Hearing summary: Next Steps for the Merida Initiative
This post was written by CIP's Cuba program intern Meghan Vail On May 27th, two House of Representatives committees held a joint hearing on U.S.-Mexico security cooperation. The Subcommittee on Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee on Foreign Affairs were specifically interested in the next steps for the Mérida Initiative, the $1.4 billion U.S. counternarcotics and security program for Mexico. A webcast of the hearing is available here. While members of the committees voiced their individual concerns regarding current implementation of the Mérida Initiative and the funds committed to this program, several common concerns emerged in the course of the hearing, which occurred within weeks of the passage of the Arizona state immigration law (SB 1070) and within days of President Obama’s authorization of 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to assist border patrol and local law enforcement. Accordingly, many of the questions addressed to the panel dealt not only with the delayed utilization of obligated Mérida funds, but also the significance of the National Guard deployment, the specified roles of governmental and non-governmental agencies in border protection and security, and the suitability of Arizona as a national model for securing the border. Below is a summary of House members’ opening remarks and the testimonies and Q&A period of the first panel. You can watch the entire hearing here. Opening Remarks The hearing began with opening statements from House members Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Candice Miller (R-MI), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Connie Mack (R-FL) and Bennie Thompson (D-MS). Chairman Cuellar expressed the committees’ desire to see an increase in the pace at which the funds obligated for the Mérida Initiative since 2007 are put to use. He expressed interest in the panelists’ perspectives on previous and future implementation of Mérida, as well as the significance of the Obama Administration’s deployment of the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border earlier this week. Rep. Miller expressed her desire to see an even greater presence of the National Guard at the U.S.-Mexico border than has currently been ordered. She claimed that Mexican gangs are the greatest threat to U.S. security. Despite the bipartisan support for the Mérida Initiative, implementation has been inexplicably delayed. From her perspective, Congressional legislation is necessary to confirm that U.S. agencies are carrying out their responsibilities regarding Mérida. Rep. Miller cautioned that the actions taken by the Mexican government to stem the violence must also be recognized. Chairman Engel posed several questions about the nature and length of the National Guard deployment. How long will the troops be deployed there? Are measures being taken to ensure that the National Guard will not undermine existing security efforts? He said that while he respects President Obama’s decision to send the troops and felt that President Obama had to do it, he warns that the National Guard is not police or law enforcement and is “temporary at best.” He argued that the Guard deployment cannot be seen as a campaign against immigrants. According to Chairman Engel, a plan to strengthen key U.S. agencies and their Mexican counterparts is necessary. It is the relationship with government that will make Mérida successful, and the behavior of all agencies must be transparent. There are three things with regard to the Mérida Initiative that Rep. Engel would like to see:
- Expedited assistance - only 2% of obligated funds had been spent by September 2009.
- Acceptance of the Senate’s proposal of $175 million in funding for the new judicial system to be created by 2016.
- President Obama’s reinstatement of the existing ban on military weapons, a decision that would require no legislation. Security systems are not enough, he argues, when Americans are the consumers and the providers of arms for cartels.
Rep. Mack began his opening statement by identifying what in his perspective was a “red flag” – Mexican President Calderon’s proposal that the U.S. create new guns laws. He argued that the existing laws should be enforced and that the situation of violence at the border should not be used to enforce a ban agenda. He was similarly troubled by the fact that less than 2% of the obligated funds had been implemented, and argued that taxpayers couldn’t be told that security was being provided under these circumstances. He asked, why is there no time sensitive, targeted assistance? Rep. Mack argued that the Mérida parties need to create a comprehensive regional drug strategy and promote strong commercial ties. On these grounds, he advocates for passage of the free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. As for implementation of the Mérida Initiative in the past, his perspective is that little implementation appears comprehensive in nature. He argued that the existing security resources should be improved and that the Arizona law is not a solution. Rep. Thompson concluded the opening statements by remarking that efficiency in implementation must be accompanied by accountability. As for future implementation, he argues strongly in favor of seeking feedback and involvement from people at the border, cautioning that their perspective is much better than the D.C. perspective. First Panel The first panel of witnesses at the hearing was comprised of Obama administration officials from various departments: Roberta Jacobson of the State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs; Mariko Silver, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Office of International Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security; Alonzo Peña of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; and Allen Gina of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. After all panelists had spoken, Roberta Jacobson responded to the first question addressed to the panelists from Chairman Cuellar, who inquired if the State Department had established a plan to expedite the allocation of funds obligated to implement the Mérida Initiative. Jacobson responded that the Department had improved its processes given that it had a lot of structures to put in place. She spoke of a 275% “increased presence in Mexico” and the establishment of a bilateral implementation working group that meets monthly. She estimated an implementation of approximately $600 million of Mérida-allocated funds by the end of this fiscal year. Chairman Engel indicated that the Committees sought assurances that the pace of implementation of funds would be increased, noting that funding may be cut if the funds were not put to use. He inquired about the use of performance measures and argued that the government could not ignore the flow of weapons across the border. He questioned the panel as to why President Obama was not moving more “forcefully” on this issue. Chairman Cuellar questioned the federal government’s overall strategy to secure the border and the specific collaborative roles of the federal, state, and local governments. He argued that each governmental agency’s role should be established in writing. As to where the agencies were in the process of securing the border, Mr. Peña responded that he didn’t know if there was an overall strategy for federal, state and local governments. He commented that the implementation of a plan had begun in Arizona and was being expanded to incorporate Texas. Chairman Cuellar responded that Mr. Peña’s comments indicated that no model was in fact in place. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) asserted that if Arizona was to become the national model for a secure border, Arizona’s input must be considered. In response to a question from a committee member regarding whether or not a directive had been issued that immigrants picked up under Arizona’s law would be processed and deported, Mr. Peña responded that no such directive existed. He commented that resource priorities are criminal aliens who affect national security and that officers have to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The panel was also questioned as to what the National Guard was accomplishing at the border that agencies could not, and Ms. Silver and Mr. Peña responded that the Guard was providing counterintelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Chairman Engel questioned if U.S. citizens were now being targeted at the border, and Ms. Silver responded that an investigation into Chairman Engel’s question was forthcoming. The results of this investigation would be produced to the subcommittees. Rep. Mack further stressed the issue of delayed Mérida implementation, to which Ms. Silver responded that the border at present is staffed better than at any other point in history. She asserted that the measures taken at the border are not merely a reaction to the Arizona law and that some existing measures were already in place. Rep. Thompson commented on the President’s proposal for more representation from Customs and Border Protection at the border, not Immigration and Customs Enforcement. After questioning the purpose of the surge of troops, Congressman Thompson pointed out that agencies had not formerly requested more personnel from Congress. Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) commented that Congress was working hard to combat the violence at the border by approving the increase in border patrol officers from 4,000 to 20,000 nationwide. Congresswoman Giffords sought to clarify the statement of what it means to place troops on the border and advocated for a placement of troops directly on the border. She insisted that the placement of troops was critical to stemming the violence. If the border patrol is deployed far away, she argued, the border is not, in fact, being watched. Consequently, apprehension is difficult. She proceeded to ask about the placement of the National Guard and whether or not they have the knowledge and skills to protect and defend themselves. She questioned if they were aware of the rules of engagement. Ms. Silver responded that the Guard would be staffed and protected as needed, but that their placement was intended to free up personnel to be on the border. Chairman Cuellar replied that the National Guard should not be freeing up the Customs and Border Patrol to do their jobs. If the CBP needs assistance, he argued, clerks or assistants should be hired.