we're giving to SOUTHCOM currently are
+those that happen to be transiting as an opportunity between
+east and west coasts.
+ So I was wondering if you could compare the request for
+forces that we are currently receiving from SOUTHCOM versus
+those that we are meeting, towards the goal of stopping the
+flow of drugs at sea. And what percentage of requests for
+forces from SOUTHCOM would you say have gone unmet in the last
+several years?
+ Admiral Gilday. So I think we really need to talk about the
+last probably 18 months under a new President with a new
+National Security Strategy and a new defense strategy.
+ And so that new defense strategy racks and stacks problem
+sets for us with respect to China, Russia, North Korea, Iran,
+and the counter-VEO [violent extremist organization] problem.
+And so what we have done in the past year in particular, is we
+have prioritized our resources in accordance with those
+priorities. We just can't do it all.
+ As the chairman brought up in his statement at the
+beginning, we have under-sourced readiness for some time. That
+is the Secretary, and the acting Secretary now's, top priority,
+is in order to make us more lethal, we have to be ready.
+ And so we have had to ruthlessly prioritize. And quite
+honestly, although the drug problem is a big problem, we have
+historically under-resourced Southern Command against that
+problem set.
+ And I--I probably have an unsatisfactory answer for you,
+ma'am, in terms of--in terms of our being able to improve in
+that regard. But I do think--when we have problems like that, I
+do think it requires more imagination to get after it in a
+better way. And so it is looked at. I am just being honest with
+you with respect to the racking and stacking of national
+priorities. It hasn't reached the top.
+ Mrs. Luria. So with that racking and stacking of national
+priorities, this is currently the only one in our discussion
+that is being potentially envisioned as a national emergency.
+So it doesn't seem consistent with where we have placed it in
+our order of priority for allocating forces.
+ And when you say, use creativity, you just mentioned that
+when we use forces, we are not just consuming readiness, but we
+are producing readiness?
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes.
+ Mrs. Luria. So that is another element that I would ask you
+to consider, possibly, when we have forces that are not
+actually deployed but in their workup and training phases, to
+be able to participate as well in this mission of combating the
+flow of drugs at sea while they are also building their
+readiness.
+ Admiral Gilday. Congresswoman, I think that is a fair
+comment. To your point about priorities, so the National
+Defense Strategy is a strategy. And it has laid out priorities
+that we follow. But reality strikes, we end up reprioritizing.
+And in this case, that is exactly what happened.
+ Mrs. Luria. Thank you. I yield my time.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Turner.
+ Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Admiral, Secretary Rood, thank you for being here. Thank
+you for your service.
+ Secretary Rood, thank you for your expertise and the
+dialogue that you are having here today. I am going to ask you
+two questions and then I am going to concede my time to Mr.
+Bergman.
+ The admiral indicated that it is hard to answer a negative.
+How many people were deterred, how many people didn't cross the
+border. So I have two simple questions for you. I think they
+are yes or no but I am not going to restrict you to yes or no
+if you feel you need to answer them more broadly.
+ So to your knowledge, is the United States border with
+Mexico currently closed? And by closed, I mean is the level of
+protection that is currently being provided by Homeland
+Security and the Department of Defense stopping illegal
+immigration? Has it stopped? Has illegal immigration stopped
+between Mexico and the United States as a result of the current
+level of protection from Homeland Security and DOD?
+ Secretary Rood. No. Just in the last 3 months alone, CBP
+reports apprehending 154,000 illegal immigrants.
+ Mr. Turner. To your knowledge, Mr. Secretary, are there
+portions of the U.S. border between Mexico and the United
+States where individuals can enter the United States illegally,
+unimpeded?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes.
+ Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I yield my time to
+Mr. Bergman.
+ Mr. Bergman. Thank you and I appreciate you yielding time,
+Mr. Turner. I am glad you both are here.
+ Just for clarification, I want to make sure that nothing
+has changed since I took off the uniform about 10 years ago and
+that you only pay a guardsman or reservist when they are
+performing some type of duty. Correct? Okay.
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes.
+ Mr. Bergman. So the point is there are Active Duty
+personnel that we have down there today. You are paying them
+normal pay rate. No combat pay. Just our normal pay rate. Any
+TAD [temporary additional duty]?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, it depends, but those numbers are
+very, very small.
+ Mr. Bergman. So the point is----
+ Admiral Gilday. So they do receive, when they deploy for
+more than 30 days away from home station, they do receive a
+modest family separation allowance.
+ Mr. Bergman. Okay, so family separation allowance. But the
+bottom line is minimal to no additional cost by utilizing
+Active Component personnel. Any idea how many of the Active
+Component personnel that you are using down there, it's their
+first deployment since joining the military?
+ In other words, they are not in a dwell time because they
+have been stressed over a period of time?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, I would like to take that for the
+record.
+ [The information referred to was not available at the time
+of printing.]
+ Mr. Bergman. Okay. Well, because we know the troops coming
+off the line need to get R&R [rest and recuperation], need to
+get refreshed, need to get retrained, in some cases re-
+missioned if they change units. Any special skill sets that are
+required on the border right now that we might call HDLD, high
+demand/low density assets that would be getting stressed?
+ Admiral Gilday. Not skill set so much, sir, but I would say
+if we are stressed anywhere it is rotary wing just because of
+the demand we have for helicopters in Syria, in Iraq, and
+Afghanistan. So we have been a bit pinched in terms of helos,
+to be honest. But not at a point where we have significant
+concerns about them----
+ Mr. Bergman. Okay. So stress on the flight hours on
+airframe as opposed to time on the pilot seat, button seat?
+Okay.
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir, just availability of the assets
+with crews that are at a, let us say, a 1:2 dwell.
+ Mr. Bergman. Okay. Is it fair to say that if we have a lot
+of first-time folks deploying, this is why they joined, maybe
+in a slightly different, you know, fight, if you will, or
+mission, probably more appropriately said, than they originally
+envisioned on their first deployment.
+ But are we making them more capable because of the training
+and what they are doing on a daily basis here so that when we
+do have to deploy them somewhere in the world that they are
+more ready and ready to take on whatever mission?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, I would say in general, yes.
+Specifically, down to every person I think it would be
+difficult to make that argument that the medical personnel, for
+example, who are doing medical screening may not be optimizing
+their skill sets. But that said, it is a critically important
+mission at the moment.
+ Mr. Bergman. We know that no matter what the situation is,
+whether we are dealing with combat injuries on the battlefield
+or dealing with humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, the
+need for medical personnel, whether it be doctors or nurses, is
+going to continue to be stressed no matter what we are using
+them for.
+ So with that, for those of you who have been around a
+while, the Three Block War--humanitarian assistance, keeping
+the peace, and making the peace--bottom line is, let us stay in
+that first one or two, especially in that middle block here.
+And I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. If I could just follow it up with
+a quick question based on Mr. Turner's question there. So DHS
+asks you basically for help at the end of the day with what
+they are doing. And I guess the question that occurred to me
+is, do you ever say no?
+ Because by Mr. Turner's definition there, I mean, to
+actually close the border to stop anybody from ever being able
+to cross in an unauthorized manner, anything across, I would
+think you could plop 50,000 U.S. troops down there on the
+border, you would still have a hard time doing that.
+ And also note for the committee, and I am sure Mr. Turner
+is aware, every single combatant commander that we have has
+requests that go unfilled. It is absolutely true, because there
+is too much in the world that we need to do. We don't have the
+resources for all of them. I guess that is the biggest concern
+from this discussion here is, yes, we can talk about the border
+all day long, and if that is the only thing that you had to
+worry about at DOD, well, heck, 5,900, that is nothing.
+ I mean, why not 50,000, okay? But we have got other needs
+in the world which we will hear about in great detail in this
+committee. And the reason we are starting here is because this
+is not primary to our mission. And if we start down this road
+with what those previous questions were and say, you know, DOD,
+it's all about the border, where does it stop?
+ So, under what circumstances would you say no; look, yes
+there is a border problem. There will always be a border
+problem. We are not going to completely shut that border off.
+But we also have ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria]. We
+also have Afghanistan and Syria. We are worried about Russia
+and China. Do we have a sufficient presence to deal with
+deterring that threat?
+ So, under what circumstances, when DHS comes over and says,
+hey, we need your equipment, we need your troops, do you say,
+look, we don't have the ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and
+reconnaissance] that we need in Africa, all right? We don't
+have, you know, enough of a troop presence in Eastern Europe to
+deter Russia, so that is going to take priority.
+ Under what circumstances do you say that?
+ Secretary Rood. Mr. Chairman, when----
+ The Chairman. I know that is not directly your call. That
+is more the Secretary of Defense's call. But I am curious as to
+your perspective.
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, sir. When the Department of Homeland
+Security or another civil agency makes a request for
+assistance, we look at it from the legality of it, the
+appropriateness--do we have a capability that can actually meet
+that need? And then we do look at readiness and the impact on
+our other mission areas.
+ And the same approach, basic approach applies whether it is
+DHS requesting support at the border or----
+ The Chairman. What would be most helpful on this is if you
+could give us an example of when you did say no to DHS. You
+know, and I will drub it up, what if they asked you for $10
+billion out of MILCON [military construction] to help build the
+wall? Would you say no then?
+ Secretary Rood. Well, with respect to use of MILCON
+authorities, of course, the President would need to declare a
+national emergency and the Secretary of Defense make certain
+determinations before we would ever reach that question. And so
+the Department of Homeland Security couldn't make that request
+directly to us. It would need to be initiated by the
+President's declaration.
+ With respect to your question about where we say no, we
+haven't always approved every request from the Department of
+Homeland Security, but we generally work with them to find ways
+that we can adjust what we are going to provide to meet the
+mission need. Sometimes they don't have a full understanding of
+what we can do.
+ The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Garamendi.
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, sir.
+ Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ In case nobody noticed, we are in the midst of a raging
+debate about this whole issue of border security, and
+apparently the President wanted to use the military like 10
+days before the election. All well and good.
+ Specific question probably more for the record. What were
+the precise talents, skill sets, and operation that the
+individual units had when they were deployed to the border, the
+5,900? What were their skill sets? And that is unit by unit. So
+please deliver that to us.
+ Secondly, there's a major question of readiness. It has
+been raised here over and over. And thirdly, apparently the
+military is good at stacking containers to form some sort of a
+wall and laying concertina wire. What else did they actually
+do? And apparently they were deployed in the southeastern part
+of Texas, and the threat moved to San Diego and Tijuana.
+ Did the military move also to address that threat? All for
+the record, having asked for that specific information, I would
+like to turn over my remaining time to the esteemed lady from
+Oklahoma, Ms. Horn.
+ [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
+on page 72.]
+ Ms. Horn. Thank you very much, Mr. Garamendi, and thank
+you, Mr. Secretary and Admiral for being here today. My
+question focuses back on readiness for a moment, and I am
+curious as to the Active Duty troops that were deployed, where
+they were before their deployment and what they were doing
+before their deployment and what it took to get them down
+there.
+ And then the second part of my question is given that we
+have discussed the historical nature of the National Guard
+working with DHS and taking the lead on some of these, does the
+National Guard have the capability to accomplish the same
+mission--concertina wire and hardening of the border and that
+sort of thing?
+ Admiral Gilday. Congresswoman, your first question was
+about where these forces were before they actually went down to
+the border. So they were based in the continental United States
+and they were ready forces--ready to deploy within 30 days.
+ And so we always have a reserve of forces that we can draw
+upon for--you name an emergency that we are going to respond
+to, or we need to send additional forces to plus-up for a
+particular mission somewhere in the globe.
+ And so those forces are trained, certified, manned,
+trained, and equipped in order to do their specific tasks. And
+we selected them specifically because we felt that they were
+best suited based on the inventory of forces that we had, that
+they were best suited with those skill sets in a timely manner
+to deploy at the right readiness level and properly trained.
+ With respect to your second question, which had to do with
+whether or not Guard has the skill sets for concertina wire,
+they do and they have in the past, but not in this particular--
+but not in this particular operation.
+ Ms. Horn. As a follow-up to that, you mentioned a 30-day
+turnaround for deployment. What is the difference in turnaround
+time for deployment between the Active Duty troops that
+deployed and a National Guard unit being deployable in that
+time?
+ Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, I will have to get back to you with
+specifics on those corresponding dwell times between both
+Active and Guard to give you a precise answer.
+ [The information referred to was not available at the time
+of printing.]
+ Ms. Horn. I yield back my time.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Rogers.
+ Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, I am
+painfully familiar with this topic, I have been on the Homeland
+Security Committee for 15 years. And while we have talked a lot
+today about the last 12 to 13 years where we have been
+repeatedly sending Reserve and Guard and Active Duty troops
+down there, it has been going on since the Alamo and every
+decade in between, we have used DOD assets for that mission.
+ But to get to the chairman's question in the initial part
+of this hearing, what is it going to take for us to not have to
+continue this pattern? We are going to have to adequately fund
+the Department of Homeland Security instead of continually
+reaching into DOD to subsidize that department.
+ It has been inadequately funded since its inception by
+Republican and Democrat administrations. That has to be
+addressed. So one of the things this President's trying to
+address, been asking for money for fencing. And I am just
+astounded by the fact that we continue to act stupid in
+Congress and fuss over things like $5.7 billion in fencing and
+it cost us $11 billion to shut the government down.
+ I would like to know, Admiral, do you know how much it has
+cost for these last deployments that we have had down there,
+how much it costs the DOD?
+ Admiral Gilday. So I can tell you, sir, Active Duty, our
+projection through the end of this month is $132 million, and
+for the National Guard in the last fiscal year was $103
+million, and we project in fiscal year 2019 to be $448 million.
+ So it will be about $550 million overall for the Guard and
+the--it is difficult to give you an accurate estimate right now
+on Active Duty just based--as I have described, the requirement
+is evolving and fluctuating.
+ Mr. Rogers. Yeah, and that is just the most recent. I mean,
+we continue to do this and we have got to adequately fund the
+Department of Homeland Security, specifically Customs and
+Border Protection. With that, I yield the balance of my time to
+General Kelly.
+ Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Rogers, for yielding time. Just
+very quickly, you know, I spent my whole military career as an
+engineer, and I was what they call a sapper on the Army side.
+You know, what we do is build obstacles, okay?
+ And there are many purposes for obstacles and I am sure it
+is the same way in the Navy. We have turn, fix, disrupt, and
+block. And I use an analogy, locks don't keep burglars out of
+your houses or cars. But I do know in my neighborhood last
+year, there were burglars going through and breaking into all
+of the cars that were unlocked.
+ So those locks didn't keep them from getting in a car, but
+it did slow them down. And barriers or obstacles--I prefer not
+even barriers--obstacles have different purposes and they move
+people to where they are.
+ Do you agree that obstacles never, unless they are covered,
+unless they were constantly watched, that you can always get by
+or bypass them, however they do make it easier to where you
+locate people coming across illegally?
+ Would you agree with that, Vice Admiral and Mr. Secretary?
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes sir, in the abstract, I agree with
+that. There are a lot of variables that go into wall placement,
+but I think you are right in the fact that a barrier is
+ineffective unless you are surveilling it and you can react if
+it's breached.
+ Mr. Kelly. And I want to touch just a little bit about
+whether it's Guard or Active Component, you guys agree that the
+new policy is that Guard and Reserves and Active Component is a
+force of one, and they all have operational requirements?
+ And I want to use my small State of Mississippi, which has
+about 10,000 members in our Mississippi Army National Guard and
+about 1,500 in our Air Guard, but currently, we have one
+company, Charlie Company, First Battalion, 114th Aviation that
+is on the border supporting this mission and doing great work
+down there.
+ That being said, we have a BCT [brigade combat team] doing
+Operation Spartan Shield in Kuwait, Jordan, other places, so
+that is about 4,500 of our 10,000 Army soldiers. We have the
+184th ESC [Expeditionary Sustainment Command], which is also a
+headquarters which is in Kuwait right now doing logistics.
+ We have State missions, we have these little things called
+hurricanes that we have to respond to, we have all these forces
+deployed as part of the Active force, as part of the rotational
+forces we have to defend our missions. Is that a reason to use
+maybe sometimes Active Duty forces when Guard forces can do the
+same thing, Admiral?
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. As you said initially, it is one
+force; who's best suited for the task? And as I mentioned
+earlier, the Guard has sustainability issues as well that we
+can't just wish away just like the Active side does.
+ And so I think it is a balanced approach in terms of how we
+use--how we put those people to best use.
+ Mr. Kelly. And thank you for that.
+ I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Norcross.
+ Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
+ Planning. Nobody can guess what the President's going to
+do, but we have some indications what he might do. Have you
+taken into account, outside of the personnel, the cost for
+construction of a barrier different than the wire and fence
+that you are presently working on? If you were to do the 230
+miles.
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir--maybe you should take this one.
+ Secretary Rood. Well, as you mentioned, Congressman, a
+national emergency declaration has not been issued by the
+President. And if it were, there are other legal requirements
+that we have done prudent--pre-planning to understand the law
+and our obligations under it.
+ And depending on what the Department of Homeland Security,
+CBP would identify and how those requests would be met, that
+would determine the type of wall and the cost----
+ Mr. Norcross. So you are not looking at any scenarios right
+now at all? There's no pre-planning----
+ Secretary Rood. We are merely----
+ Mr. Norcross [continuing]. Whether you are going to put a
+concrete barrier or some steel up or some wire?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes. It would depend on the circumstances
+that we would reach at that moment. And obviously, we have done
+prudent pre-planning. I have seen, as you have, the statements
+the President has made regarding the possibility of a national
+emergency. So we have looked into how that would operate.
+ Mr. Norcross. So what are your ranges of cost estimates?
+ Secretary Rood. Again, it--there is no--after the President
+were to declare a national emergency----
+ Mr. Norcross [continuing]. We understand the process. But--
+--
+ Secretary Rood. But--but with----
+ Mr. Norcross [continuing]. You have to look down the road
+and anticipate. We could put a full barrier up, a 35-foot wall.
+We could put wire. You are not going to wait until that phone
+call comes to start planning. That is one thing that you do
+well.
+ Secretary Rood. Within such a declaration, a national
+emergency would be the citation of the authorities under which
+it is done. We have limited authorities. Depending on what
+those authorities are, sir, it would define how much money was
+available. And we would obviously work with the Department of
+Homeland Security to get their latest prioritized listing.
+ And from all those factors--land availability, cost of
+land, other things, would come into play if you were talking
+about a barrier construction or even the placement of wire.
+Those are considerations that would need to be reached at that
+point.
+ Mr. Norcross. So no pre-planning in terms of cost and
+personnel, or what it would take to do the job that is taking
+place until you get that declaration?
+ Secretary Rood. We would have--in that circumstance, we
+have not made any decisions nor formalized what those would be.
+But obviously, depending on what the type of barrier the Army
+Corps of Engineers in the barrier case would be asked to do,
+they have been looking at different types of construction.
+ Mr. Norcross. Is this the most cost-effective way of
+putting up a barrier?
+ Secretary Rood. Sir, we would respond to what the
+Department of Homeland Security and the CBP identified in that
+area. The Army Corps of Engineers has done construction, parts
+of the 654 miles of barrier on the southern border, over our
+history. And those things vary, given the circumstances at the
+time.
+ Mr. Norcross. I yield back. Thank you.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Conaway. Is that correct? I
+don't think he is here. He is not here.
+ Mr. Lamborn.
+ Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Thank you both for being here. And I was on the border a
+week ago today, in the Brownsville, McAllen area. And talking
+to the people there, they have a very good plan of what they
+would like to do if they were given more assets, more money,
+more resources.
+ So my first hope is that we as a Congress will give
+Homeland Security more of what they need. And that they have a
+well-defined plan of how they could put that to use.
+ But if that doesn't happen, the President will have the
+choice he will have to make, of declaring a national emergency
+and then using money from somewhere to build some kind of
+barrier.
+ And my hope--Mr. Rood, I am going to direct this to you.
+And maybe this is a little speculative and you can't give me a
+definitive and final answer, but my hope would be that
+emergency money for that purpose would come out of emergency
+money from another purpose, and we would have to replenish that
+later; like disaster relief.
+ I mean, I would hate to see that happen. But that would be
+the best possible alternative I can think of, especially
+compared to taking money from military construction. Because
+those projects have been in the pipeline for years and years,
+and that would be disruptive.
+ So my hope would be it would be emergency to emergency. Do
+you have any thoughts on those lines, Mr. Rood?
+ Secretary Rood. Well, Congressman, of course at this stage
+the President has not chosen to declare a national emergency.
+And if he were to do so, then the Secretary of Defense, the
+next step in the process would need to determine that
+undertaking military construction projects.
+ Assuming that that was the authority authorized by the
+President in his declaration, then the Secretary of Defense
+would then need to make a determination that, by undertaking
+these military construction projects, that that was necessary
+to support the use of the Armed Forces. And then we would flow
+from there.
+ There are only limited authorities available to the Defense
+Department if directed by the President or if authorized, I
+should say, to pursue them. And he would identify, in his
+declaration, what those authorities were.
+ Mr. Lamborn. Okay, thank you. And I will just reiterate. My
+hope is that Congress does the right thing, and we authorize
+money and not--we don't have to go down that road at all.
+ General Gilday, I would like to ask you a question. And you
+have already done a good job of explaining the benefits that
+accrue when these missions are being performed, to the people
+doing those missions.
+ And you talked about facilities, troops, engineering,
+medical, and rotary wing. When it comes to readiness, we have
+talked about construction but we also talked about training.
+That is the other component.
+ We have used our troops in a variety of worldwide
+humanitarian missions: Ebola outbreak in Africa, tsunamis,
+earthquake relief, and others. And there is a humanitarian
+component to the southern border crisis, as well as a national
+security component.
+ When our medical troops, for instance, are helping Homeland
+Security on the border, are they gaining experience that helps
+them? Or if they were doing a humanitarian mission in Africa,
+does that help them in their professional and military careers?
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier, I think
+with each of the skill sets, it varies a bit. The example I
+gave with medical, so they are doing follow-on screenings after
+CBP does their initial medical screening.
+ So most of those referrals are routine elements and so I
+could make the argument that if I deployed those same people
+overseas to Afghanistan, that they might receive a higher level
+of training.
+ But I think that we have placed a high degree of importance
+on the work that they are doing on the border. They know it is
+important work. They know it must be done.
+ I do think that--again, to answer your question, I do think
+there's varying degrees, to be honest with you, on how much
+training value that you receive from each particular mission,
+some more than others.
+ Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
+ Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Mr. Carbajal.
+ Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ During Operation Desert Storm and after 9/11, Presidents
+invoked the National Emergencies Act, NEA, twice, citing the
+emergency military construction authority. According to the
+Department of Defense records, the Department funded 18
+projects.
+ I am looking at these projects right now; airfield runways,
+medical facilities, barracks, security measures for weapons of
+mass destruction, et cetera, et cetera, to name a few. All of
+those projects were determined as necessary to support the
+Armed Forces in the declared emergency, which makes sense.
+ You need a runway for aircraft to land, places for service
+members to live and receive health care. Admiral Gilday, how is
+the border wall necessary to support the use of Armed Forces
+and what authorities would be needed to make that
+determination?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, that is a hypothetical. I----
+ Mr. Carbajal. You can give me a hypothetical answer.
+ Admiral Gilday. I will give you a hypothetical answer if
+that is okay.
+ So the President has a range of different authorities that
+he can invoke. And each of those authorities are tied to laws
+that have specific requirements that would dictate how that
+money--that would dictate the determination of the calculus
+that the Department would go through to determine whether or
+not you could justify using those funds to build a barrier.
+ Mr. Carbajal. Do you know what those authorities are?
+ Admiral Gilday. Broadly I know what they are, sir, I have
+not looked at them in detail because I am not an engineer. But
+I know that there are specific authorities that, as you have
+stated, we would have to show that DOD benefits.
+ You know, whether the argument would be that we no longer
+have to deploy 5,900 people to the wall, we would have to take
+a look at that more deeply to see if that is a justifiable, you
+know, cause-effect.
+ Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
+ Admiral Gilday. Yeah.
+ Mr. Carbajal. How is the Department determining which
+military construction projects can be scrapped in order to fund
+the wall? I am sure you are looking at that now in light of the
+rhetoric and the discussion that is ensuing.
+ Which projects would be scrapped?
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman, of course, the President would
+need to invoke a national emergency and cite the use of section
+2808 of title 10, which is the military construction provision,
+to authorize such an activity. The President's not, of course,
+chosen to do so; therefore, we have only done preliminary,
+prudent pre-planning, we have not developed a specific list of
+military construction projects because the President hasn't
+taken that step.
+ Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Last year, I received a call from
+some of my constituents who had to endure living on base in
+housing environments with their families, that they are
+expected to live--at Fort Benning, Georgia, to be exact.
+ I specifically sent a letter to Secretary Mattis regarding
+this constituent call and the serious concerns raised. This
+family lived on base for about 5 years, and because of the
+children being exposed to high levels of lead, they are now
+dealing with health-related disabilities and other symptoms.
+ Funds are required to address these deteriorating living
+conditions but now there is a chance that we will neglect
+service members again. This time it will be for, again, a
+needless wall. Could any of these obligated funds for MILCON
+and family housing be used to improve the living conditions for
+service members and their families?
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman, again, the--this would be a
+hypothetical situation that the President has not chosen to
+invoke a national emergency and authorize the use of section
+2808 military construction funds. So we at the Defense
+Department are not making trades with those funds at this time.
+ Mr. Carbajal. But will you agree, if you had to take
+funding from existing DOD priorities, it would leave some of
+those priorities without funding?
+ Secretary Rood. The--if----
+ Mr. Carbajal [continuing]. Or is there enough funding
+surplus right now available for the wall?
+ Secretary Rood. Any use of military construction funds for
+purpose B instead of purpose A it would obviously come from one
+source to another, sir.
+ Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. I touch on this because I also
+have Camp Roberts in my district, and I am informed there is an
+important road for really important training and facilities
+that exists on this base. And currently, that road cannot be
+traversed. And again, these funds that would go towards a wall
+would be taken away from being able to rehabilitate that road.
+So----
+ The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
+ Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much, I yield my time back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you.
+ Mr. Wittman.
+ Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Secretary Rood, Vice Admiral Gilday, thanks so much for
+joining us. Up here in the corner. There we go.
+ Secretary Rood, I just wanted to ask one simple question,
+just yes or no. Are the troops that are currently deployed
+along with our Customs and Border Patrol agents, are they a
+help in helping the Customs and Border Patrol agents achieve
+the counter-narcotics missions that they have been charged
+with? And do the troops and their capabilities also help the
+Customs and Border Patrol agents in stymieing the flow of
+narcotics into the United States?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes.
+ Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
+ I am going to now yield the balance of my time to Mr.
+Mitchell.
+ Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Wittman, I appreciate that.
+ Secretary Rood or Vice Admiral, a question for you. First,
+let's start with--let's not deal with hypotheticals, which some
+of my colleagues want to talk about, if-then.
+ We are here at this moment of time talking about this
+because we failed to provide adequate resources to DHS to deal
+with their own mission, their own challenges. So we are now
+having to assist those--supplement those resources.
+ Can either of you tell me, of the approximately $500
+million we are talking about estimated for the year, what
+percentage of those needs DHS could address themselves if
+properly funded?
+ Secretary Rood. Well, certainly the Department of Homeland
+Security, CBP looks, as we understand it, within their own
+resources and authorities first before asking for augmentation
+or supplemental----
+ Mr. Mitchell. Can you talk a little louder, sir? I am
+sorry.
+ Secretary Rood. Certainly the DHS, CBP looks within their
+own resources--as we understand it from them--before asking for
+supplementation or augmentation from the DOD. And so the
+specialized skills--there are some specialized skills we bring
+to the table, but in other cases if they possess those
+capabilities at DHS and CBP, they could do it themselves.
+ Mr. Mitchell. I appreciate the general response. Let us
+try, Vice Admiral, what percentage of the overall is actually
+military-specific versus a lack of resources at DHS, sir?
+ Admiral Gilday. So to answer your question, sir, none of
+the capabilities that we are providing are combat capabilities,
+it is not a war zone along the border. And so all the, you
+know, I talked about aviation, I talked about paralegals,
+mechanics, facilities, medical, concertina wire, none of that
+is a unique military skill set.
+ Mr. Mitchell. So the reality is we are sitting here today
+discussing this because we failed to adequately deal with a
+comprehensive solution to our southern border. So now, we are
+trying to basically put our finger in the holes until Congress
+does its job.
+ Would you disagree with that, Vice Admiral?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, if I took that same argument and said
+that we need to use DOD to respond to a hurricane. There are
+certain situations where, you know, one of our primary missions
+is defense support to civil authorities. And so I think that
+one is a tricky one to answer.
+ Mr. Mitchell. Thank you.
+ Mr. Chair, I will yield back. Thank you very much.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. I do want to make a quick note on
+the budget. The President made his budget request for the
+Department of Homeland Security in February of 2018. Congress
+fully met that request, both the Senate and the House. So what
+whatever crisis occurred to him in the months that followed, it
+was not at the top of his mind in February of 2018.
+ That was the budget request and we fully funded it. This is
+not a question for you, gentlemen, this is just, you know, to
+make the point. We are hearing now from the--I mean, gosh, if
+we just gave more money to the Department of Homeland Security,
+this wouldn't be a problem.
+ And, you know, it's odd for me to be making this point, you
+know, with the fiscal conservatives on the other side of the
+aisle, we are $22 trillion in debt. Our deficit is going to be
+$1 trillion this year. We just cut taxes by somewhere in the
+neighborhood of $2 trillion.
+ On this committee, we hear repeatedly about all the areas
+of the Department of Defense that have gone underfunded. We
+don't have--well, I was going to say, we can't print money. We
+can, in fact, print money. But there's a downside to that, as I
+think all of the Republicans would acknowledge.
+ So where are you going to find all this extra money, you
+know, for the Department of Homeland Security sort of implied,
+well, so just get more money. We also have a few other needs in
+the country that have gone unmet. We have a $600 billion
+infrastructure deficit by most estimates, to the point where
+water is poisoned and bridges are collapsing in the United
+States of America.
+ So we have to make budget choices. And I will also point
+out that go back to 2005 and to now, we have quadrupled the
+number of Border Patrol agents, we have built 700 miles of
+wall, we have drones and sensors, we have massively increased
+the amount of money that we have spent on border security.
+ So I am not sure the solution here is just spend more money
+so that way we don't have to steal it from the Department of
+Defense. We have got a make a budget that works for all of us.
+And this is going to be something we are going to wrestle with
+once we try to get our budget in place for this year, because
+there are a lot of DOD needs.
+ The discretionary budget, a little over $1 trillion, okay?
+And Department of Homeland Security is part of that. We, at
+DOD, are like 55 percent of that. So before you get too excited
+about giving more money to DHS, you have got to find it
+somewhere. You know, if we can find it somewhere, I am wide
+open to the discussion. But we have to make choices.
+ Mr. Thornberry.
+ Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ I will avoid getting into the broader budget issues, which
+obviously affect a whole variety of things. I would simply
+point out that with DOD, Homeland Security, or any of the
+agencies, they have to formulate their budget months in advance
+of it even coming to us.
+ One of the things that changed is that now we have
+thousands and tens of thousands of migrants who are coming in
+caravans which we have not seen before. And I think members, if
+they look at the statistics which are provided by the
+Department of Homeland Security, the days when we had a greater
+number of people, but most of them were from Mexico and you
+could simply put them back across the border, are very
+different from these large family groups, 10,000, 12,000 people
+coming. So yes, it changed the requirements.
+ And as we have been talking, if anything, we have to be
+more flexible to respond to changing circumstances. I think
+that is what the President is trying to do. I would prefer he
+not have to resort to DOD to make up for gaps in Department of
+Homeland Security funding. But I do think it is important to
+acknowledge that things change and our government has to
+respond.
+ The Chairman. And that is very true. And we would be in a
+better position to respond if we weren't $22 trillion in debt.
+So the more resources you have the more flexibility you have.
+And we face some very difficult choices no matter how the
+circumstances come down to us.
+ Mr. Keating.
+ Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad the
+discussion has taken this turn.
+ Mr. Rood, my understanding is that you are familiar with
+the 2018 National Defense Strategy because you helped write
+that. Is that correct?
+ Secretary Rood. I didn't help write it, sir, I came in
+afterwards. But I have been helping implement it.
+ Mr. Keating. You are familiar with the contents?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
+ Mr. Keating. What, in your opinion--just in a sentence or
+so--what is the use of that document? What is the importance of
+that for utilization purposes?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, to guide the activities of the Defense
+Department and others and prioritize our efforts.
+ Mr. Keating. Yes, I would suggest too that it is also an
+important document as well when we are looking at the overall
+strategic priorities. It is an important budget document as
+well for this committee and for Congress, because that is what
+we look towards to do the, you know, fiscal year 2019 to fiscal
+year 2023 budget requests.
+ So although things do change quickly, when I heard the
+admiral say that, you know, it is hard to get priorities, when
+you were asked that question about our activities in the
+southern border versus what is in that defense strategy
+document, or we have to be creative.
+ That creates problems for us doing our job and using that.
+For instance, Mr. Rood, in that, that whole document, was the
+term southern border ever--those words ever in that document?
+ Secretary Rood. I don't recall that in the unclassified
+version, sir.
+ Mr. Keating. Was the word caravan ever used?
+ Secretary Rood. Not that I can recall.
+ Mr. Keating. So here is our dilemma, as a committee and a
+Congress, we have to have priorities. Money is finite. And we
+have to make decisions on funding.
+ So I think this is an important hearing as a discussion
+point to go from going forward because things aren't in sync in
+terms of the way I view them. We have to make those decisions.
+We have to assess priorities. This committee has a history--
+this Congress has history of really relying on our defense and
+our military to tell us what those priorities are so we can
+fund them.
+ I think we are at a point where I am hearing terms, you
+know, just hard to give priorities, everything is important,
+things that aren't even mentioned in the strategic document we
+are supposed to use to make those priorities are now coming to
+the forefront and they are being said there is crisis
+surrounding those things.
+ But the two things have to get in sync. And I think instead
+of a question, you might want to comment, how can this
+committee best function? Because we can't function giving those
+resources going forward, when we have to take a turn and look
+at different views, quote/unquote, or we have to be creative.
+ Those things really make our job next to impossible. Could
+you comment on that?
+ Secretary Rood. Sure, I will--Congressman, I would say--
+commend your knowledge and the way that you are following the
+National Defense Strategy. That is our guidepost in the Defense
+Department. We are trying to live that life to make that vision
+of what we are saying.
+ And there are some hard choices that are described in that
+document, in setting out that vision for the future. And some
+of it is an uncomfortable reality that we as a Nation need to
+confront.
+ With respect to support to civil authorities, I would say
+those kinds of requests--and we do not lack the ability to
+prioritize our resources and I think you will see in the coming
+budget that we have made a major effort to try to track along
+the lines of the National Defense Strategy.
+ With respect to support to civil authorities, of course,
+this is a longstanding activity the Department of Defense has
+done. And it is not just limited to the southern border. I
+mean, for example, this coming weekend at the Super Bowl, the
+Defense Department will provide assets in support of civil
+authorities. When the U.N. General Assembly meets in the
+summertime in New York or in September, we will also provide
+support to civil authorities for that type of activity. And
+there is a range of others. Fires, floods, et cetera.
+ Mr. Keating. I would just say this. That although----
+ Secretary Rood. Yes.
+ Mr. Keating [continuing]. Parenthetically I have a great
+deal of confidence in the defense of the New England Patriots,
+I also want to say this, that has been traditionally done.
+ But I see a difference in scope that is occurring with the
+discussions we are having now with the southern border and the
+effect of that on our readiness, on those five central areas of
+threat--China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. and terrorist
+groups.
+ And that document that is our--I think our guidepost, going
+forward, the things that all of a sudden are getting so much
+more, you know, resources drawn to them aren't contained in
+that.
+ And I will just say this because my time is out. That we
+have to do a better job if we are going to act in a bipartisan
+way, listening to our military and defense, to have a clearer,
+more accountable and a more timely demonstration of what these
+priorities are.
+ I yield back, Mr. Chair.
+ The Chairman. Thank you.
+ Ms. Hartzler.
+ Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ And thank you, gentlemen, for your role in keeping our
+Nation safe from threats, both foreign and nearby.
+ And Admiral, you said that it is not a war zone down there.
+I would just like to pause a little bit on that because I had
+an opportunity to go in October to the border. And I came away
+with the impression that we are at war. And it is with the drug
+cartels.
+ As I spent time with the Border Patrol agents, and we could
+actually see the scouts on the other side of the border, and
+they talked about how we are outmanned and out-funded, in many
+ways, and how they are taking advantage of so many people in
+this process. And people are dying.
+ Last year, we lost 72,000 people to drug overdoses, 72,000.
+That is more people than died during the entirety of the
+Vietnam war. And so we have a mission to protect people's
+lives, including to counter the drug crisis.
+ And the drugs are flowing across our border. Our agents are
+doing a wonderful job. They are finding a lot of drugs, and
+that is what people talk about, we are finding drugs at the
+port of entry. And I champion that.
+ But I also know there are a lot of drugs that are making it
+across that we are not catching, and they are ending up in
+Missouri. And they are ending up in my families that I have
+talked to, there are parents whose child has died of a heroin
+overdose.
+ That is why we have got to counter this. The Missouri
+National Guard was deployed there last summer. They did an
+amazing job. They had two UH-72 crews. During the 6 months they
+were there, they had 470 apprehensions and they got 1,986
+pounds of marijuana that was seized. I thank God for what they
+are doing, that that didn't end up in our country.
+ But they are doing an amazing job. And Congress has
+actually given the DOD the ability to provide military support
+to law enforcement agencies, specifically for countering the
+counterdrug purposes; section 284 of title 10 of the United
+States Code authorizes the DOD to provide support to
+counterdrug activities to control the transnational organized
+crime.
+ The law clearly identifies various activities that DOD is
+authorized to conduct, including the construction of road and
+construction of fences, light installation among smuggling
+quarters, aerial and ground reconnaissance, transportation.
+ So I guess, two questions I would like to focus on. How
+long has the Department of Defense been providing support to
+counterdrug operations at the border? And can you please
+provide specific examples of how DOD is carrying out the
+authorities authorized by Congress?
+ Secretary Rood. Congresswoman, we have, at the Department,
+provided support to counterdrug missions at the Department of
+Homeland Security and, indeed, other civilian agencies, for a
+very long time, for decades. That support continues.
+ As you correctly point out, section 284 of title 10 does
+provide the Secretary of Defense the authority in performance
+of that counterdrug mission, such as blocking drug-smuggling
+corridors, to erect barriers, fencing, provide road
+construction, things of that nature, to aid in that
+counternarcotics mission.
+ Mrs. Hartzler. So you are saying that Congress has
+authorized the Department of Defense to build a fence to
+counter drugs?
+ Secretary Rood. If it meets the----
+ Mrs. Hartzler. That is already law?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, that is right. If it meets that
+criteria in section 284, yes, ma'am.
+ Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. How many miles of fence have been
+built, to date, under this authority?
+ Secretary Rood. I will have to take, for the record, the
+specific amount of fencing built under that authority. Now, of
+course, there are 654 miles of barrier at the southern border
+today.
+ [The information referred to was not available at the time
+of printing.]
+ Mrs. Hartzler. Right. And I think that it is very clear, we
+have already given, then, the authority to do this. And we do
+have a very critical mission to keep people safe and to make
+sure that people don't die as a result of these transnational
+drug cartel activity. And currently, they are.
+ So it is imperative for us to find a solution. And I am
+very hopeful that in the next 3 weeks, we will come together in
+a bipartisan fashion to address this security issue as well as
+the humanitarian issue that Ranking Member Thornberry
+mentioned.
+ Because we have a 42 percent increase in number of family
+units, and we have 60,000 unaccompanied children that were
+caught last year, 60,000. I am a former teacher and a mom. This
+is a humanitarian crisis. We had two children die.
+ As long as there is this incentive with an open border, the
+drug cartels are going to continue to take advantage of women
+and children, and people are going to die. So thank you for
+what you are doing.
+ I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Mr. Kim.
+ Mr. Kim. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ Thank you so much. Good morning, Secretary Rood, and good
+morning, Admiral Gilday. I wanted to build off of a question
+that the chairman asked earlier about the process of review for
+the DHS request.
+ Now, when we are dealing with crises and emergencies, our
+Nation has a process put in place with the National Security
+Council, convening our national security agencies to be able to
+discuss and evaluate those considerations in how we respond to
+these types of emergencies.
+ I worked at the National Security Council through a number
+of different crises and emergencies, and I saw how that
+collective process was important. It was something that
+strengthened our response, making sure that we are getting
+interagency buy-in and equities to consider these different
+efforts.
+ So I wanted to ask, with the decision last October with the
+deployment of Active Duty in response to the crisis that you
+were talking about, what interagency process, what national
+security process at the NSC [National Security Council] was
+conducted? Was there NSC meetings? Were there principal
+meetings, deputy meetings that were pushing for that decision,
+reviewing the DHS process and informing the DOD's response to
+this?
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman, there were a series of
+meetings that were convened by the White House to review and
+coordinate the roles of different departments and agencies that
+included the National Security Council, as you mentioned.
+ At times, those are done pursuant to the National Security
+Council's activities. At other times, more on the domestic
+policy council side of the ledger. And so there were quite a
+few of those meetings and they continue to be an ongoing
+process.
+ You are exactly right that it is critical to coordinate
+those various activities, because in this particular case, the
+Defense Department is not the lead agency, we are providing
+support and augmentation to the Department of Homeland
+Security.
+ Mr. Kim. So prior to DOD's decision to move forward to
+fulfill the request by DHS, there was a Principals Committee, a
+National Security Council meeting convened that moved forward
+with those conclusions that informed DOD's response?
+ Secretary Rood. There were meetings typically chaired by
+other members in the White House staff to convene that included
+members of the National Security Council staff in them. With
+reviewing the exact deployment of Active Duty forces, obviously
+that was a Defense Department decision about how to source the
+request for assistance from the Department of Homeland
+Security.
+ Mr. Kim. Who were the White House officials that would
+chair in the meetings that were reviewing this particular
+request during that time period?
+ Secretary Rood. We would have to get you the specifics, but
+certainly there were any number of those meetings that were
+held, including with the White House Deputy Chief of Staff
+convening some of those, as well as others such as, as I
+mentioned, with the participation of the Homeland Security
+Advisor and the National Security Council staff.
+ Mr. Kim. Great. Well I appreciate that. It is incredibly
+important that we follow up, so I would like to hear some
+greater detail on what meetings were happening and to whatever
+extent you can share that, because these processes that are put
+in place are there for our Nation's protection.
+ This process put through the National Security Act put in
+place something to make sure we have that constant deliberation
+and we have a certain amount of set standards by which we
+approach every emergency and crisis, whether domestic or
+foreign.
+ And these are the types of staffs that understand why it is
+we have a Situation Room in the White House that allows us to
+gather and check politics at the door and make sure that we
+focus in on approaching these with the best security in mind
+for the American people.
+ So that is why I asked those questions. Thank you, I yield
+back my time.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Scott.
+ Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the Chair
+mentioned that the 2018 DHS budget was funded and to be honest
+with you, I remember very little discussion about the budget.
+ I think it was just accepted and it was done, and I would
+just point out to the other members that in the fiscal year
+2018 budget, there was $1.375 billion for border wall
+construction, $251 million in San Diego, $445 million for the
+Rio Grande Valley, $196 again for the Rio Grande Valley, $445
+for San Diego, El Centro, Yuma and Tucson, 84 miles in all.
+ The President has now requested funding for an additional
+215 miles, a significant portion of which is the completion of
+the border wall in those very areas where it was started under
+the 2018 appropriations, where there was little if any
+discussion, certainly no discussion about it being immoral to
+do such a thing.
+ I want to follow up on what my colleague Ms. Hartzler said
+and the Congresslady from Virginia, Ms. Luria. I believe the
+point she was getting at--and I want to encourage my
+colleagues, I don't pretend to tell anybody on this committee
+what to do, but I would suggest a CODEL [congressional
+delegation] down to SOUTHCOM to discuss JIATF South and the
+things that go on down there and what can be done to stop the
+flow of drugs in the United States is well worthwhile and would
+be worth the committee actually having a hearing on.
+ But if I may, reading from a report from Latin America,
+from--forgive me, I don't have the name of who did this. As of
+2016, 43 of the 50 most homicidal cities in the planet were
+located in Latin America. Is that consistent with your beliefs,
+gentlemen?
+ Secretary Rood. Sir, I confess I am not familiar with the
+particular statistic you are citing, but obviously there are a
+number of cities in Latin America that do experience a high
+rate of homicide.
+ Mr. Scott. At least 17 of the top 20 countries in the world
+with regard to homicide rates are located in Central America. I
+think one thing that most of us would agree on--and that is
+from a report from the Igarape Institute.
+ I think one of the things most of us in this committee
+would agree on is that the vast majority of that violence is
+the end result of the trafficking of drugs and the money that
+comes from drugs through the cartels in those regions and
+countries of the world. Do you believe that is a fair
+statement?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, sir.
+ Mr. Scott. Admiral, with regard to SOUTHCOM and JIATF
+South, if you talk to any of the leadership down there, they
+will tell you that on a regular basis, that they know where the
+drugs are--we knew exactly where they were at some point in the
+event, but didn't have the assets to go after them.
+ Is that a fair statement from what you hear from your
+colleagues, Admiral Tidd, or----
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. SOUTHCOM is never satisfied with
+the amount of resources they have for the enormous
+responsibility they have with respect to counter-narcotics.
+ Mr. Scott. So since September the 11th, my understanding
+and certainly numbers vary a little bit, but somewhere around
+10,000 Americans have lost their lives, civilian and military,
+in what we call the global war on terror.
+ Is that pretty close to an accurate number?
+ Secretary Rood. I----
+ Mr. Scott. 3,000 on September 11th.
+ Secretary Rood. I think that is about right, sir.
+ Mr. Scott. We lose 5,000 Americans every month to drug
+overdoses, more so today than just a few years ago. It is
+growing, quite honestly, exponentially. It is baffling to me
+that we give SOUTHCOM the leftovers when these acts of
+terrorism in our backyard are coming from the western
+hemisphere, they are in the western hemisphere.
+ And we spend virtually nothing on SOUTHCOM. JIATF South,
+$435.5 million, less than 1.5 percent of the U.S. counter-
+narcotics budget that resulted in greater than 76 percent of
+the interdictions of drugs coming into the United States.
+ Mr. Chairman, my time is about to expire but I do hope that
+the committee will pursue the funding of SOUTHCOM and JIATF
+South and the role that they play in the war on the drugs
+coming into this country and what our help through that means
+can do with regard to bringing stability in Central and South
+America.
+ The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Scott. I think it is a very
+important point, we are going to have the SOUTHCOM Commander
+testify at our normal hearing as we get ready for our budget. I
+think that is enormously important as we look at those needs.
+ And I will point out we do spend a lot of money in this
+country on combating drugs coming into this country,
+prosecuting those that distribute them. I would suggest that
+there are a couple other areas if we are dealing with the drug
+problem. Number one, it is much more of a demand problem than
+it is a supply problem. We have spent a lot of money trying to
+cut it off, we have sent a lot of people to jail.
+ We have to figure out how to get Americans to stop
+demanding so many drugs and a huge part of that is making
+treatment available. I know in my own State there are people
+who want treatment for various drug addictions who cannot get
+it because they either don't have--there aren't simply any
+beds, any people available to provide it or they don't have the
+healthcare dollars to pay for it. And if you ask any expert who
+has studied the drug problem which is more important to
+stopping it, supply or demand, every single one of them will
+say demand.
+ As long as there is the unbelievable demand for drugs they
+will find some way to get in here, no matter how many people we
+arrest, no matter how many walls we build. We got to do it. I
+don't disagree with that. And we have. But let us understand
+the totality of the problem and also the finite resources that
+we have talked about earlier.
+ Mr. Cisneros, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
+ Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr.
+Secretary, thank you, Admiral, for being here today. I will
+keep my questions short and brief, but we know DHS requested
+DOD to improve 37 miles of the Barry Goldwater Range, 37 miles
+of barrier fencing there at an estimated cost of $450 million.
+ We also know the Navy took $7.5 million of its operational
+and maintenance budget in order to start that. We also know, as
+previously was stated, that construction--the military backlog
+of construction--there is a backlog of military construction.
+So my question is what maintenance had to be deferred or
+delayed or canceled because of that transfer of maintenance
+money to this barrier wall?
+ And going forward, what construction is going to have to be
+canceled or future maintenance is going to have to be delayed
+or canceled because of the money going to improve this 37 miles
+of barrier wall?
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman, as you point out, along the
+Barry Goldwater Range, which is an active bombing range, there
+was a request from the Department of Homeland Security to
+examine a larger barrier there.
+ We have not performed military construction funds for that.
+The Navy, as you point out, used $7.5 million to conduct
+planning in the event that a decision is made to erect such a
+barrier, but that decision to use a construction funds has not
+yet occurred. Now, that came from the operations and
+maintenance accounts and those are broad accounts in which we
+draw from to support the operations of the Defense Department,
+sir.
+ Mr. Cisneros. Yes, but being a former Navy supply officer,
+I know how hard commands fight for that money and they want
+that money. And I know how devastating it could be when that
+money's taken away. And I am sure a commanding officer could
+have used that money, that he is saying that now my readiness
+has been delayed because it's been taken away. But I mean do we
+have a list of any deferred or canceled maintenance that had to
+be stopped because this money has been transferred?
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman, I will have to take that for
+the record and see if there are any specific lists that we
+could provide.
+ [The information referred to was not available at the time
+of printing.]
+ Mr. Cisneros. Okay. And secondly, I know we--again, we
+talked about the military construction and if the President
+enacts his powers in order to declare an emergency and where
+that money would come from.
+ Now I know you can't answer a hypothetical question--or you
+don't want to answer a hypothetical question, but will you
+commit to providing a list to the committee in the event that
+authority by the President is triggered, including the specific
+impact on military readiness and the requirements of each
+project that is identified for cancellation or deferral if the
+President in fact does declare an emergency in order to build
+his wall?
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman, again, the President has not
+made such a declaration at this point. And then, depending on
+which part of the law that he would authorize DOD to act
+pursuant to, then that would guide us down another path that we
+would have to meet the requirements of that law.
+ So it may not involve military construction, depending on
+should the President invoke such authority and then what
+authority he should cite in that declaration. And so it would
+be premature, since we don't possess such a list at this point,
+to provide that to you.
+ Mr. Cisneros. I understand but what I am asking simply in
+this situation is if that situation does occur, will you
+provide a list to this committee telling us what construction
+is being canceled?
+ Secretary Rood. We would certainly operate in accordance
+with the law. I think here we are not yet at the stage where we
+would reach such a question, sir. And so we would obviously
+keep the committee informed about our activities. But
+consistent with the requirements in whichever applicable law
+was conducted--and depending on which authority the President
+cited, there are different requirements that apply, as you are
+aware, I am sure.
+ Mr. Cisneros. I defer my time back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Brooks.
+ Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9/11, as we all know,
+resulted in the deaths of roughly 3,000 Americans in New York,
+Pennsylvania, and Virginia and the Washington, DC, area. And
+the net effect of the loss of those 3,000 lives was to invade
+Iraq and Afghanistan at cost of trillions of dollars and many
+thousands of lost lives by military personnel and civilian
+support personnel.
+ In contrast, illegal aliens cause roughly 2,000 homicides
+on American soil per year. At least over 2,000 illegal aliens
+were apprehended by Federal law enforcement officers in fiscal
+year 2018, for homicides. And as was mentioned earlier by
+Congresswoman Hartzler and Congressman Scott, drug overdoses
+cost roughly 70,000 American lives per year and the evidence is
+overwhelming that a substantial portion of the drugs, those
+poisons that caused the loss of American lives, come across our
+southern border illegally.
+ In terms of lost American lives, then, our poor southern
+border combined with the homicides of illegal aliens far
+exceeds the loss of life caused by 9/11. With that as a
+backdrop, I want to direct your attention to 10 United States
+Code 284, which authorizes President Trump to deploy the
+military to the southern border to build fences and to do a lot
+of other things. And for clarity, if you look it up in the
+dictionary, the word fence includes the word barrier and the
+word barrier includes walls made of a variety of different
+materials.
+ So that having been said, it seems to me that 10 U.S. Code
+284 can be used by the President of the United States to direct
+the United States military to build a wall. Now as of today--
+you have mentioned military forces along the southern border.
+Have any of them been deployed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284?
+ Secretary Rood. Congressman, I don't believe any of our
+forces have been deployed pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284. You are
+correct, however, that that use of authority would authorize
+the Secretary of Defense to erect barriers, roads, fencing,
+those type of materials to disrupt drug smuggling.
+ Mr. Brooks. Does 10 U.S.--excuse me, 10 U.S.C. 284, as you
+understand it, require the declaration of a national emergency
+before it is implemented?
+ Secretary Rood. No.
+ Mr. Brooks. It does not?
+ Secretary Rood. No.
+ Mr. Brooks. Has President Trump, to your knowledge, ever
+used 10 U.S.C. 284 to direct the military to build the wall
+that is necessary for border security?
+ Secretary Rood. No, not to my knowledge, Congressman.
+ Mr. Brooks. If President Trump were to direct the Pentagon,
+United States military pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 284, to build such
+barriers as are necessary to secure our southern border from
+drug trafficking and international crime cartels, would the
+United States military obey that order?
+ Secretary Rood. If we judge it to be a lawful order, yes,
+sir. And I assume it would be.
+ Mr. Brooks. Thank you, I appreciate your responses and, Mr.
+Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Houlahan.
+ Ms. Houlahan. Gentlemen, thank you so much for your time.
+Mr. Rood and Admiral Gilday, I am a new Member of Congress and
+newly put on the Readiness Subcommittee, and so most of my
+questions will have to do with the readiness aspect of this.
+ And I understand for years that the Department has been
+briefing Congress on the concerns of readiness on our Armed
+Forces, and so to that end I would love it if you could--if you
+are able to talk us through a couple of the major units that
+are deployed at the border, what their mission is. And if you
+could tell us what they would be doing if they weren't on the
+border right now, normally?
+ Admiral Gilday. That is a good question. So we have
+engineering battalions who, right now, are--and that is
+actually a joint project with both Army engineers and Air Force
+welders, we are actually welding concertina wire above the wall
+in sections of Arizona and California.
+ Those particular units would not probably be doing that if
+they weren't deployed to the southern border. I am not sure
+where they were in the readiness cycle when they were deployed,
+but I can look up that information and try to give you a sense.
+ With respect to readiness, I will honestly say that some
+units either have or will miss company level training
+opportunities based on the deployment. But because we are
+limiting the deployments to fairly short periods of time, we
+believe that in every one of those cases we can recover from
+that.
+ Ms. Houlahan. So if it would be all right to ask for the
+record if we could have a list of all of the units that are
+deployed and also their DRRS [Defense Readiness Reporting
+System] reports from before and after the deployment so that we
+could understand from a quantitative perspective how the
+readiness has been effected if it has been positively or
+negatively.
+ [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
+on page 74.]
+ My second question is for either of you all. And I
+understand in reading your preparation material that in some
+cases small portions and in some cases individuals are being
+deployed from their units separate from their units.
+ And we know the units have a finite period at home to train
+for their next deployment. Are we hurting their home unit
+training or readiness, are we impeding or impairing
+individuals' career abilities by deploying in this way?
+ Admiral Gilday. I don't think it is a significant impact.
+Based on the short duration in time that we are deploying them,
+we have tried to, whenever possible, deploy our personnel as
+units instead of deploying them individually, because that is
+how they were trained and certified.
+ And so we are trying to maintain that construct so we get
+the most out of that deployment forward down to the border.
+There is a cost with respect to dwell time and we do deploy
+them, we have to recover that.
+ And so there is no way around that, but again, we have
+tried to minimize the time away to minimize that recovery.
+ Ms. Houlahan. So it is definitely clear in the preparation
+materials that I read that there were some individuals and very
+small groups of people that have been deployed. And so I would
+like to know if there's any way of capturing the impact of that
+that you could report back to us from a quantitative
+perspective.
+ The next question that I have is for Mr. Rood, which has to
+do with title 10 and section 276, which states that the
+Secretary of Defense should prescribe regulations to ensure
+that the provision of any support to law enforcement does not
+adversely affect the military preparedness of the United
+States.
+ Are you aware of any directives or policy statements put
+forth by the Department to ensure that any readiness impacts of
+this border deployment has been mitigated?
+ Secretary Rood. The deployments that are done to the border
+area of course are all consistent with our domestic authorities
+and DOD personnel deployed there are not engaged in law
+enforcement activities.
+ The Secretary does gauge their impact on readiness, and as
+mentioned, we track that through a regular reporting system.
+And depending on the units, in some cases readiness has
+increased, in other cases it's declined. And that varies over
+the course of a deployment.
+ Ms. Houlahan. So I am not certain if I heard a yes or no
+answer to the question. I guess I was asking if there were any
+directives or policy statements put forth by the Department,
+and I didn't know if I actually heard a yes or no on that.
+ Secretary Rood. Could I ask you to clarify, you are asking
+for a directive that changes the present policy on usage----
+ Ms. Houlahan. I am looking for how the directives are being
+implemented specifically.
+ Secretary Rood. Perhaps I could take that for the record. I
+am not aware of any change from our past practice with respect
+to----
+ Ms. Houlahan. So it sounds like that is no I guess is the
+answer.
+ Secretary Rood. I will confess, I am not sure I properly
+understand your question, and I am sure it is my issue,
+Congresswoman.
+ [Laughter.]
+ Ms. Houlahan. Not a problem, not a problem. I yield the
+rest of my time and thank you, sir.
+ The Chairman. Ms. Stefanik.
+ Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this hearing
+today we have heard comments that have already established that
+the current U.S. military presence on the southern border is
+indeed similar in size and scope to the DOD support to border
+protection and security over the previous two administrations.
+ And I understand the DOD pays the bill to support DHS
+through use of operation and maintenance and personnel funds,
+usually to the tune of about $100 million per year. My
+question, and this will build upon some of the previous
+questions, is what if any readiness functions go unfunded or
+unexecuted because of the additional cost to support missions
+like Operation Guardian Support and Operation Faithful Patriot?
+ I know in the previous response you touched upon the cost
+because of dwell time. Can you go further in depth on the dwell
+time issue, but any other readiness impacts?
+ Admiral Gilday. So in terms of monetary costs, in terms of
+what we had to reprogram in order to, you know, conduct an out-
+of-cycle deployment, I will have to get back to you on what the
+trades were in order to make that happen.
+ So we didn't do something, we are not going to do something
+based on that deployment, but I will have to go back and take a
+look at that in order to give you a more concise answer.
+ [The information referred to was not available at the time
+of printing.]
+ Ms. Stefanik. Okay, I think that is really important that
+we get that information. Building upon that, and this was also
+touched upon previously, but I would like more specifics, can
+you describe what the training value is to Active Duty Army and
+Marine Corps units deployed to the southern border, and are we
+ensuring that the right types of units perform the right types
+of duties to enhance their training and readiness.
+ Admiral Gilday. I think that we have done an excellent job
+at matching specific skill sets and units that have been
+trained in those mission areas that we are matching them to
+along the border.
+ Ms. Stefanik. And can you give me an example of that?
+ Admiral Gilday. I think a really good example are military
+police. And so we are using them in a mission to protect CBP
+should those ports of entry get overrun. They are the absolute
+perfect unit to perform that function.
+ I mentioned earlier, they have received great training
+value from the training vignettes that they have done with CBP
+in preparation for that mission.
+ Ms. Stefanik. And my last question is, since the October
+2018 request, how specifically have border points been hardened
+during the initial deployment of Active Duty personnel? And
+what specifically does that hardening involve? And which
+specific points were indeed hardened?
+ Secretary Rood. Congresswoman, there were 22 points of
+entry along the four southern States that were in the nine
+sectors that CBP breaks that mission into. And at those
+barriers--at those areas around the points of entry, 70 miles
+of concertina wire was emplaced atop existing barrier. In other
+cases, depending on the location, to control vehicle traffic,
+there was a request for Jersey barriers or other vehicle-
+shaping barriers.
+ And then in other cases, to harden the specific location,
+construction was performed to create barriers and place
+shipping containers, things of that nature. It varied depending
+on which point of entry and how that the hardening was done.
+ Ms. Stefanik. Thank you very much.
+ I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you.
+ Mr. Crow.
+ Mr. Crow. Thank you, Secretary Rood, Admiral Gilday. We
+appreciate you being here today.
+ I have been struggling to try to piece together a
+chronology of the decision to send the Active Duty troops to
+the border. As me and my colleagues have pointed out, there is
+a long history of National Guard and Reserve cooperation,
+support. But what distinguishes this is the use of Active Duty
+and the number of Active Duty troops.
+ And I am also very concerned always with operational need
+driving the use of Active Duty forces as opposed to politics.
+So could you help me answer a simple question, who originated
+the idea to send Active Duty soldiers to the border? Did that
+idea come out of the White House or did it come out of the
+Department of Homeland Security?
+ Secretary Rood. Neither, sir. When the request is received
+for assistance by the Department of--the Department of Homeland
+Security is the mission-holder and they provide a request for
+assistance where they are unable to meet their needs to the
+Department of Defense.
+ The Department of Defense then looks at those needs,
+whatever the request is, and tries to identify from the total
+force the best way to source the mission need. And that is
+where the decision ended up being made in that particular case,
+as Admiral Gilday testified, to use Active Duty troops last
+fall in addition to the National Guardsmen that were already
+deployed.
+ Mr. Crow. So there was a determination that there were no
+sufficient National Guard and Reserve forces available to meet
+that request?
+ Admiral Gilday. So it was primarily driven by timing. I
+described at the time the direction came from the White House
+and those migrants were massing down in southern Mexico, the
+direction was to move forces fairly expeditiously to the
+border. And so based on the fact that with----
+ Mr. Crow. You said that directive came from the White
+House.
+ Admiral Gilday. That directive ultimately came from the
+White House, yes, as I recall. So that direction for us to
+deploy, not necessarily to use Active Duty forces. That was a
+decision made inside the Department.
+ Mr. Crow. Okay. The second question relates to just the
+living conditions for our troops on the border. There were
+reports late last year of our soldiers in tents, without
+running water. Can you please explain for me what the living
+conditions for those soldiers look like right now?
+ Admiral Gilday. My understanding of the living conditions
+are pretty good for deployed units that are living in tents. I
+haven't heard any reports, sir, of a lack of running water or
+of any facilities that they require.
+ Mr. Crow. How many soldiers are living in tents right now?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, I would have to get back to you with
+an exact count. Based on the mission and the location, we
+probably have some people in hotels, particularly as we move to
+this, as we transition to the missions between the POEs [points
+of entry] out in the middle of the desert in some cases.
+ So I will have to get back to you with specifics.
+ [The information referred to was not available at the time
+of printing.]
+ Mr. Crow. Admiral, you said earlier that barriers are
+ineffective unless you are also surveilling them. One of the
+requests from DHS is to build an additional 150 miles of
+concertina wire by March of this year. Is it your understanding
+that that 150 miles will also be surveilled mileage?
+ Admiral Gilday. It is not. I don't know what CBP's plan is
+along that section of concertina-wired wall that we are helping
+out with. I don't know what their long-term plan is.
+ Mr. Crow. So by your definition that a barrier has to be
+surveilled to be effective, then would some of that mileage
+potentially be ineffective?
+ Admiral Gilday. I am unsure if I--I am unsure if there is--
+--
+ Secretary Rood. Sir, we received the request for assistance
+again from the Customs and Border Patrol but it is our
+understanding they do have a surveillance plan along these
+barriers. In some cases it is to go in addition to existing
+infrastructure that is there, sir.
+ Mr. Crow. I understand that, but I would like some
+clarification on whether or not the resources that are being
+used by the Department of Defense are effectively being used.
+And if there is not coordination between DHS and DOD to make
+sure that is happening, we definitely need make sure that it
+is.
+ Secretary Rood. There is close coordination and part of the
+recent request for assistance from the Department of Homeland
+Security is about mobile surveillance assets to provide
+additional capability to detect and monitor movements and
+activities at the border.
+ Mr. Crow. Thank you.
+ I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. We are going to try to wrap this
+up at 12:30 just because I don't want to abuse the Pentagon
+witnesses the first time they send them over to me so that they
+don't send any more. It may slip a little bit past that, but if
+we could move as quickly as possible through the rest that
+would be great.
+ Mr. Gaetz.
+ Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And note taken.
+ Admiral Gilday, as you are aware, one of the cost drivers
+for military construction is the changing classification of the
+mission, where the mission itself is not changing, but perhaps
+it goes from TS [Top Secret] to TS/SCI [Sensitive Compartmented
+Information] or to some different security classification.
+ In a world--and I know this hasn't happened yet, but in a
+world in which MILCON dollars were used for a barrier at the
+southern border, would we expect those missions perhaps to be
+reevaluated in terms of their classification or would we expect
+those construction projects to sort of goose to the top of the
+list in a reprioritization?
+ Admiral Gilday. I am not sure I understand your question
+specifically, sir, with respect to the security
+classifications.
+ Mr. Gaetz. Right. So in a world in which one of the cost
+drivers to MILCON is the fact that some facilities have to go
+from TS to SCI or----
+ Admiral Gilday. Now I understand----
+ Mr. Gaetz. To TS, like, walk us through what happens to
+those types of projects in a world in which resources were not
+available for that type of construction.
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, I would be speculating. I have not
+been involved with any of the, you know, initial work that has
+gone on to take a look at what those metrics might be. But I
+will get back to you with a better answer.
+ [The information referred to was not available at the time
+of printing.]
+ Mr. Gaetz. Yes, my request would be like in a world in
+which that were to happen that we look at those specific types
+of MILCON projects and really determine the impact on them.
+ And Mr. Chairman, heeding your advice, I would like to
+yield my remaining to my colleague from Florida, Mr. Waltz.
+ The Chairman. Thank you very much. Enormously helpful, I
+appreciate it. Well, actually, go ahead.
+ Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ As a Pentagon alum, been on the other side of there--thank
+you for coming. So broadly speaking, I think we all agree that
+the Pentagon has been providing the support for many decades.
+Is there an effort to get to the point where the Pentagon's not
+providing the support?
+ So, if we looked at the DHS appropriation and looked at
+what you are being requested, is that roughly--does that
+roughly match or is there some reason that the National Guard
+Bureau in particular wants to, or needs to, or provides
+training and readiness value of continuing to provide this
+support, or have we all just become very comfortable with this
+kind of steady state?
+ Secretary Rood. Sir, I would say the Department of Homeland
+Security Customs and Border Patrol, they obviously deploy a
+larger number of agents, a larger number of resources to the
+border. DOD's role is to augment them. Now, as situations
+arise--and they have varied over the years--but there has been
+a steady stream for decades, where the Defense Department has
+provided that support. Sometimes the nature is adjusted over
+time, but it has been there.
+ Mr. Waltz. Contingencies aside or spikes, but just a trend
+line.
+ Secretary Rood. And it's really a resourcing issue outside
+the Defense Department.
+ Mr. Waltz. Because DHS's resources have increased.
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, sir.
+ Mr. Waltz. Right. And the chairman noted that apprehensions
+have decreased, are you seeing--bottom line, are you seeing an
+increase or decrease in requests over time, over, say, the last
+several years, aside from the recent caravan, coming from DHS?
+ Secretary Rood. In the last year we have seen an uptick, if
+you will, in the requests due to the increased activities and
+the flow. And again, I mean, the volume is instructive. Last
+year over 500,000 apprehensions by our law enforcement
+authorities; a larger number of people entered the country and
+were not apprehended. Last 2 years alone, a larger number than
+the population of Washington, DC, have been apprehended, or a
+city the size of San Francisco----
+ Mr. Waltz. Right.
+ Secretary Rood. Apprehensions in 2 years.
+ Mr. Waltz. On the Active Duty side, I would like to echo
+Ms. Stefanik, my colleague, and I would be very interested in
+what are the Active Duty troops not doing? I mean, what was the
+opportunity cost? Were they--did they miss training rotations?
+Are they in the lineup for deployment, the effect on dwell
+time? Just understanding better that cost.
+ And then finally, I would like to echo Mr. Scott and the
+importance of JIATF South. Secretary of Navy Spencer has
+indicated that ships are critical to the deterrent of drugs
+coming across our waterways.
+ Admiral Tidd indicated we are only stemming about a quarter
+of what we are detecting, one-fourth. Is there any
+consideration, reconsideration for the Navy providing more
+assets to SOUTHCOM, particularly LCS [littoral combat ship],
+which would be uniquely suited for that mission?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, it is not a Navy call. And so, I go
+back to the National Defense Strategy and as unpopular as it
+is, it is a ruthless prioritization. And I don't think that
+anybody in uniform disagrees at the severity of the drug
+problem, but the----
+ The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
+ Mr. Waltz. Okay, fair enough.
+ The Chairman. Good there.
+ Ms. Slotkin.
+ Ms. Slotkin. Hey, gentlemen, thank you for doing this. I
+have been in your seat and I know it's getting on in time here.
+So thank you for sticking with us.
+ As someone who was at the Pentagon, who was married to a
+30-year Army veteran and who has a stepdaughter on Active Duty
+right now, I am extremely concerned that we preserve the
+perception and reality that the U.S. military is apolitical.
+ So, the three concerns I have or the three questions I have
+are, one, about the timing of the decision to deploy, which is
+hard to feel wasn't political given how close it was to the
+midterms.
+ Number two, the choice to put Active Duty folks down there
+instead of Guard, which I absolutely agree has been done for a
+long time by many administrations.
+ And then, three, the missions that those Active Duty folks
+are pursuing and any bleed over into law enforcement
+activities, which, of course, goes back to the very founding of
+our state.
+ So, on the choice to deploy, on the timing, in answer to
+Mr. Crow's question, you said it was a directive from the White
+House, is that correct? In the form of a memo?
+ Admiral Gilday. As best as I can recall. Not specific that
+Active Duty be deployed, but that the U.S. military respond.
+ Secretary Rood. And accompanying that is, of course, a
+formal request for assistance from the Department of Homeland
+Security.
+ Ms. Slotkin. Of course. Was there anyone, civilian or
+military at the three-star rank or above, who disagreed or
+pushed back on the request and the timing of the request? To
+your knowledge--just obviously that you would be aware of?
+ Admiral Gilday. There were certainly discussions about, you
+know, making best military advice on how we should respond.
+ Ms. Slotkin. Was there any formal dissent, any
+transmissions back to the White House with the dissent of any
+one civilian or military above--three-star or above that you
+were tracking?
+ Admiral Gilday. Not that I know of, no.
+ Ms. Slotkin. Okay. On the choice of Active Duty, so I heard
+your reply, I think to Representative Luria, that there--it was
+really available forces at that time and having to get to the
+border very quickly.
+ Is there any other factors that went into the decision to
+use Active Duty over Guard besides speed, for the record?
+Intelligence reporting, obviously we are in an unclassified
+setting, any other factors on record that led to the decision
+to use Active Duty?
+ Admiral Gilday. I think other factors were capacity, the
+right skill sets, readiness impacts were considered, and timing
+was key.
+ Ms. Slotkin. Was there ever a consideration of--we have now
+seen stories come out of some, I think, misstated talking
+points about the terrorist threat emanating out of the
+caravans, out of the number of terrorists that were coming
+across the border in that area, was there a threat assessment
+in any way that led to the choice to use Active Duty over
+Guard?
+ Admiral Gilday. No, there was no connection.
+ Ms. Slotkin. Okay. And then the missions, obviously, we all
+know that the U.S. military cannot perform law enforcement
+activities inside the United States. I am sure we all believe
+that that is important.
+ I understand that there was a memo that was sent over by
+then Chief of Staff Kelly, indicating that in agreement with
+the law as it stands, no law enforcement activities were to
+take place unless otherwise directed by the President of the
+United States.
+ Has the President of the United States directed the
+Department of Defense in any way to use those forces in law
+enforcement roles?
+ Admiral Gilday. No.
+ Secretary Rood. No.
+ Ms. Slotkin. Okay. Thanks, gentlemen.
+ I yield the rest of my time.
+ The Chairman. Thank you.
+ Mr. Bacon.
+ Mr. Bacon. Thank you, chairman. And want to thank both of
+you for coming in, I thank for you leadership and your service
+in securing our country.
+ We have serious vulnerabilities in our southern border and
+American citizens are suffering a devastating impact. We have
+talked about drugs today, human trafficking, some of the
+criminals that get through that victimize innocent Americans,
+Sunni extremism, we could go on and on--and I think Ms.
+Hartzler raised--just a huge impact, 72,000 Americans this year
+will suffer or die of an overdose. And much of those drugs are
+coming over from our southern border.
+ So I just want to make the statement that Republicans and
+Democrats must sit together, negotiate and solve this problem
+in good faith. Americans demand it and we can do better.
+ Under Secretary Rood, I just want to clarify a couple of
+your key points for our constituents back in the Nebraska
+Second District. And I want to just clarify some key points,
+just make sure I have it right. Is the current deployment
+consistent with past precedent of Republican and Democratic
+administrations?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes.
+ Mr. Bacon. Is the current deployment consistent with law?
+ Secretary Rood. Absolutely.
+ Mr. Bacon. And is the current deployment support of an
+inherent Federal function?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes.
+ Mr. Bacon. Thank you. I think those are key points that we
+need to stress. Admiral Gilday, about a year ago, Admiral Tidd
+said that some of the pathways and vulnerabilities used by
+criminal organizations in South and Central America are being
+exploited by terrorists.
+ The Guatemala Ambassador personally told me that he has
+detained dozens of Sunni extremists within their country, there
+were--that were trying to get to our country using--and they
+had false identifications. Rear Admiral Hendrickson said a year
+ago that individuals have been detained south of the border who
+have ties with terrorists and some with the intentions to
+conduct attacks against our homeland. Can you give us an update
+on what you know--what this threat of terrorism is via our
+southern border?
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. I will say this, the threat is
+real. I would also say that we have a significant presence of
+special forces in South America as we speak. They are
+conducting training missions, and so as we talk about
+priorities within the Department of Defense and the fact that
+we are resource constrained, it is in our best interest to form
+those partnerships to help those countries take care of those
+problems whenever they can. And so that is an example of our
+focus in South America, getting after that particular threat
+stream.
+ Mr. Bacon. If you have any other updates that you can
+share, obviously in an unclassified setting, on the terrorist
+activity that we are seeing through South America and Central
+America. Also the information I have is about 8 months old.
+ Admiral Gilday. Yes sir, we can arrange a briefing for you
+to get an update on that.
+ Mr. Bacon. Thank you, I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Sherrill.
+ Ms. Sherrill. Thank you gentlemen for being here today,
+thank you for your preparation, you have taken quite a bit of
+time to come here, and thank you to your staff for all of the
+preparation as well. I was happy to hear from my colleague that
+the National Guards troops were excited and enjoyed being
+deployed on these extra missions.
+ I have heard that from some of our National Guardsmen and
+women as well, that they enjoy the extra training. I can tell
+you that our Active Duty service men and women do not always
+enjoy the extra deployments especially as they come right
+before the holidays, over Thanksgiving and Christmas as this
+one did.
+ I bring that up because I am really concerned about the
+OPTEMPO [operations tempo]. As you know better than I,
+Secretary Rood, over the last several years we have seen
+significant strain on our Armed Forces from the 5 accidents in
+the 7th Fleet, the tragic loss of 17 sailors aboard the USS
+Fitzgerald and the USS McCain, to our special forces leadership
+expressing concern at the high rate of deployment and how it is
+affecting recruitment, to Secretary Mattis himself highlighting
+the need to restore readiness to our National Guard by
+resetting their equipment, we have seen strains in our
+military. I know that is something, Admiral Gilday, that the
+military's been working very hard to get troops back home with
+their families at a better rate.
+ You, I am sure, during your service saw the difference
+after 9/11 in troop deployments and what a hardship that could
+be on our military service member and families.
+ Given that, Secretary Rood, it is my understanding that our
+troops at the border are providing the following capabilities:
+stringing concertina wire as we have heard, planning
+assistance, engineering and aviation support, medical teams,
+command and control facilities, mobile surveillance camera
+operations, and temporary housing and personal protective
+equipment for CBP personnel. Are any of these missions,
+missions that the DHS or contractors for the DHS could not
+provide?
+ Secretary Rood. Well the starting point of course,
+Congresswoman, is the DHS making an assessment that their
+organic capabilities--they need augmentation, and therefore
+they are making a request to the Defense Department for support
+to civil authorities so that is the triggering event.
+ Obviously the Department of Homeland Security, CBP and
+others possess things such as helicopters and medical personnel
+in addition to the Defense Department. But depending on the
+circumstances they have made a determination that their
+assets--and we work with them to try to develop an
+understanding of the mission need--that their assets were
+insufficient by themselves to meet that need, hence they have
+made a request for assistance.
+ Ms. Sherrill. So they have made the determination that
+their assets are insufficient. Were they given sufficient
+assets, could they undertake those missions?
+ Secretary Rood. In a general sense, yes. I mean, for
+example some of the helicopter support that DOD has provided,
+if the DHS--I assume if they had sufficient rotary-wing support
+they could have met that mission need themselves.
+ Ms. Sherrill. The reason I am asking is because as you
+yourself said, the rotor-wing support, and as a former
+helicopter pilot I am certainly interested in all things rotary
+wing.
+ The needs overseas are very great and now that we are
+providing this on the border, the balance between what DHS
+should be doing and what I think Active Duty military troops
+should be doing is something that I am very interested in.
+ And so, what I am looking for is should the DHS really be
+advocating for better supplies and then we, as the House Armed
+Services Committee, can really help our troops to perform their
+missions, and their traditional missions, especially overseas
+with our wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as now where
+our special forces are deployed across the world--including, as
+we hear, in South America.
+ And so I guess that is something that I think we need to
+continue to look into. I will talk to you a bit, Admiral
+Gilday, as you know some of the Nation's greatest threats are
+the security vulnerabilities in our land, air, and sea ports.
+This is particularly something I care about, being from New
+Jersey because we have some of the largest ports of entry in
+the United States.
+ And there are new and emerging threats and I am concerned
+that all this talk about border security when we don't include
+our other ports of entry, is really missing some of the
+emerging threats that we have seen.
+ And I bring this up because just last Tuesday night, at
+Newark Airport, one of the 15 busiest airports in the country,
+it was shut down for an hour after reports of an unauthorized
+drone, when it entered their airspace. This delay cost our
+economy $65 million, and disrupted many people's lives. So
+given that, I wonder Admiral----
+ The Chairman. I am sorry, your time has expired so whatever
+you want to know is going to have to be for the record.
+ Ms. Sherrill. I will come back to that, thank you very much
+and thank you for your time today.
+ The Chairman. Okay. And at the end of this hearing there
+will be an opportunity--everyone here will have an opportunity
+to submit questions and statements for the record.
+ Mr. Banks.
+ Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rood, in a
+New York Times article dated November 10, 2018, anonymous
+Pentagon officials were quoted deriding the deployment as an
+expensive waste of time and resources and a morale killer to
+boot.
+ Do you know who those anonymous sources at the Pentagon
+were that would call this is a waste of time?
+ Secretary Rood. No, sir. Obviously, this is a mission that
+we take seriously at the Defense Department that we have
+executed before in various permutations. And we are executing
+in support of our colleagues at the Customs and Border
+Protection.
+ Mr. Banks. Clearly, you would agree everything that we have
+heard over the past couple of hours would contradict those
+anonymous sources who called this deployment a waste of time.
+Would you agree simply?
+ Secretary Rood. Yes, border security is an element in
+national security. And that is part of the Defense Department's
+mission.
+ Mr. Banks. In a Time magazine article dated November 15,
+2018, former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said quote,
+``It's a waste of time. It's clear to me that he is using the
+military as political pawns which is completely
+irresponsible.''
+ Everything that we have heard over the past couple of hours
+would clearly contradict former Secretary Hagel's account of
+what is occurring at the border that our troops have
+contributed to, correct?
+ Secretary Rood. Sir, I have not read former Secretary
+Hagel's comments. But I can say our mission is devoted to
+supporting the Customs and Border Patrol. There is a very
+legitimate long-standing mission that we have performed over
+the years at the Defense Department. And we are doing so again.
+ Mr. Banks. Later in that article, it is quoted saying
+quote, ``Troops often find themselves with little to do. They
+fill their time throwing a football around, texting their
+girlfriends, exercising or waiting for the outdoor mess hall to
+open.''
+ Secretary wouldn't you agree that quote and these
+descriptions are not just disrespectful but downright demeaning
+to our men and women in uniform?
+ Secretary Rood. Our men and women in uniform are very
+devoted to the missions that they have been sent upon. And the
+type of behavior you are talking about, waiting for the mess
+hall to open or throwing a football, by the way, in my travels
+around the world, it's not unusual behavior----
+ Mr. Banks. Do you find that in Afghanistan as well?
+ Secretary Rood. For our troops.
+ Mr. Banks. That is right. Admiral, I wonder if you can--in
+your opening statement, you talked some about those
+surveillance missions. I wonder if you can--we haven't talked a
+whole lot about that today. Can you describe or give us
+anecdotes of what is involved with that mission and how our
+troops have contributed to that?
+ Admiral Gilday. Sir, we are just transitioning now from our
+missions at the ports of entry to this surveillance mission
+between the ports of entry. We have an ongoing pilot program
+right now with the Marine Corps with the special MAGTF [Marine
+Air-Ground Task Force]-7 out of Camp Pendleton is actually
+working with CBP.
+ One of the things we are trying to do is get our arms
+around the exact requirement with respect to manpower. And so,
+the systems are a little bit different than the systems that we
+have in the Marine Corps or in the Navy or in the Army. And so,
+there will be a training period.
+ But essentially, there are trucks and vans that have a
+surveillance camera suite. And the mission is to conduct
+surveillance, detection, and monitoring between the POEs so
+that we can then cue CBP to come in and detain the people.
+ Fairly simple mission, but again you go back to the
+effectiveness of a barrier or any type of wall is ineffective
+without surveillance, so. So we owe you a report out on whether
+or not we--on the effectiveness of this operation. We have
+direction from the Secretary of Defense to conduct an
+assessment no less than 90 days.
+ Sir, if I could just add. A moment ago, you talked about
+throwing around footballs. And we have tried really hard not to
+waste people's time down at the border. So, there have been
+occasions when we haven't gotten it right with respect to
+numbers.
+ And maybe we had excess capacity. But we have brought those
+people back when we realized that we have made a mistake. And
+we are not trying just to have a photo op down there with
+people on the border.
+ Mr. Banks. I appreciate that. After hearing your testimony
+and your answers over the past couple of hours, it is clear to
+me more than ever that our troops have played a valuable role
+at the border. And we appreciate your testimony today. With
+that, I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you. We have three people left who want
+to ask questions. It is after 12:30 so if we could--and two of
+them represent districts on the border, so I want to try to get
+to them. But the quicker we can do it, the more the witnesses
+will appreciate it, but Miss Escobar from Texas.
+ Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you
+so much for being here. I am very grateful for your leadership
+and for your responses to the questions. I come from the U.S.-
+Mexico border. I represent El Paso, Texas, which has been one
+of the safest communities in the United States for close to two
+decades.
+ The vast majority of the individuals that we are seeing
+coming to the southern border are people seeking asylum. They
+are not individuals here who are setting out to do us harm. I
+want to recall that in 1997 and would like for you all to help
+me out with this, a young man, Esequiel Hernandez, was shot and
+killed by a U.S. Marine who was patrolling the border. Can you
+help me and remind me and remind Americans what are the rules
+of engagement when you are in communities like my own, like
+Redford, Texas, and West Texas?
+ Admiral Gilday. So, they are not rules of engagement when
+we have forces deployed in domestic situations like this. They
+are actually standing rules for the use of force. And they are
+guidance that authorizes the use of non-deadly force in order
+to control an escalating situation.
+ And the emphasis in our training is towards deescalation.
+So, how can you use a minimal amount of force to get the
+problem under control so that it doesn't become a larger
+problem.
+ We always have the inherent right of self-defense to use
+deadly force. But we train to only use deadly force when all
+lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed.
+ So the emphasis is on nonlethal. I would tell you that the
+preponderance of the troops we have down at the border have not
+been in a position to have contact with migrants; the medical
+personnel, yes.
+ But even the protection personnel that we put to protect
+CBP, they are the fourth or fifth echelon back in terms of a
+defense in depth kind of construct. I hope that answers your
+question, ma'am, with respect to the use of force.
+ Ms. Escobar. Yes, thank you so much. Another follow-up
+question on a separate topic, last summer during the height of
+the family separation crisis, the Department of Homeland
+Security asked the Department of Defense to prepare to receive
+unaccompanied minors at some of the military installations.
+ In my district, Fort Bliss was identified as one of those
+potential sites. Can you provide us with an update? Have any
+other sites been identified? What is the status of this? And
+would you commit to notifying this committee of any updates on
+this topic?
+ Secretary Rood. Congresswoman, I would say as you correctly
+pointed out, last year the Department of Homeland--HHS, Health
+and Human Services had made requests of the Defense Department
+for supplementary housing for unaccompanied alien children.
+There was a separate request from the Department of Homeland
+Security for housing of families of migrants.
+ In both cases, the Defense Department reviewed our
+available facilities, and they were both for facilities or land
+for temporary facilities to be erected. And we provided a
+favorable response to both the Department of HHS and DHS.
+ Those departments chose not to take advantage of those
+availabilities, and they still haven't to this period of time.
+And so at present, we don't have something ongoing or a search
+for other locations that we would notify the committee of.
+ Ms. Escobar. In the future, if that does come up again, are
+you committed to notifying this committee?
+ Secretary Rood. We would certainly keep in contact with you
+on that, yes.
+ Ms. Escobar. Okay. Thank you.
+ I yield.
+ Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ And thank you all for staying and being here with us.
+Appreciate it.
+ I wanted to go back, just very, very quickly. When do you
+think we might have some information regarding the opportunity
+costs in terms of our troops and their families? Any sense of
+how soon that can get out?
+ Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, we will take a look at that as soon
+as we get back this afternoon, and get back to you. Again, I
+don't think it has been significant in terms of time. But we do
+owe you an answer on that.
+ [The information referred to was not available at the time
+of printing.]
+ Mrs. Davis. Okay. Thank you.
+ I want to go to the national emergency that we are talking
+about. And I understand, Secretary Rood, a hypothetical, if you
+will. But at the same time, it is not so hypothetical if we are
+looking, perhaps, into 3 weeks from now. What does that look
+like from the viewpoint of the military?
+ Secretary Rood. Well, as you know, Congresswoman, the
+President has the authority to declare a national emergency----
+ Mrs. Davis. Of course.
+ Secretary Rood [continuing]. Or the Congress. And so
+obviously, we would await such a determination by either the
+Congress or the President. And depending on what authority--in
+this case, the President, I think you were referring to--were
+to cite, it then triggers certain requirements depending on
+which statute is utilized.
+ And so we have done some prudent planning to try to
+determine what our legal obligations would be, to make sure we
+understand the correct operation of those different
+authorities.
+ But at this stage, it hasn't progressed to the point that I
+am aware of, that the President has issued----
+ Mrs. Davis. But--what I am wondering about is that the
+number of illegal crossings. Clearly, they are down. I mean,
+they are down even from George W. Bush, I believe, even half,
+from a millions, somewhere in the neighborhood of about 400,000
+at this time.
+ So it's not the number of crossings. We didn't declare a
+national emergency at that time. The President--Bush did not do
+that. What is it now?
+ Secretary Rood. Well, the numbers of crossings have
+fluctuated over the years. Last year, the--and we rely on the
+Department of Homeland Security for this data. Their number of
+apprehensions, there's a larger number of people that come
+across than--than are apprehended, of course.
+ Mrs. Davis. Of course.
+ Secretary Rood. And they gave us a 521,000 in fiscal year
+2018, which is up from 415,000 the previous fiscal year. The
+difference is, really, the caravans and some of the nature of
+the asylum-seekers.
+ Mrs. Davis. Is the nature of the asylum-seekers, though, is
+what they need something different? So if we had more judges
+and more processing capability, perhaps, that is really what is
+needed, not necessarily declaring a national emergency.
+ So, you know, what I am wondering is, how I translate that
+for my constituents. My constituents all live on the border, as
+does my colleague, Ms. Escobar. So how do we see that? And I
+think that they count on our military, I think, to define, also
+clearly, why is this a national emergency? What do they have to
+do? How do they protect their children? How do they protect
+their families?
+ I mean, I don't know that anybody has--we have a national
+emergency for natural disasters that I don't think in the State
+of California, or in the country, we have declared that. Other
+Presidents have not stepped in to do that even though the
+situations were different for them.
+ So I think we owe it to people to try and explain that a
+little bit better than--and I think that is done. And the other
+thing very quickly, and thank you again for your indulgence,
+the concern of border agents, just this weekend I happened to
+be talking to one of our Border Patrol agents who was sharing
+with me what we know is that they need more agents.
+ And we have put more money into that. We actually had--we
+had one contractor who did a miserable job at it, but we were
+doing better. But we also had a tremendous number of people who
+have left this service. How are we going to keep up? And what
+role do these discussions have?
+ I know that my constituent really felt that we made it very
+difficult for people who want to be a border agent today. Not
+your problem but I just think it's one that we need to
+recognize. If we are putting more money in, that is great, but
+we are not hiring the people because we are losing as many
+people as we are hiring. And so the attrition rate is really
+what is causing this problem.
+ Thank you very much for being here. I appreciate your----
+ The Chairman. Thank you.
+ Ms. Speier.
+ Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
+ And thank you both for indulging us. I am going to be as
+brief as possible. Let me first say that I wish my colleague on
+the other side of the aisle was still here. He referenced a
+service member as being disrespectful for commenting that it
+was a waste of time. I would suggest that that is the actions
+of a whistleblower, not someone who is being disrespectful.
+ I spent Christmas Eve at the border serving our troops. In
+addition to doing that, I had three 1-hour meetings with
+different groups at the border. And the colonel there said to
+me at the end of my time there, our mission is complete here.
+That was on December 24th.
+ The service members told me about placing C-wire
+[concertina wire] at the border, but they also said to me,
+people who are climbing over those fences and walls aren't
+running away, they are sitting on the wire or at the wire
+waiting for a CBP officer to come so they can be apprehended as
+asylum-seekers.
+ So I am concerned that the readiness that we should be
+working on with our service members is not being done. Many of
+these service members now have lost time with their families at
+Thanksgiving, at Christmas, at New Year's, are still there.
+They don't have an end of the mission date that they can rely
+on.
+ I don't think this is the way to treat our service members.
+So with all of that, I am going to ask you to just comment on
+that. If the mission is complete, why are they still there?
+ Admiral Gilday. So ma'am, at its peak, we had 5,900 troops,
+Active Duty, deployed to the border. This was in early
+November. That number was cut down to about 2,400 by Christmas.
+And so what we have tried to do is systematically reduce those
+numbers as, for example, if DHS said that they needed 50--70
+miles of concertina wire laid, and we lay that wire, we then
+redeploy those people home.
+ Initially we deployed our troops to Texas, Arizona, and
+California. When the migrant groups did not go to Texas or
+Arizona, and they went towards San Diego, towards your home
+district, we reduced those numbers in those two States
+significantly, almost down to zero. And so we have tried to
+match the troops to the requirement on an evolving basis as
+best we can.
+ I am sorry to hear about the colonel's comment, and am I am
+just guessing it was perhaps the military police group that was
+in San Diego. What he may have been talking about, ma'am, was
+the fact that that mission perhaps they saw it as complete when
+the surge of migrants, you know, dissipated. And that is a fair
+comment to make.
+ We have tried to be responsive in reducing those numbers as
+quickly as we can.
+ Ms. Speier. I yield back.
+ The Chairman. Thank you.
+ Before we leave, I ask unanimous consent to include into
+the record all member statements and extraneous material;
+without objection, so ordered. I want to very much thank our
+witnesses for staying with us for the entire time, and the
+committee for their questions.
+ Mr. Thornberry, anything? We are good. We are adjourned.
+Thank you.
+ [Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
+
+
+
+
+=======================================================================
+
+
+
+ A P P E N D I X
+
+ January 29, 2019
+
+=======================================================================
+
+
+
+
+
+=======================================================================
+
+
+ PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
+
+ January 29, 2019
+
+=======================================================================
+
+
+
+
+ [[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+
+=======================================================================
+
+
+ QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
+
+ January 29, 2019
+
+=======================================================================
+
+
+
+
+
+ QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SMITH
+
+ Mr. Smith. Please provide a list of all support provided by the
+Department of Defense (to include Military Departments, Defense
+Agencies, and Field Activities) to other Federal Agencies for missions
+on, or related to, the southern border from April 1, 2018 to January
+30, 2019. Support includes any provision of personnel, materiel, or
+administrative services provided on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable
+basis, including, but not limited to, acquisition, contracting,
+financial (appropriated, working capital, and non-appropriated funds),
+materiel, equipment, goods, services, military personnel, civilian
+personnel, and other support. This list must include the granting DOD
+entity, the receiving Agency or Agencies, as well as type, time period,
+cost of support, and whether DOD has or will be reimbursed.
+ Secretary Rood. Department of Defense (DOD) support to the
+Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at the southern border is being
+executed pursuant to the President's direction, including in his April
+4, 2018, Presidential memorandum, ``Securing the Southern Border of the
+United States.''
+
+DOD assistance to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Operation
+Guardian Support
+ On April 5, 2018, CBP requested DOD assistance in support of the
+CBP border security mission in four specific border sectors: Rio Grande
+Valley, Laredo, and Del Rio, Texas; and the Tucson sector in Arizona.
+On April 6, 2018, the Secretary of Defense authorized and approved up
+to 4,000 National Guard personnel in a duty status pursuant to section
+502(f) of title 32, U.S. Code (i.e., support of operations or missions
+undertaken by the member's unit at the request of the President or
+Secretary of Defense), to conduct operations in support of validated
+DHS border security missions through September 30, 2018. Duty under
+Section 502 requires the concurrence of the Governors concerned.
+National Guard personnel were to support mission requirements
+identified by appropriate DHS and DOD officials. In accordance with
+this direction, the Secretary of Defense approved CBP requests for the
+following National Guard support:
+ Aviation support (e.g., medium- and heavy-lift support;
+9,084 flight hours for light aviation support; and 1,422 flight hours
+for unmanned aircraft system (UAS) support);
+ Infrastructure support (e.g., infrastructure maintenance,
+road maintenance, infrastructure deployment, vegetation clearing, and
+facility maintenance);
+ Fleet maintenance and repair and movement of vehicles;
+ Communications support;
+ 90 intelligence analysts;
+ 20 planners; and
+ Surveillance support (e.g., surveillance camera
+operators, aerostat surveillance systems with crew, mobile surveillance
+platform operators)
+ On April 11, 2018, DHS requested 12,000 flight hours of light
+helicopter support and 1,343 ground support personnel. On April 13,
+2018, the Secretary of Defense approved the request through September
+30, 2018.
+ On May 9, 2018, DHS requested 736 National Guard personnel to
+assist CBP Office of Field Operations, Air and Maritime Operations, and
+Office of Intelligence. On May 11, 2018, the Secretary of Defense
+approved the request through September 30, 2018.
+ On August 21, 2018, DHS requested an extension of the National
+Guard support to September 30, 2019, and up to 15,950 flight hours of
+air support and 2,182 ground support personnel (7,800 hours of light
+rotary-wing air support in 7 U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) sectors; 1,700
+hours of medium rotary-wing air support in 3 USBP sectors; 3,450 hours
+of fixed-wing air support in 4 USBP sectors; and 3,000 hours of UAS
+support in 4 USBP sectors), as well as 327 indirect support personnel
+for command and control. On August 30, 2018, the Secretary of Defense
+approved the request.
+ The current estimated cost of this support totals $411 million,
+including $103 million in fiscal year (FY) 2018 and $308 million in FY
+2019. Consistent with the President's direction, including in his April
+4, 2018, Presidential memorandum, ``Securing the Southern Border of the
+United States,'' DOD support is provided on a non-reimbursable basis to
+the greatest extent legally permissible.
+Attorney Support for the Department of Justice
+ On May 16, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested that DOD
+detail 21 attorneys with criminal trial experience to DOJ to serve as
+Special Assistant United States Attorneys (SAUSAs) for a period not to
+exceed 179 days. On May 27, 2018, the Secretary of Defense approved the
+request.
+ DOD provided a combination of Active Component (5), Reserve
+Component (14) (including 2 Air National Guard), and civilian (2)
+attorneys. All Reserve officers served in a voluntary duty status
+pursuant to section 12301(d) of title 10, U.S. Code. These attorneys
+were sourced from the Air Force (5), Army (9), Marines (2), Navy (3),
+and Defense Legal Services Agency (2).
+ DOD attorneys were assigned to U.S. Attorney Offices in: Corpus
+Christi, Texas (1); Del Rio, Texas (3); El Centro, California (1); El
+Paso, Texas (2); Laredo, Texas (2); Las Cruces, New Mexico (5);
+McAllen, Texas (2); San Diego, California (4); and Yuma, Arizona (1).
+ These DOD attorneys were appointed as SAUSAs and worked full time
+under the direction and supervision of Assistant U.S. Attorneys,
+assisting in prosecuting reactive border immigration cases, with a
+focus on misdemeanor improper entry and felony illegal reentry cases.
+Their duties included: drafting pleadings; assisting with plea
+negotiations; and making court appearances, all under the supervision
+of Assistant U.S. Attorneys.
+ This detail of DOD personnel, which cost $1.5 million, was executed
+pursuant to the Economy Act and was executed on a fully reimbursable
+basis.
+
+DOD assistance to CBP Operation Secure Line
+ On August 8, 2018, DHS requested two military planners to assist
+the CBP Migrant Crisis Action Team (MCAT) through November 20, 2018. On
+August 17, 2018, the Secretary of Defense approved the request. On
+November 17, 2018, DHS requested a 90-day extension for the two
+military planners. On November 19, 2018, the Secretary of Defense
+approved the request.
+ On October 25, 2018, DHS requested additional support to address
+the risk posed by an approaching Central American migrant caravan.
+Specifically, DHS requested:
+ Military planning team to coordinate operation,
+engineering, medical, and logistic support.
+ Engineering capability to provide temporary vehicle
+barriers and pedestrian style fencing at and around a port of entry
+(POE), including but not limited to: 2 one-half-mile segments of
+continuous anti-personnel intrusion fencing (for a total of 1 mile),
+approximately 4 one-way retractable vehicle anti-intrusion barricades,
+up to approximately 100,000 square feet of configurable pedestrian
+fencing, and approximately 5,000 total (non-continuous) feet of fixed
+vehicle barricades.
+ Deployable medical units to triage and treat up to 1,000
+personnel every 24 hours and to be prepared to stabilize and prepare
+injured personnel for commercial transport to civilian medical
+facilities as necessary.
+ 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, available with 12-hour
+notification, to move up to 400 CBP personnel and equipment to a
+location determined by CBP.
+ Command center facility for up to 100 personnel.
+ Temporary housing for up to 2,345 CBP personnel.
+ Meals-ready-to-eat for 2,345 CBP personnel for 2 meals
+per day for approximately 10 days and field kitchen capable of feeding
+2,345 CBP personnel for 1 meal per day for 10 days.
+ Riot gear equipment (helmet with face shield, hand-held
+shields, shin guards) for 500 CBP personnel.
+ Military personnel to provide Federal, State, and local
+police with assistance necessary to protect CBP personnel as they
+perform their Federal functions.
+ On October 26, 2018, the Secretary of Defense approved the
+request--with the exception of the request for military personnel to
+protect CBP personnel, which required a Presidential determination--and
+authorized active-duty military personnel to provide support through
+December 15, 2018. DOD selected the military personnel best-suited and
+available from the total force to provide the assistance to CBP
+requested by DHS, pursuant to the President's direction and as approved
+by DOD. Active-duty military personnel were more readily available
+than, and their use did not incur the additional pay and allowance
+costs associated with using, National Guard personnel. Although
+military personnel are highly trained and, for the most part, required
+no additional training, U.S. Northern Command conducted mandatory two-
+day training with all military personnel deployed to the southern
+border before those personnel began providing support to CBP. This
+deployment of military personnel did not, and is not expected to,
+compromise the ability of the U.S. Armed Forces to respond to other
+national security threats around the world.
+ On November 14, 2018, DHS requested that DOD emplace an additional
+26 miles of concertina wire at designated locations outside the POE
+buffer zones. DHS remained responsible to address environmental
+compliance for all areas of installation and the necessary access to
+land. On November 16, 2018, the Secretary of Defense approved the
+request and authorized the support through December 15, 2018.
+ On November 15, 2018, DHS requested DOD assistance with medical
+evaluations, and, if needed, urgent medical care of migrants referred
+by CBP to DOD deployed medical units at up to three POEs, or port
+extensions, along the U.S. Southwest border. DOD medical personnel also
+were to evaluate, treat, or refer migrants identified by CBP with
+potential or suspected conditions or infectious diseases that pose a
+public health risk. Once evaluated and treated for urgent medical
+conditions, or suspected conditions or infectious diseases, migrants
+either were to be returned to CBP for processing or to be transferred
+by CBP to local civilian health facilities for further medical care.
+DOD medical personnel were not to be present at locations where CBP
+conducts migrant medical screening. CBP law enforcement officials were
+to maintain custody for each migrant referred to DOD medical personnel
+at all times. CBP remained responsible for escorting migrants to and
+from the DOD medical units, and during transportation to and from local
+civilian health facilities. CBP also remained responsible for providing
+interpreters for migrants who were to be evaluated or treated by DOD
+medical personnel. On November 16, 2018, the Secretary of Defense
+approved the request and authorized DOD medical assistance through
+December 15, 2018.
+ On November 18, 2018, DHS requested that DOD protect CBP personnel
+performing their Federal functions within property controlled by CBP at
+or adjacent to one or more designated POEs, as necessary. This DOD
+military protection would be employed if CBP, other Federal law
+enforcement personnel, National Guard personnel operating under State
+command and control, and State and local law enforcement personnel were
+unable to apprehend or otherwise control migrants or other individuals
+attempting to enter the United States who threaten to harm CBP
+personnel or disrupt the ability of such personnel to perform their
+Federal functions within property controlled by CBP at or adjacent to a
+POE. On November 18, 2018, the Secretary of Defense approved the
+request contingent upon authorization by the President, which was
+provided on November 20, 2018. DOD military personnel protecting CBP
+personnel were authorized to perform missions that required direct
+contact with migrants and, at DOD's discretion, might require them to
+be armed. Decisions regarding arming of DOD personnel and related rules
+for the use of force were informed by the circumstances of this
+protection mission and made by DOD, or, in the case of National Guard
+personnel performing this mission under State control, by the
+applicable State Governors, and in consultation with CBP. DOD military
+personnel performing this mission were not to perform civilian law
+enforcement-type activities, such as arrest, search, and seizure;
+however, DOD military personnel were authorized to take actions to
+mitigate hostile actions by migrants against CBP personnel performing
+their Federal functions within property controlled by CBP at or
+adjacent to a designated POE, including but not limited to a show of
+force, crowd control, temporary detention, and cursory search necessary
+for the protection of CBP personnel. In these circumstances,
+``temporary detention'' meant holding individuals for a brief period of
+time to resolve an imminent threat to the safety and security of CBP or
+DOD personnel within property controlled by CBP at or adjacent to the
+designated POE and to effectuate the orderly transfer of such
+individuals to CBP or other law enforcement personnel as soon as
+possible (CBP's expectation was that such detention would last seconds
+to minutes, depending on the situation).
+ On November 30, 2018, DHS requested an extension of the active-duty
+military support in CBP Region IX (California and Arizona), with the
+proviso that, as operationally required, the extended capabilities
+could be shifted or expanded back into CBP Region VI (New Mexico and
+Texas) following consultation between DHS and DOD. DHS requested that
+DOD:
+ Maintain medium-lift rotary-wing aircraft capability with
+accompanying pilots and aviation support personnel to supplement the
+movement of CBP tactical personnel in and around locations determined
+by CBP. These aircraft were to perform standard aviation mission
+profiles, including but not be limited to Quick Reaction Force support,
+helicopter rope suspension technique/fast rope insertion of QRF
+personnel, command and control (C2), transport of CBP personnel and
+mission essential supplies, and casualty evacuation.
+ Maintain aviation terminal control and asset de-
+confliction at CBP designated locations.
+ Maintain the fixed-wing capability with accompanying
+pilots and aviation support personnel to move approximately 50 CBP
+personnel and equipment to a location determined by CBP within 12 hours
+following a 48-hour notification.
+ Maintain capability at CBP-designated locations to
+evaluate and treat up to 200 migrants, CBP personnel, and other
+authorized personnel per day, and to provide emergency casualty care
+and public health support.
+ Maintain Military Police support at CBP-designated
+locations to protect CBP personnel performing their Federal functions.
+ Maintain engineering capabilities at CBP-designated
+locations to emplace POE barriers, emplace additional hardening
+measures as required, and maintain POE-hardening structures (including
+but not limited to fencing, concertina wire, and barriers). In CBP
+Region IX, maintain engineering capabilities at CBP-designated
+locations to complete currently agreed-to engineering priorities (if
+not completed by December 15, 2018). Maintain capability to surge
+engineering barrier maintenance and repair support to needs that emerge
+along the border outside of CBP Region IX.
+ Maintain temporary housing and/or structures to house up
+to 500 CBP personnel with associated latrine and shower facilities. CBP
+was to establish/maintain interagency agreements with appropriate DOD
+organization.
+ Maintain temporary hand receipt of riot gear.
+ On December 4, 2018, the Secretary of Defense approved the request,
+extending the support through January 31, 2019, or such time that CBP,
+in consultation with DHS and DOD, determined that the risk posed by the
+caravan to CBP personnel performing their Federal functions at POEs
+affected by the arrival of the caravan was mitigated or reduced to an
+acceptable level, whichever was earlier.
+ On December 27, 2018, DHS requested new DOD support. Specifically,
+in addition to aviation support, which was previously approved by the
+Secretary of Defense through September 31, 2019, DHS requested: (1)
+mobile surveillance camera operators to support CBP agents through
+September 30, 2019; and (2) 150 miles of concertina wire emplacement
+between the POEs by March 31, 2019. On January 11, 2019, the Secretary
+of Defense approved the request.
+ The estimated cost of DOD support to CBP Operation Secure Line
+through January 31, 2019, is $132 million. Consistent with the
+President's direction, including in his April 4, 2018, Presidential
+memorandum, ``Securing the Southern Border of the United States,'' DOD
+support is provided on a non-reimbursable basis to the greatest extent
+legally permissible.
+ Mr. Smith. Please provide an accounting of all expenses incurred by
+the Department of Defense--specified by appropriation, budget activity,
+and sub-activity group--for all operations and support for DOD and
+other Federal activities along the southern border. This should include
+appropriated, working capital, and non-appropriated funds. This list
+include the granting DOD entity, the receiving Agency or Agencies, as
+well as type of activity, time period, cost, and whether DOD has or
+will be reimbursed.
+ Secretary Rood. DOD support to CBP Operation Guardian Support
+commenced on April 7, 2018. As of February 21, 2019, DOD has incurred
+$216 million in reported obligations for expenses such as National
+Guard pay and allowances, applicable per diem costs, Operation and
+Maintenance support costs, and Operation and Maintenance flying hour
+costs ($103M FY 2018; $113M FY 2019).
+ Costs are primarily being reported in the following Budget Sub-
+Activity Groups (SAGs):
+
+[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+
+ DOD support to CBP Operation Secure Line commenced on October
+16, 2018, and, as of February 20, 2019, DOD has incurred $49 million in
+reported obligations such as personnel subsistence/per diem/lodging/
+family separation allowance, travel, supplies, and transportation.
+Costs are primarily being reported in the following Budget Sub-Activity
+Groups (SAGs):
+
+[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
+
+
+ DOD provides support to CBP under available legal authorities,
+consistent with the April 4, 2018, Presidential memorandum, ``Securing
+the Southern Border of the United States.'' All DOD costs incurred are
+on a non-reimbursable basis, to the greatest extent legally
+permissible.
+ Presently, the DOD Components providing the personnel and
+capabilities are responsible for the resulting bills. The DOD
+Components are leveraging base budget appropriations to pay for the
+border support mission. To date, the DOD Components have reported costs
+mainly in Operation and Maintenance and Military Personnel accounts.
+The DOD Comptroller is reviewing DOD accounts to fund this support with
+minimal disruption to readiness and other DOD missions. The DOD
+Comptroller will analyze the reported costs to develop sourcing
+strategies for potential reprogramming actions, as required, in the
+context of all DOD requirements.
+ Mr. Smith. During your testimony you stated that ``most people just
+think we are consuming readiness, but we're also producing readiness
+during those of deployments.'' Please provide specific examples. How is
+there an overall net gain in readiness for units that support the
+border mission as it relates to missed home station training, reset, or
+pre-deployment training? Your testimony referred to the training
+specific to Military Police (MPs) and the potential for command and
+control leadership principles that may get exercised. Please exclude
+these from your examples.
+ Admiral Gilday. In aggregate, the Joint Force's support to the
+Southwest Border (SWB) mission has not significantly impacted the
+strategic readiness of the Joint Force, largely because the current
+Global Force Management (GFM) process enables the Force Providers to
+source the SWB mission and internally rotate forces in such a way as to
+mitigate the overall impacts to strategic readiness.
+ Although the strategic readiness impact to the Joint Force is
+mitigated, individual unit impacts can be more pronounced. Analysis of
+unit reporting in the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS)
+indicates that there have been both increases and decreases to unit-
+level readiness reporting for those units supporting the SWB mission
+since October, 2018. It is important to note that short-term unit
+readiness increases are tempered by decreases caused by both split/
+partial deployments and missed unit-level training activities.
+ The instances of unit readiness increases involve units and
+individuals who are employed in such a way that the assigned mission in
+support of the SWB aligns with the unit's designed or ``Core'' wartime
+mission. Examples of small-unit and individual readiness increases
+represent instances when the unit, and/or individuals, are able to
+exercise aspects of their Core Mission Essential Tasks (METs) while
+conducting the SWB mission. Additional examples of units/individuals
+who are able to exercise components of their Core-METs include
+engineering units that are emplacing obstacles and constructing
+barriers, as well as Quartermaster, Field Feeding Companies (FFCs), who
+are able to execute tasks that directly link to the unit's Core-METs.
+ ______
+
+ QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
+ Mr. Garamendi. Please provide specific details on which units have
+been deployed, including those expected to be deployed in the coming
+weeks, the locations of their deployments, and how this mission is
+impacting troops' readiness.
+ Secretary Rood. As of March 13, 2019, there were approximately
+3,999 active-duty military personnel supporting CBP Operation Secure
+Line. The attached document identifies active-duty military units
+supporting CBP Operation Secure Line. [The information referred to is
+classified and retained in the committee files.]
+ As of March 11, 2019, there were approximately 2,227 National Guard
+personnel supporting CBP Operation Guardian Support at the southern
+border of the United States. National Guard personnel from Alabama,
+Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
+Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
+Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
+Texas, Utah, and West Virginia are currently supporting CBP Operation
+Guardian Support. The attached document identifies National Guard units
+supporting CBP Operation Guardian Support. [The information referred to
+is classified and retained in the committee files.]
+ DOD, including the Military Services, proactively manages any
+effects on readiness regardless of mission set by means of diligent and
+conscientious unit selection, through appropriate mission-assignment
+processes, and by leveraging training and readiness opportunities when
+available.
+ Mr. Garamendi. Please provide specific details on which units have
+been deployed, including those expected to be deployed in the coming
+weeks, the locations of their deployments, and how this mission is
+impacting troops' readiness.
+ Admiral Gilday. For the complete listing of units, locations,
+please see classified enclosure (ENCL-A) ENCL-A is the placemat. [The
+enclosure referred to is classified and retained in the committee
+files.]
+ To date, the Joint Force's support to the Southwest Border (SWB)
+mission has not significantly impacted the strategic readiness of the
+Joint Force, largely because the current Global Force Management (GFM)
+process enables the Force Providers to source the SWB mission and
+internally rotate forces in such a way as to mitigate the overall
+impacts to strategic readiness.
+ This assessment is based largely from the overall impacts to the
+Force Providers. The Army units providing support to the SWB mission
+are sourced primarily from units outside of Brigade Combat Teams
+(BCTs), which enables the Army to preserve BCT readiness in support of
+National Defense Strategy (NDS) priorities. For the Marine Corps, the
+initial sourcing of Request for Assistance 3 (RFA-3) included a
+Regimental Headquarters in addition to an Engineer Battalion
+Headquarters and a Military Police (MP) Company. As of mid-February,
+the Marine Regimental Headquarters is being replaced by an Army Brigade
+Headquarters, which will help mitigate some of the impacts to training
+and readiness I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF).
+ Depending on the SWB's continued mission, scope, and duration, an
+overall readiness decline is possible in training proficiency,
+equipment readiness and personnel availability, as well as a
+degradation of available forces to support global commitments. The
+Joint Staff, in conjunction with OSD and the Force Providers will
+continue to closely assess these potential impacts.
+ ______
+
+ QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN
+ Mr. Brown. Mr. Rood, the administration is considering the
+declaration of a national emergency on the southern border. Yet, the
+deployment strategy indicates the administration believes the situation
+is improving. Active duty troop deployment peaked at 5,900 in November
+2018 and has since fallen to 2,300 troops currently at the southern
+border. How does this justify the potential declaration of a national
+emergency?
+ Secretary Rood. On February 15, 2019, the President declared a
+national emergency because ``[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.'' In his proclamation, the President also determined that
+``[b]ecause of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is
+necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional support to address
+the crisis.''
+ Mr. Brown. Mr. Rood, when the deployment was extended to September
+2019, DOD stated that troops would be providing ``mobile surveillance
+camera operations''. I have deep concerns regarding our military
+conducting surveillance operations on U.S. soil. What authorities are
+you using to authorize this surveillance and how are you ensuring that
+the rights of U.S. citizens are protected?
+ Secretary Rood. Congress has provided DOD with several authorities
+to detect and monitor cross-border traffic. For example, section 274 of
+title 10, U.S. Code, authorizes DOD, in support of civilian law
+enforcement agencies, to detect, monitor, and communicate the movement
+of surface traffic outside of the geographic boundary of the United
+States and within the United States not to exceed 25 miles of the
+boundary if the initial detection occurred outside of the boundary.
+ DOD's exercise of such authorities are consistent with the law,
+including laws protecting the rights of U.S. citizens.
+ Mr. Brown. Vice Admiral Gilday, there has been reporting that
+several overseas deployments--including at least one to Europe--have
+been impacted by using our military in our own backyards in California,
+Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico instead of where they are trained to
+operate--abroad and in foreign lands. How many overseas deployments
+have been impacted by this decision and how has the diversion affected
+our commitments to our allies?
+ Admiral Gilday. No overseas deployment impact reported (confirmed
+with each of the Force Providers); all impacts reported have been
+CONUS-based training events and exercises. Accordingly, the Joint Staff
+assesses that the current Joint Force support to the SWB mission has
+not affected commitments with allies or partners.
+ ______
+
+ QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
+ Ms. Houlahan. Please provide an updated list deployed personnel and
+a map of their location. For any units larger than 10, please describe
+what their mission is and what they would be doing if they weren't on
+the border right now.
+ Secretary Rood. As of March 13, 2019, there were approximately
+3,999 active-duty military personnel supporting CBP Operation Secure
+Line. The attached document identifies active-duty military units
+supporting CBP Operation Secure Line. [The information referred to is
+classified and retained in the committee files.]
+ As of March 11, 2019, there were approximately 2,227 National Guard
+personnel supporting CBP Operation Guardian Support at the southern
+border of the United States. National Guard personnel from Alabama,
+Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
+Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New
+Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,
+Texas, Utah, and West Virginia are currently supporting CBP Operation
+Guardian Support. The attached document identifies National Guard units
+supporting CBP Operation Guardian Support. [The information referred to
+is classified and retained in the committee files.]
+ Military personnel are performing aviation; engineering (e.g.,
+temporary barriers, and emplace concertina wire); communications; fleet
+maintenance; law enforcement information analysis; planning; and
+detection and monitoring. Additionally, a small number of personnel
+remain available for emergency response at POEs in California through
+September 30, 2019. This includes 1 military police platoon and a small
+number of medics on 48-hour notice and 1 military police company on 7-
+day Prepared-to-Deploy Order with medics.
+ Ms. Houlahan. Please provide a list of all the units that have been
+and are currently deployed and also their Defense Readiness Reporting
+System (DRRS) reports from before and after deployment so that we could
+understand from a quantitative perspective how their readiness has been
+affected if it has been positively or negatively.
+ Secretary Rood. [Please see the classified enclosure (ENCL-B) for
+the list of all units and a snapshot of their DRRS reports from October
+2018 through the present. ENCL-B is the J35 SWB Product.] [The
+enclosure referred to is classified and retained in the committee
+files.]
+ Ms. Houlahan. In some cases, individuals are being deployed from
+their units separate from their units and we know the units have a
+finite period at home to train for their next deployment. Are we
+hurting their home unit training or readiness, are we impeding or
+impairing individuals' career abilities by deploying in this way? How
+is the Department capturing the impact of this from a quantitative
+perspective?
+ Secretary Rood. In aggregate, the Joint Force's support to the CBP
+security mission at the southern border has not affected the strategic
+readiness of the Joint Force significantly, largely because the current
+Global Force Management (GFM) process enables the Force Providers to
+source Joint Force support to CBP at the southern border and internally
+rotate forces in such a way as to mitigate the overall effects on
+strategic readiness.
+ In those cases where readiness may have been affected for units
+supporting the CBP, many of the reported negative effects are due to
+partial or split deployments (not the full unit). The issue is that
+partially deployed, or split-based, units are unable to train
+effectively to collective standards against their designed mission,
+which degrades their overall unit readiness. Historical review of
+reporting for units that experience readiness degradations due to
+partial deployments for a limited period of time indicates that these
+units can return to pre-deployed readiness levels fairly quickly.
+Accordingly, the GFM process enables the Force Providers both to source
+and rotate units in such a way as to mitigate the overall effects on
+readiness. The GFM process includes detailed impact statements that
+clearly articulate risks to both mission and force. These impact
+statements include effects on readiness, thereby quantitatively
+capturing the impact of DOD's support of CBP at the southern border.
+ Ms. Houlahan. Title 10, section 276 states that the Secretary of
+Defense should prescribe regulations to ensure that the provision that
+any support to law enforcement does not adversely affect the military
+preparedness of the United States. Are you aware of any directives or
+policy statements put forth by the department to ensure that any
+readiness impacts of this border deployment has been mitigated? If so,
+please provide copies of those policies or directives. If not, why not?
+How does the Department plan to comply with Section 276?
+ Secretary Rood. DOD policy in DOD Directive 3025.18, ``Defense
+Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA),'' requires that all requests from
+civil authorities for assistance be evaluated for effects on readiness.
+DOD, including the Military Services, proactively manages any effects
+on readiness regardless of mission set by means of diligent and
+conscientious unit selection, through appropriate mission-assignment
+processes, and by leveraging training and readiness opportunities when
+available. As such, DOD does not anticipate that DOD support to DHS at
+the southern border will adversely affect the military preparedness of
+the United States.
+ DOD Instruction 3025.21, ``Defense Support of Civilian Law
+Enforcement Agencies,'' establishes that it is DOD policy that ``DOD
+shall be prepared to support civilian law enforcement agencies
+consistent with the needs of military preparedness of the United
+States, while recognizing and conforming to the legal limitations on
+direct DOD involvement in civilian law enforcement activities.'' DOD
+Instruction 3025.21 also provides guidance and assigns responsibilities
+with regards to ``evaluating requests for assistance in terms of effect
+on military preparedness of the United States.''
+ The President's January 27, 2017, memorandum, ``Rebuilding the U.S.
+Armed Forces,'' established that it is ``the policy of the United
+States to rebuild the U.S. Armed Forces.'' Consistent with this policy,
+military readiness remains a key DOD priority.
+ Ms. Houlahan. Will the Department seek reimbursement for the
+deployment of forces to the Southern Border as outlined by 10 USC 277?
+If so, will the funds from the reimbursement used to remediate any
+readiness challenges with the deployed units?
+ Secretary Rood. Consistent with the President's direction,
+including his April 4, 2018, Presidential memorandum, ``Securing the
+Southern Border of the United States,'' DOD support is provided on a
+non-reimbursable basis to the greatest extent legally permissible.
+Section 277(c) of title 10, U.S. Code, for instance, authorizes the
+Secretary of Defense to waive reimbursement for support if such
+support: (1) is provided in the normal course of military training or
+operations; or (2) results in a benefit to the element of DOD or
+personnel of the National Guard providing the support that is
+substantially equivalent to that which would otherwise be obtained from
+military operations or training. In addition, section 1059 of the
+National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law
+114-92) authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to
+U.S. Customs and Border Protection, without reimbursement, for purposes
+of increasing ongoing efforts to secure the southern land border of the
+United States.
+ ______
+
+ QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BACON
+ Mr. Bacon. Vice Admiral Gilday, in testimony last year Admiral
+Tidd, Commander of USSOUTHCOM, stated ``threat networks including . . .
+terrorist supporters and sympathizers . . . use common pathways and
+conduct operations that span the [southern] region and reach deep into
+our homeland.'' In your testimony you affirmed this statement adding
+that you consider the terror threat in the Southern Region to be ``very
+real''. Please provide an updated assessment of the terror threat in
+the Southern Region including number of individuals with known or
+suspected connections to terrorism detained each year over the previous
+5 years by the U.S. or partner governments in Central or South America
+that pose a threat to the United States.
+ Admiral Gilday. [The information is classified and retained in the
+committee files.]
+ ______
+
+ QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ESCOBAR
+ Ms. Escobar. Mr. Rood, does the military believe Central American
+families, who have a right to seek asylum under international and
+immigration laws, constitute a national emergency? Subsequently, does
+the military believe that asylum seekers are a threat to national
+security?
+ Secretary Rood. DOD defers to the White House and the Department of
+Justice to comment on the President's lawful authority to declare a
+national emergency. DOD support to DHS is being executed pursuant to
+the President's direction, including in his April 4, 2018, Presidential
+memorandum, ``Securing the Southern Border of the United States.'' The
+Secretary of Homeland Security has repeatedly emphasized the nature of
+the crisis at the southern border.
+ Ms. Escobar. Mr. Rood, the President, in reference to using the
+military to build a wall, recently said ``the military wants this to
+happen''. Can you please respond to the President's comment?
+ Secretary Rood. DOD defers to the White House to elaborate on the
+President's statement.
+ DOD uses barriers to protect and control access to military
+installations in the United States and overseas, including areas of
+active conflict.
+ According to the Secretary of Homeland Security, border barriers
+enable the U.S. Border Patrol to cover more border area with fewer
+agents and to manage more effectively the flow of people entering and
+exiting the United States.
+ Ms. Escobar. The President is reportedly considering pulling $3.6
+billion in military construction funds and $3 billion in Pentagon civil
+works funds to build a wall. This sets a terrible precedent for
+critical dollars for the military to be diverted toward a campaign
+promise. Mr. Rood, if the President declares a national emergency, how
+will the military ensure the American people are safe from actual
+threats to our country?
+ Secretary Rood. On February 15, 2019, the President declared a
+national emergency and invoked section 2808 of title 10, U.S. Code. If
+the Acting Secretary of Defense determines that barrier construction is
+necessary to support the use of the armed forces, his selection of
+military construction (MILCON) projects to be used as funding sources
+for the emergency MILCON projects would minimize effects on readiness.
+ Ms. Escobar. Mr. Rood, the Trump administration has repeatedly
+claimed that terrorists are coming in through the southern border. What
+data can you share about how many national security threats cross at
+the southern border? The northern border?
+ Secretary Rood. DOD defers to DHS to describe potential terrorist
+entry into the United States through the southern border. In accordance
+with section 402 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
+296; section 202 of title 6, U.S. Code), DHS is responsible for
+preventing the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism
+into the United States and for securing the borders, territorial
+waters, ports, terminals, waterways, and air, land, and sea
+transportation systems of the United States. The Secretary of Homeland
+Security has repeatedly emphasized the nature of the crisis at the
+southern border.
+
+ [all]
+