Homeland Security Whistleblower Disclosures
DHS’s Failure to Collect DNA at the Border Endangers America
“Reckless Disregard: How DHS’s Failure to Collect DNA at the Border Endangers Americans.” A roundtable hosted by Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, July 23, 2024.
Fred Wynn, Mark Jones, Mike Taylor and Kumar Kibble testified.
Watch video (01:34:15):
[5:03]
SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY: I want to thank Senator Johnson for co-leading this roundtable. He was also involved in the one we had a couple weeks ago.
I hope the public understands that Republicans are in the minority, so we can’t hold formal committee hearings because only chairmen of committees — which are Democrats — call those hearings.
[5:31]
So, these oversight roundtables are an important part of the investigation that we do through our respective offices. And Senator Johnson and I have a great deal of working cooperation for a lot of our investigations. And also, for you people who have taken time out of your busy schedule to be here as panelists, I want to thank you for doing that.
Three of our witnesses today are what we classify, in an official way, as whistleblowers. They happen to be MARK JONES, MIKE TAYLOR and FRED WYNN.
They’re patriots. And as I often have said about whistleblowers, too often by our bureaucracy — whether it’s these three people or others, because I’ve been dealing with this for decades — bureaucracy tends to treat whistleblowers like skunks at a picnic.
Today we’re going to discuss issues of very significant importance: Public safety.
[7:00]
First, the government's failure to follow the law. And second, retaliation against whistleblowers who alerted the government to those failures.
DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 requires federal law enforcement and their agencies to do several things. Law enforcement agencies are required to collect DNA from individuals who are arrested, facing criminal charges, or who are convicted, and from certain detained noncitizens at our border.
These DNA samples are sent to the FBI database, to assist and develop criminal investigations and leads for law enforcement.
For many years, the Department of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection, have failed to follow the law.
[8:07]
According to recent protected disclosures by these brave whistleblowers with us today, in Fiscal Year 2023 DHS and Border Patrol only collected DNA from 30 to 40 percent of the three and two-tenths million individuals at the southern border.
Even more concerning, according to protected disclosures, there are occasions at the southern border in which the required DNA collection isn’t even happening.
Now, my oversight of this issue goes back at least 6 years. November 2018 I wrote a letter to DHS regarding that department’s failure to collect DNA as required by law.
In 2020 the Trump administration made regulatory changes, and required DNA collection take place, as the law demands.
However, according to protected disclosures, federal bureaucrats put up road blocks at each turn.
[9:25]
Then, the Biden Harris administration assumed power. They simply stopped pushing the full compliance and failed to follow the law. Their non-compliance continues today. In 2023 after receiving new whistleblower disclosures, I wrote a letter to the same Department of Homeland Security. My letter included very precise internal government data that clearly showed the Biden Harris administration’s failure to follow the law.
[10:08]
The records also included FBI records that showed examples of illegal migrants who were connected to criminal cold cases after obtaining their DNA. The crimes included homicide, burglary, assault on federal officials, and sexual assault of minors.
Those records illustrate the importance of obtaining DNA at the border. The Department of Homeland Security has failed to respond to my letter.
[10:52]
On February 26 of this year, I wrote to DHS highlighting the Department’s failure to respond to my November 2023 letter and requested an immediate response. My letter, again, made public brand new whistleblower disclosures of DHS’s alarmingly low percentage of DNA samples at our border. Again, I asked questions related to the Department’s DNA collection practices. Now, today, it should be no surprise, the Biden Harris administration’s Department of Homeland Security has again failed to respond.
The failure to collect DHA has real life implications. We need to know who is coming to the United States. We need to know if they are connected to any crimes. In other words, are they dangerous to our communities?
This not a free-for-all.
[12:04]
The Office for Special Counsel even performed a review of these whistleblowers’ protected disclosures. That review said, in part, quote, “CBP has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law, and in so doing has compromised public safety. The failure to collect DNA clearly inhibits law enforcement’s ability to solve cold cases and to bring violent criminals to justice.” End of that quote.
But I want to further quote the Office of Special Counsel. This office said, quote, “the agency’s noncompliance with the law has allowed subjects subsequently accused of violent crimes, including homicide, and sexual assault, to elude detection even when detained multiple times by Customs and Border Protection or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This is an unacceptable dereliction of the agency’s law enforcement mandate,” end of quote.
[13:30]
Well, take a look, and study that. An independent third party substantiates these allegations.
After making their protected disclosures all three whistleblowers were retaliated against. Retaliations have been extensive and long enduring. From February 2018 through the present, DHS officials have subjected these whistleblowers to significant changes in duties, responsibilities, and working conditions. They’ve suffered an overall reduction in pay, and they have been removed from their supervisory positions.
These illegal actions by the government have negatively impacted promotional opportunities. For example, the Office of Special Counsel identified an intentional non-promotion for Mr. Jones. Additionally, in 2022 the Biden and Harris administration Border Patrol removed credentials, law enforcement authorities, and firearms from Mr. Taylor and Mr. Jones. This resulted in Mr. Taylor losing his law enforcement retirement benefits after 30 years of federal service.
[15:05]
The removal of one’s firearm and credentials is the ultimate act of personal and career retaliation. The way DHS has treated these three courageous men is an absolute scandal. The Office of Special Counsel said its investigation supports a conclusion that the government’s actions against these three whistleblowers constituted prohibited personnel practices.
More recently, Mr. Jones was subject to continued retaliation by the Biden administration. Specifically, Mr. Jones and others within his office were asked to move to a different workplace. When Mr. Jones arrived at his new work station, he was the only employee without connectivity, power or phone access at his work station, which lasted for over three weeks.
Secretary Mayorkas has failed to cure the illegal actions against these three whistleblowers. And for me, to put this as plainly as I can, the government has violated federal law, retaliated against three brave whistleblowers, and continues to refuse to take corrective action. It’s a complete disgrace. The supervisors need to be held accountable.
[16:45]
This senator won’t stop fighting for these whistleblowers. My investigative efforts in this matter will continue. Now I turn to Senator Johnson.
[17:00]
SENATOR RON JOHNSON: Thank you, Senator Grassley. Again, I want to thank you and your staff’s dedication over many, many years of championing whistleblower protections, and actually protecting whistleblowers. And as a result of that, just so the public understands this: whistleblowers feel very comfortable coming to Senator Grassley’s office, and the public is made aware of things that the public deserves to know, because of his efforts.
I certainly want to thank the whistleblowers testifying here today. A couple of weeks ago we held a roundtable with additional whistleblowers that described how the federal government, HHS, knowingly is rushing, passing and transferring unaccompanied children to supposedly sponsors, who are undocumented. Who the government knows full well, are probably, in many cases, part of a transnational criminal organization that traffics humans, sex traffickers. And they’re doing that because, one of the whistleblowers was reported as saying, the federal government doesn’t get sued by traffickers, they just get sued if they hold on to the children for too long, because of the Flores Settlement.
[18:20]
Now, today’s roundtable is about how the federal government is not following the law in terms of collecting DNA samples on people coming into this country illegally.
There’s a couple of reasons that we would want to do that. The obvious ones, are, we want to try and catch criminals, if we know about them, to prevent crime. Certainly helps us solve crimes, because we have these fabulous databases now. Once we get the DNA sample we can match that with other DNA taken from the crime, again, to catch that criminal. To solve the crime. So [an individual] doesn’t [commit] more crimes.
My involvement, as chairman of [the U.S. Senate] Homeland Security [Committee], in terms of DNA testing, involved more of what has sparked all of these crises that we now see at our border. This flood of people. I just want to quick tell this story, if you’ll indulge me a little bit. Because most people don’t understand why we have these crises.
[19:16]
It really all began, the catalyst, was Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals. That was the improper use of prosecutorial discretion. Deciding not to prosecute hundreds of thousands of people that came into this country illegally. Children. The result of that is the human traffickers were able to communicate in Central America, and elsewhere around the world, that American immigration law has changed. If you get to America, now, you’re going to be handed a white slip. They call it a permiso.
[19:49]
That’s not what it was. It was a Notice to Appear. The reality of the situation is, people started flooding this country. In, I think it was 2014, President Obama declared a humanitarian crisis when we were encountering 2,000 people a day. Jeh Johnson said it was a really bad day for CBP if it was a thousand a day. Well, the Biden administration, we’ve had December 10,000 a day, average. One day, 14,000.
But to get back to my story. President Obama, with this humanitarian crisis, started detaining families with their children. He was sued, and there was a court decision that reinterpreted the Flores Settlement, that required DHS to turn over or find a sponsor — no longer detain — unaccompanied children after 20 days. And the reinterpretation of that said that included children accompanied by their parents. So the Obama administration was put in the very untenable position of saying, well, if we want to detain the parents, who have come to the country illegally, we still have turn the children over to foster care, and start separating families.
[21:05]
Which the Obama administration understandably, and justifiably, didn’t want to do.
So, what that resulted in, is fake families. We had testimony in this, in the Homeland Security Committee room, in June of 2019, that they were selling children. We had a 51-year-old illegal immigrant confess that he actually bought an infant boy for $84 dollars. To have a fake family. So he could exploit our asylum laws under that Flores reinterpretation. So that, now you’re coming in with a child, the family units were allowed into this country. And that is what has sparked these massive waves of illegal immigration.
[21:54]
So, the fact that DHS just refuses — and here’s the real question I’m going to have. Is, why do career DHS personnel refuse to do what Eric Holder said he was going to do after a year, of just getting their act together, to do DNA testing to make sure that these actually are family units — and not trafficked children?
It just boggles my mind. I’ll end now, but again, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate your dogged determination to, first of all, protect whistleblowers. But also, do the oversight in these areas that lead to untold human depredation. Untold human suffering that our federal government is turning a blind eye toward.
I commend you, Senator Grassley, and the whistleblowers, for coming forward. The American public needs to understand this so we can stop it. Because all kinds of horrible things, inhumane things happen because our federal government refuses to acknowledge the truth. So, thank you Senator Grassley.
[23:06]
GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Johnson. We cooperate on so many things, and this is just a small part of our cooperation.
Now, I’m going to introduce our witnesses. FRED WYNN is a federal employee for 25 years. He currently works for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, has been part of the Department of Homeland Security for 13 years. He previously served as an operations manager in the Weapons of Mass Destruction division. Prior to joining CBP, Mr. Wynn spent 12 years at the Department of Education.
[23:46]
MIKE TAYLOR is a federal employee with 31 years of federal service. He current works at U.S. Customs and Border Protection and has worked at the Department of Homeland Security 21 years — since the inception of the department, going back to March 2003. He previously served as deputy director of Weapons of Mass Destruction division in Border Patrol. Prior to his start at DHS, Mr. Taylor worked at U.S. Customs Service which became U.S. Customs and Border Patrol.
[24:27]
MARK JONES is a federal employee with 20 years of service. He currently works at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and has been part of the Department of Homeland Security for 12 years. He previously served as acting director and branch chief of the Weapons of Mass Destruction division at Customs and Border Protection. He also served the Office of Anti-Terrorism at CBP. Prior to joining CBP, Mr. Jones served 8 years with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[25:05]
KUMAR KIBBLE is a former federal employee with the Department of Homeland Security. He previously served as deputy assistant secretary, and deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr. Kibble is a West Point graduate and served with the 82nd Airborne division.
I thank all of you. And we’ll go from my left to my right. So, will you start, please, sir?
[25:39]
FRED WYNN: Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson, thank you for the opportunity to sit before you and your colleagues to answer questions regarding my experience as a whistleblower, the critical importance of the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, and the requirement for DHS to comply fully with this law.
Senator Grassley, I want to thank you and your oversight unit for nearly six years of work to uncover and make public the retaliation against myself and my colleagues, as well as your efforts to hold DHS and CBP accountable for their duty to follow the law and keep Americans safe.
[26:15]
My name is FRED WYNN, and I’m joined by my colleagues MARK JONES and MIKE TAYLOR. Mark, Mike and I were all part of the Weapons of Mass Destruction division that was housed within CBP’s Office of Intelligence. Based on our experience, expertise and success in assisting the Department of Defense with running latent fingerprints on improvised explosive devices against CBP’s fingerprint database, we were asked to develop and implement a DNA collection pilot program.
During this process, we identified the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, which requires DNA to be taken from all subjects arrested by federal agencies. Our pilot program was to bring CBP into compliance with the law, and to submit DNA samples to the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database.
[27:03]
Significantly, collection of DNA at and between U.S. border ports of entry allows our law enforcement community to develop investigative leads and to solve cold cases throughout the United States.
The low percentage of DNA collection we see today allows criminals to commit further crimes, including forcible sex offenses, murders, trafficking, drug smuggling, and other acts perpetrated on U.S. citizens and residents.
[27:30]
Given the enormous potential of DNA collection to solve cold cases and to assist criminal investigations nationwide, we took our jobs seriously to bring CBP into full compliance with the law.
We found that career bureaucrats tasked with implementing this law were failing to make even minimal DNA collections. In May of 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly issued a memorandum directing DHS components to enhance biometric collection practices in support of DHS’s screening and vetting activities. CBP made no effort to begin to collect DNA in response to this memorandum.
In February of 2018, after DHS leadership became aware of the non-compliance with the law, a series of retaliatory actions, which Mr. Jones will outline, began. Full compliance with the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 is a crucial component of our nation’s security efforts. Continued failure to implement the law must cease. Thank you.
MIKE TAYLOR: Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, thank you for this opportunity to come before this roundtable and answer questions regarding the DNA Fingerprint Act and the retaliation that has been taken against me and my colleagues.
[28:53]
Senator Grassley, I specifically would like to thank you for the work you and your oversight unit have done on this issue. My name is Michael Taylor. I’m an employee of CBP, l was part of the WMD division with Mark and Fred, as Mr. Wynn just noted. I would like to take a few minutes to discuss what I have witnessed from 2017 to the present, as it relates to CBP’s nonconformity with the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.
As Mr. Wynn just mentioned, we were directed to develop a DNA collection program that would ensure CBP’s one hundred percent compliance with the DNA Fingerprint Act.
In 2018, as we were developing and close to implementing the DNA collection pilot program, we began to see the federal bureaucrats in charge of implementing the DNA Fingerprint Act were actively obstructing the law. Although I cannot speak to their motives, it became clear that certain senior officials were hell-bent on slow-rolling any process or pilot program that enabled DNA collection.
[30:03]
While CBP ostensibly supported our development of a collection program, we were excoriated when the White House, and the Department of Justice, were made aware of CBP’s and DHS’s ongoing failure to comply with the law.
CBP officials became further enraged with us when the White House and DOJ were informed of CBP’s and DHS’s intentions to never comply with the DNA Fingerprint Act. CBP has maintained its defiant posture to this day.
[30:38]
CBP and DHS sophistically asserted that a 2010 exception absolved them of any obligation to collect DNA data for nearly a decade. In a letter to President Trump, the Office of Special Counsel refuted CBP’s fabricated assertion, and chastised the agency for its misconduct and inexcusable failure to implement the DNA Fingerprint Act.
The Trump administration published a final rule in March 2020, in the Federal Register, that restored the Attorney General’s plenary authority to authorize and direct all federal agencies — including the Department of Homeland Security — to collect DNA samples from non-United States persons who are detained under the authority of the United States.
Any contrived notion of the existence of a waiver for DHS was ended on that day.
[31:38]
Despite DHS and CBP internal directives and correspondence going back to 2020, and ordering compliance with the DNA Fingerprint Act, the FBI reported that CBP had a DNA collection rate of 38.7 percent in fiscal year 2023. That means out of approximately 3.2 million nationwide encounters, almost 2 million individuals did not have their DNA collected.
The DNA samples that DHS and CBP did collect in fiscal year 2023 led to 1,037 matches in the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System. Since these results are believed to be statistically linear, DHS potentially missed well over 1,600 criminals in fiscal year 2023 alone.
[32:35]
It has been over four years since any perceived or imagined ambiguity has been removed from the federal government’s law enforcement DNA collection requirements.
Collecting DNA, as required by the law, is clearly not a priority for the current administration. Instead of taking the necessary steps to fully comply with the DNA Fingerprint Act, current DHS and CBP management seem more interested in focusing their efforts on continually retaliating against my colleagues and me for disclosing what can now only be described as their chronic malfeasance. Thank you, I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[33:24]
MARK JONES: Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson, thank you for the opportunity to come before this roundtable. Senator Grassley, I want to echo what my colleagues’ have said about your oversight. Thank you for the work you’re doing, and to right the wrongs.
My name is Mark Jones, former acting director of the Weapons of Mass Destruction division. I had the honor of leading the WMD division, and working on the DNA collection pilot program with Mike and Fred.
I plan to speak to you today about the ongoing retaliation against me, Mike, and Fred, as a result of our protected disclosures of the failures that Mr. Taylor just laid out.
[34:05]
It’s important to note that the Office of Special Counsel has corroborated our claims of retaliation, and DHS’s failure to comply with the law. In February of 2018 our team was in communication with a staff member of the DHS secretary’s office regarding the roadblocks that career bureaucrats at CBP were putting in our way, slowing our progress towards the pilot, and ultimately, compliance with the law.
At the time the Trump administration White House and DOJ were pressuring DHS on full compliance with the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005. As a result of our protected disclosures, retaliation against me and my team by CBP leadership began. These bureaucrats immediately shut down the DNA collection pilot program and disbanded the WMD division.
[34:58]
Further, during a conference call in April of 2018, senior officials stated that they did not want to comply with the law, despite being pressured by the secretary of DHS and the Department of Justice.
This is what led me and my colleagues to make protected disclosures to the Office of Special Counsel about DHS and CBP’s failure to comply with the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005.
I continually raised the noncompliance with the law to the attention of my supervisors. They told me to keep my mouth shut, and things would go easier for me.
Since 2018 we have been left with no meaningful tasks or work, effectively ending our professional careers. Under the current administration, the retaliation due to our protected disclosures to OSC and Congress intensified, and continues today.
[35:52]
For example, Mr. Wynn was pressured to take a job well below his expertise, and has been subject to significant reputational harm.
One of the most overt and egregious actions taken against Mr. Taylor and myself occurred just over a year ago. We were stripped of our law enforcement authorities, credentials and firearms. As a result, Mr. Taylor was also stripped of his law enforcement retirement benefits.
This administration, DHS, and CBP leadership is aware of the continued retaliation. I do not believe that they will willingly take corrective actions to right these wrongs. As the Office of Special Counsel wrote in a December 2021 memo, and I quote: “The agency’s treatment of the complainants is particularly pernicious, because it has a potential chilling effect on other agency employees, and it sends the clear message that whistleblowing will derail one’s career.”
[36:50]
DHS and CBP’s attitude toward us can be summed up in a recent quote from a current official: “The agency wants to bankrupt us, make us quit, die, kill ourselves, or preferably all of the above.”
This is the treatment we received for coming forward as whistleblowers, simply wanting our government to follow this critical law Congress enacted. Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[37:21]
KUMAR KIBBLE: Senator Grassley, Senator Johnson, thank you very much for inviting me here today. My name is Kumar Kibble, and I retired from ICE after more than 24 years of federal law enforcement service, including as the agency’s deputy director.
Following my retirement, I worked for a company that pioneered rapid DNA technology, and I led efforts in collaboration with DHS to demonstrate how rapid DNA enables more secure borders — including determining kinship, to identify fraudulent family units and to also catch human traffickers.
To be clear, I stopped working at that company more than four years ago, and I have no financial interest or affiliation with it today.
With today’s roundtable, I think you’ve zeroed in on a border security issue that can actually be fixed. It can address one of our most significant challenges: stopping more people from coming into our country who represent known, true threats.
[38:18]
I’m looking forward to your questions, but I want to briefly put into plain English the issue that we’re discussing, here. Today, as you know, personnel along the border collect DNA samples from individuals in custody, stick the samples in a pouch, and mail them to the FBI’s lab in Quantico.
Those samples have piled up into a gigantic backlog, and by the time they are processed, the people from whom they are collected are long gone. And if those people pose a threat, the opportunity to further detain or return them has passed.
[38:51]
It doesn’t have to be like this. Instead, proven technology and processes exist that enable rapid processing of DNA samples within ninety minutes. And these samples can be processed in the field, very close to where they’re collected at the border.
We can, and we should, be getting DNA profile results while individuals are still in custody. By implementing rapid DNA testing, we provide our border officials with the necessary information to make informed decisions, ensuring that those who pose a threat are apprehended, and those in genuine need of asylum are protected.
[39:30]
Senator Johnson, you referenced the case of the 51-year-old male. I was there during the pilot in April 2019 when — if it’s the same case — where we identified that. And that was based on Rapid DNA. Waiting for months for results to come back that would help us establish whether or not this was a family unit would just not be effective.
So, the money you’re spending today on DNA analysis would still be spent, but it would be spent in a way that achieves border security missions much more effectively and prevents backlogs.
[39:58]
I’m a firm believer in this technology. I’ve witnessed its effectiveness. I know that if we implemented it across the border, our personnel will stop far more individuals presenting human trafficking, child exploitation, national security and public safety threats than we currently are able to stop today.
In my expert opinion, this is a non-controversial border security imperative that simply accelerates the current slow and ineffective DNA collection and analysis process that’s currently in place. Thank you.
[40:33]
GRASSLEY: Now to my questions, and Senator Johnson will do his. We expect Rick Scott of Florida to come at a later [time] to ask questions as well.
The three of you made protected disclosures regarding DHS and Border Patrol failures to obtain DNA from illegal immigrants at the southern border, as required by law. And based on your opening statements, the Biden Harris administration has failed to comply with the DNA Fingerprint Act.
Mr. Jones, I’d like to start with a threshold question: How do DNA profiles help DHS, CBP and other law enforcement agencies protect our communities and at the same time secure our border?
[41:30]
JONES: Senator Johnson, the DNA profiles that are generated by the collection at the border allows law enforcement to then log those DNA profiles in the CODIS database. If there is a latent or a crime scene DNA sample that is in that database, then it gives law enforcement an actual lead, or investigative track, to be able to reopen, or open, a cold case.
[41:57]
The majority of the cases in that database — forty-five to fifty percent — are sexual assault and rape, followed closely by homicide. In our experience, since 2020, we have seen very interesting and promising results that come from these DNA profiles being loaded.
The oldest case that was reopened, sir, was from 1972. Which was actually a sexual assault. So, the value to law enforcement is immeasurable. It’s in addition to fingerprints, and photographs. And it gives our state, local and tribal authorities the ability to follow up on cases, it gives victims and their families a level of closure, and it also can exonerate those that have been possibly wrongly accused.
[42:52]
GRASSLEY: If the Biden and Harris administration follow the law instead of flouting it, how would that have played a role in preventing the murder of Rachel Morin? Mr. Jones.
JONES: Sir, as we look at the failures and successes, even at the 37 percent threshold that we’re seeing today, in focusing on the case you referenced, we know that the subject was encountered by CBP and DHS at least three times. His DNA was never collected. On his fourth trip across the border, he is said to be a gotaway. He avoid CBP and Border Patrol, and got into the United States.
He ended up in California. And in March of last year he was involved, according to law enforcement, in a home invasion and sexual assault of a mother and her nine-year-old child.
In that encounter, law enforcement was able to collect DNA samples and sent them to CODIS. Unfortunately, there was no match. Because we did not collect his DNA as we should have.
From March until August, there was no investigative lead that would have led us to the subject.
[44:17]
Do we know, if we had that investigative lead, and had identified the subject, we could have located him? Possibly. We know that there would have been an NCIC record placed into the federal law enforcement system that said if any state, federal or local agency encountered this subject, he would have popped as a subject of interest in the original home invasion and sexual assault of a mother and a child. He could have been apprehended.
[44:47]
We could have had a person to look for. Do we know if we could have actually prevented Rachel Morin’s rape and murder? We don’t know that, sir. But we do know that if we were able to identify the subject earlier, he would have been on law enforcement’s radar, and potential apprehended.
GRASSLEY: So, the administration’s DHS and CBP aren’t collecting DNA at some locations at the southern border. Where, why, and what’s the impact on our national security?
[45:22]
JONES: Senator, a colleague of ours was visiting sites along the southern border. And they went to approximately twelve sites. And neither Border Patrol nor Office of Field Operations were collecting DNA at any of those sites while they present. They asked the officer and agents why they weren’t doing it. And the response, our person told us was: they’re just not doing it.
The impact is, again, we are allowing investigative leads to get past us, and we‘re frankly violating the very law that was passed by Congress in 2006 and implemented by the Department of Justice law enforcement entities in 2009.
So the impact is clear.
[46:16]
GRASSLEY: Mr. Taylor, regarding the ongoing whistleblower court cases with your colleagues, has the administration, DHS and CBP made false or misleading statements internally, or public, about it? And if so, please explain?
TAYLOR: Yes, Senator Grassley. When the Office of Special Counsel began investigating our allegations of whistleblower reprisal — this started back in 2018 — CBP told the Office of Special Counsel that we were poor performers, and were about to be fired.
The OSC pointed out that we’d received significant awards and public recognition for our outstanding work six weeks before the dismantling of our group. CBP then stated that we were not a good fit in our current organizational location.
When the OSC told CBP that we were reprised against, and should be restored to our previous positions, CBP told the OSC that the funding was no longer available. When the OSC pointed out that CBP’s recently-submitted budget including expanding the number of personnel in our WMD division by 500 percent over the next five years, CBP said that that money was reappropriated.
A seemingly innocuous email sent by me to CBP’s finance center confirmed that the WMD funding was, indeed, available and currently being utilized elsewhere by CBP, as it is today.
[47:56]
In fact, one of our salaries, as Mr. Jones had articulated earlier, has been paid out of the WMD budget for the last six-plus years, proving our point that the Office of Special Counsel has been perpetually lied to by CBP. Numerous individuals, in multiple offices of CBP, have made known false statements to the OSC and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
They have also made known false statements to Congressional oversight groups. CBP’s Table of Offenses clearly articulates that the penalty for knowingly making a false statement in an official inquiry is removal.
There are no mitigating factors. And yet, no one has been disciplined.
[48:47]
On September 23, senators, you are aware, you wrote to Secretary Mayorkas and Acting Commissioner Troy Miller about CBP making false statements to the press. Your staff had confirmed with the Office of Special Counsel, twice, that the Office of Special Counsel had sought corrective action on our behalf.
CBP made public statements to the New York Post stating, quote: “The Office of Special Counsel terminated its investigation into these claims, without issuing a prohibited personnel practice report, or seeking corrective action.” That is clearly a lie.
Rather than issue a retraction, CBP stated that, quote, “This is a mischaracterization of this issue based on incomplete records, and we are unable to comment further based on open litigation regarding these cases.”
[49:38]
Lie, deflect, and lie some more has been a winning strategy for CBP since 2018. They are lawless, and proving to be accountable to no one.
As we’ve mentioned to the various oversight groups that we’ve spoken to, senator, CBP is the equivalent of a multi-billion dollar corporation. They have their own press corps, and they can make statements to the press. Regardless of how dishonest or untruthful they are. And they’re given the benefit of the doubt. The average person would not believe that a statement — that an agency would make a public statement that was so patently untrue.
As you are aware, your staff called CBP out on this factual and known misstatement, they continue to do so, and operate in all these facets, with impunity.
[50:45]
JOHNSON: Thanks, Senator Grassley. Mr. Wynn, who retaliated against you, and are they still serving in government?
WYNN: Thank you, senator. There were multiple managers and staff within CBP’s Office of Intelligence that retaliated against myself, and us collectively.
The first act of retaliation was to dismantle the WMD division within CBP’s Office of Intelligence. This retaliatory act had the effect of leaving us sitting idle with absolutely no work all day. I’ll just add that being iced, with nothing to do, is one of the most effective punishments I can think of if you want to retaliate against an employee.
These acts were taken with the full knowledge of the management chain of CBP’s Office of Intelligence.
[51:32]
JOHNSON: So, you have specific names. I can see why you don’t want to state them publicly. But, we can be made aware of those names? And I’m assuming they’re still serving in DHS and for the agencies in government?
WYNN: Sir, we can certainly provide you with all the names. At least two of those individuals are no longer employed by the federal government. But we can provide you with that information.
JOHNSON: Ok. So, under the Trump administration, their Office of Special Counsel were looking into this. At the start of the Biden administration, their investigation of the retaliation just stopped?
[52:06]
WYNN: You mean after the Office of Special Counsel looked into the issue? The retaliatory acts did continue.
JOHNSON: They did continue?
WYNN: They did continue. Yes.
JOHNSON: Did you have an advocate inside the Biden administration Office of Special Counsel?
WYNN: No, Senator, we did not.
JOHNSON: Ok. So, that speaks volumes. Mr. Taylor, in your testimony you said: although I cannot speak to their motives. What boggles my mind is you have bureaucrats within DHS, their job is to secure the homeland. Secure our border.
And yet, they won’t follow the law.
So, I’m asking you. And I’ll ask Mr. Taylor next, too. Because you said the bureaucrats immediately shut down DNA — why? Why would they do it?
Again, I do understand, early on, with Eric Holder, there’s a year when they didn’t have the capability. They wanted to obtain the capability, funding. Establish it. But that was supposed to be a one-year exemption period, right? That was back in 2010?
[53:14]
TAYLOR: Sir, that is correct. It defies — it’s not lost on anyone here, that this is the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005, it was passed 19 years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, this legislation passed the House, 416 to 4, and passed the Senate unanimously. Not that I follow all the legislation that’s up here. But that’s pretty unanimous and pretty non-partisan.
JOHNSON: It was passed in 2005. Not in reaction to what’s happening on the border. This is just good law, that if you're going to arrest somebody, we have this marvelous technology, DNA. We ought to take DNA samples. Correct?
TAYLOR: You would think so, sir.
JOHNSON: And then all of a sudden we have the explosion on our border, sparked by DACA. Now you had another purpose, another use for it, is trying to prevent depredations — of the exploitation of our asylum law, am I right?
TAYLOR: That’s certainly a reasonable inference, sir.
[54:14]
JOHNSON: So, again. Mr. Taylor. Why, — why? Why would bureaucrats simply refuse to follow the law. And — a law that could prevent crimes, help solve crimes, and prevent the human depredations of, of the invasion of this country?
TAYLOR: Sir, I wish I could answer that.
JOHNSON: Mr. Jones?
JONES: Senator Johnson, we have been asked that question by so many individuals. There has never been anyone who has overtly said to us: we don’t want to do this, because.
I will tell you that in April of 2018, after we had been shut down, the three of us were included on a conference call with the then-acting commissioner and his staff, senior leaders from Border Patrol, the Office of Field Operations (OFO), and our Chief Counsel office. The person who was the special assistant for then the acting commissioner came into the room, on the conference call, and said, the commissioner does not want to do this right now. He’s being pressured by the secretary and by the attorney general.
[55:25]
If we have to have a plan, and DOJ pulls the nuclear card — which was, then, to remove any idea of the ability to not participate — there has to be a plan in place. That person left the room. We were on the phone call listening. And the first thing that came out of our chief counsel person’s mouth was, if we have to do this, we will only do what’s legally sufficient.
One of our Border Patrol folks, and OFO folks, chimed in with: we can tell management it won’t work. They will believe us. We can make any pilot, or exercise, in this, fail.
[56:04]
The real over-the-top for us, was, at the end of that banter back and forth, one of the individuals said: if we have to, we will get the press to film us forcibly taking DNA from an 89-year-old woman, to garner public outrage.
JOHNSON: I saw that in your testimony. But it still begs the question — why?
JONES: It defies logic, sir. We’re the largest law enforcement agency in the federal government. And we’re thwarting one of the greatest tools that have been provided to us. You mentioned that the DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005 was passed when it was just a — the right idea. It was done in connection with the Adam Walsh Act at the same time. This was at a time when we were focusing on tools that allowed us to be more efficient and more effective in our law enforcement.
[56:57]
JOHNSON: So one question, or one reason I can think of, is that it is just inordinately expensive and they just didn’t have it in their budget. So, let me ask you, Mr. Kibble, you’re an expert in this. What does a Rapid DNA test cost?
KIBBLE: Senator, back in that time period, it was roughly two hundred dollars a test.
JOHNSON: And that time period would be 2010?
KIBBLE: No, no. Well, between 2010 and 2018, 19. Recent innovations have brought that down to — like, at scale, if you were deploying it fully, along the border, it would drop down to probably around $100 a test.
[57:42]
JOHNSON: So, discuss that technology. Is it a nasal swab? Like a PCR test? Or —
KIBBLE: Sir, it’s a buccal swab, a cheek swab. It would be incorporated into the basic procedures that OFO and Border Patrol follow currently. It’s just that instead of taking the swab and dropping it into an envelope, and mailing it, to join the 15-month backlog at the FBI laboratory, you would process it onsite or nearby.
And then in 90 minutes you’d have what’s called an STR — a Short Tandem Repeat ID. Which is nothing more than, basically, like a hyperactive fingerprint. Doesn’t contain medical information, or anything. And you’re able to then make an instant, you know, bounce it against national and international databases to see if you have any derog, derogatory information, on that subject.
[58:35]
JOHNSON: So, why do we have, if this technology exists, why do we have such an enormous backlog at the FBI? They just haven’t updated their technology?
KIBBLE: I can’t answer that, Senator. I’m not sure. I do, you know, with the Rapid DNA Act of 2017, the FBI established procedures to be able to ingest Rapid DNA, STR IDs, from booking stations throughout the country. State and local agencies. I do know they have considered Rapid DNA as a way to augment their capacity at the laboratory. I think they also are pursuing robotics to try to process about 120,000 samples a month.
But the issue in all of that is — you want to test it where you’re collecting the DNA, so the officer can make an informed decision, right here and now, before you let them into the country.
[59:19]
JOHNSON: And, again, you can have your results in 90 minutes, with today’s technology. In terms of computerization. We run a match on that and have the results in very short order. Correct?
KIBBLE: Very short order. And again, to the issue you addressed before, you’ve got to do it locally to get the familial, if you’re going to determine if it’s a fraudulent family unit. DNA testing, whether it’s rapid or not, is agnostic. It can determine that there is a child trafficking situation going on here, or, this is an authentic family unit.
[59:51]
JOHNSON: Well, again, thank you. I want to thank the whistleblowers for coming forward, and, again, Senator Grassley for being a champion for you.
GRASSLEY: I’m going to go to Mr. Kibble. And ask you, similar to what Senator Johnson did, but give you an opportunity to maybe give us some more information. Could Rapid DNA technology be employed across our entire southern and northern border? And then, in conjunction with the $100 you talked about, cost, do you have any idea what it would cost on an annual basis?
[1:00:31]
KIBBLE: Senator, I don’t have the annual numbers. But you could basically project, what are the candidate pool, in terms of the encounters, the two million plus folks that are being encountered along the border, and you could extrapolate based on the $100 test cost.
What would it look like? We could deploy it across the entire southern border. You could do it in phases, depending on what the budget allows. You could have a mobile capability that allows you to take a group of machines, or instruments, to where there are high flow areas. You could augment, you can shift, you can be very agile in your response with the Rapid DNA technology.
[1:01:10]
So, it doesn’t have to be deployed everywhere at once, but you could strategically deploy that capability at or near the border, in order to get the immediate results that we need before we release these folks within 72 hours.
GRASSLEY: Thank you for that. There’s a follow up […] for each of you three people. And I think I know the answer, but I want to hear it from you. It’s probably just a “yes” or “no” answer.
[1:01:42]
Your treatment as whistleblowers. In your opinion, has [Secretary] Mayorkas failed to comply with the whistleblower protection laws?
WYNN: Yes, Senator, I believe he has. He has either ignored the whistleblower protection laws, or his staff has shielded him from any unpleasant facts about CBP’s retaliation. So that suggests an unacceptable level of either malice or dysfunction.
[1:02:07]
GRASSLEY: Mr. Taylor?
TAYLOR: Senator, I would have to agree with that. We do know that the current inspector general for DHS has been aware of this for, we believe, at least five years. We’ve reached out, on no less than a half dozen […] times, to him.
Through the work of your staff, your committee, if you go and Google CBP DNA whistleblower, I believe that we own the first four or five pages of results. We were recently on the front page of Government Executive. This is not a secret, what’s going on with us, and what’s going on at CBP.
[1:02:53]
GRASSLEY: And, Mr. Jones.
JONES: In short, sir, I do believe that the secretary has not protected us and followed through on the Whistleblower Protection Act.
GRASSLEY: Have each of you continued to be retaliated on? Beyond what I said in my opening statement?
[1:03:20]
WYNN: Senator, at approximately the end of 2018 I reached the limits of my ability to tolerate being iced. And I sought a separate position within Customs and Border Protection.
So, I can say that the retaliation against me has ceased. However, I am on a drastically different career path than I would have been.
TAYLOR: Senator, since the removal of my law enforcement retirement, my firearm, my law enforcement credentials, the position description change — short of terminating me, there’s no, basically, more reprisal that can be done.
Just by the change of my status as a non-law enforcement officer employee, that has likely precluded me from participating in some of the committees and groups that we have. Because you’re required to be a sworn law enforcement officer.
[1:04:11]
So, again, was there any other retaliation as of recently, the only further steps they could take, besides sticking me in a broom closet or terminating me, have already been done. Thank you.
JONES: Senator Grassley, I would just emote at three levels. My career progression was removed. My reason for leaving the FBI was to come to Customs and Border Protection to help them build a counter-weapons of mass destruction program. That vocation was clearly taken from me.
[1:04:42]
As Mike stated, my firearm, my authorities, my credentials, also stripped from me. It was, in one act, the final, I’ll call it coup de grâce of my position and career at CBP.
Looking into the future, I have no place to go. We have been six years with no valid employee appraisals. We get “N/A” for all of our categories.
So even attempting to go within government, we’re being retaliated against because we can’t go anywhere. Because any agency will ask for your last employee appraisal as a gauge of whether you are an acceptable employee, or not.
[1:05:27]
So, it does continue. I had someone recently say to me, they equated our existence to career terrorism. Where we don’t know what CBP is going to do to us next.
And as Mike said, short of actual termination, we’ve been about as diminished as we can be, and sit idle today.
[1:05:50]
GRASSLEY: Is it fair for me to assume, for each of you three whistleblowers, that there has never been any corrective action taken against the officials who engaged in this retaliation against you? Mr. Wynn?
WYNN: Sir, that’s right, we are not aware of any such action.
GRASSLEY: Mr. Taylor?
TAYLOR: Senator Grassley, to the contrary, these individuals — minus the two that have been retired, and no longer with the agency.
One individual was promoted to the Senior Executive Service. Another individual was promoted to the position of assistant commissioner. The third manager was temporarily promoted to an acting deputy executive director position.
[1:06:35]
Other individuals, as Mr. Wynn had mentioned earlier, have been permitted to retire or lateral to other offices or other DHS components with no encumbrances — despite the Office of Special Counsel highlighting many of these individuals’ specific acts of retaliation.
They were not investigated. None of them have been investigated.
[1:06:58]
When you’re under investigation, you have what is called a red book. And that allegation must be either substantiated or cleared before — normally, under normal circumstances, you’re allowed to leave a position or go to another office. Because these people have not been investigated, in any way shape or form, they’re allowed to move about freely on their own career path, or wherever they choose.
[1:07:23]
GRASSLEY: And Mr. Jones?
JONES: Yes sir, Senator Grassley. It should not go unrecognized, from the outset, our CBP leadership has had little interest in addressing any of the malfeasance with respect to the failures of the agency leadership, implementing the DNA Fingerprint Act law, the obstruction of the pilot, or those who have continued actually to retaliate against us.
[1:07:44]
The CBP Office of Professional Responsibility was initially tasked by OSC to investigate our disclosure. At the conclusion of the OSC investigation, the Special Counsel stated, in his letter to the president and oversight bodies on August 21, 2019:
“I write this letter to inform both the president and Congressional oversight committees of this misconduct, and it is my hope that further action be taken to bring CBP into further compliance with the law. I strongly urge Congress to continue its robust oversight efforts in this area, with a particular focus on accountability for DHS and CBP officials who have known for years that this situation existed, but chose not to act.
[1:08:29]
“I note that a number of CBP officials central to the agency’s inaction were identified by the whistleblowers but never interviewed by any investigation because CBP dismissed the extent of their involvement.”
The only ones, that have been in any way punished, have been us.
[1:08:50]
GRASSLEY: Let me check on the status of Senator Scott. […]
[1:14:00]
SENATOR RICK SCOTT: Thank each of you for your service. And thank you for being here today.
We clearly have a crisis at our southern border. It’s a complete failure. I doubt anybody could deny that.
[1:14:09]
America is a more dangerous place because President Biden, border czar Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary Mayorkas have allowed criminals, drugs, terrorists and other dangerous people into our communities, all across our great country.
[1:14:22]
There are real consequences to the failure to secure the border. And each victim has a name. Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, Lisbeth Gutierrez-Salazar and her two sons, ten-year-old Juan and seven-year-old Julian.
These are just a few of the many Americans killed by illegal immigrants that were released into our country by Joe Biden.
[1:14:46]
Real Americans. Average citizens, living a normal life, are being killed.
Real American families are being torn apart by vicious crimes and deadly drugs because we have a wide open southern border, intentionally done by President Biden.
As President Biden’s border czar, Vice President Harris’ utter failures to secure the southern border have allowed historic illegal immigration and tons of deadly fentanyl to pour into our communities and kill thousands of our fellow Americans.
[1:15:15]
We also know that the federal government is expert at wasting our taxpayer dollars. I want to thank each of you, for being here today, for your courage to speak up in an effort to improve our federal government.
[1:15:26]
I introduced the Stop Human Trafficking of Unaccompanied Migrant Children Act, which addresses the unbelievable reports of unaccompanied migrant children being released to sponsors under this administration who have not received proper screening from the Department of Health and Human Services. You can’t imagine, they’re doing this.
This bill will ensure extensive vetting by DHS and HHS before a vulnerable unaccompanied child is placed with a sponsor.
[1:15:51]
A 2023 report from the New York Times, which is not known for being unfriendly to the Biden administration, stated that during the first two years of the Biden presidency, his administration could not reach more than 85,000 children. That’s unacceptable.
[1:16:09]
Mr. Jones, and Mr. Taylor, I have a few questions for each of you. Do you believe DNA tests of illegal aliens should be administered before pre-release, and as part of the process when HHS places an unaccompanied migrant child with a prospective relative sponsor?
[1:16:27]
JONES: Senator Scott, the DNA tool is invaluable, especially when it’s established through the family units. So, the short answer is, yes, sir.
TAYLOR: I concur, absolutely, Senator.
SCOTT: Can you please talk about the importance of testing the DNA of aliens and criminals at our borders, as it refers to matching it with prior crimes committed in the U.S., any of you?
[1:16:51]
JONES: Senator Scott, the DNA Fingerprint Act is a valuable tool that was enacted back in 2006. And it allows us to look at the latent, or crimes that are currently unsolved — cold cases — and match them against known identities.
So when we’re collecting at the border, and adding those known identities and then immediately matching them to open criminality, it’s an outstanding tool for law enforcement.
[1:17:20]
One of the things we found, since 2020, is that in the matches that we have actually seen, and in 2023, sir there were 1,037 matches due to the DHS collection — even at thirty-seven percent. We actually found a cold case, and reopened it, from 1972, sir.
The ability to give closure to families, reassurance to victims, and to actually exonerate those who are wrongly accused is something that the DNA Fingerprint Act gives us the ability to do.
And by only 37 percent compliance, there is some progress. But we believe it’s linear. So, if that’s the case, we’ve likely missed over 1,600 violent criminals in 2023 alone.
[1:18:16]
TAYLOR: Yes, Senator. To Mr. Jones’ point, he is correct.
We believe these statistics are linear. At a 37 percent compliance rate last year there was still — not including the gotaways and the other unknowns which we do not know — there was still almost 2 million people that we did not collect DNA from that we processed at the border.
[1:18:42]
Though, this is slowly, improvement in 2017, CBP, ICE and DHS, we were collecting DNA from about three percent of people we encountered.
There were a lot of reasons. Misinformation reporting. The thought, for that low level at the time, was, CBP argued, DNA was being collected downstream, they’re being turned over to the U.S. Marshalls or possibly other law enforcement entities. That was not the case.
[1:19:10]
But, to just answer, the short answer to your question, is, absolutely. It’s inarguable. One thing — help me out if my misspeak, here — I believe at even a 37 compliance rate, CBP is responsible for about 40 percent, 42 percent of the annual cases that are being solved through the entire FBI CODIS index.
So, for one law enforcement agency — granted CBP is one of the largest law enforcement agencies, or the largest, in the country. But one agency’s solving 40 percent — presumptively solving, or opening 40 percent of the cases resident, out of the X millions in the FBI CODIS DNA index.
[1:20:00]
Right along those lines, too, what’s even more interesting is, I believe CODIS was first operational in 1997. We’ve just started effectively giving them a fair amount of samples four years ago. So, if we’re solving almost 40 percent of the annual cases that are being presumptively clued in every year, imagine what we would be doing at a 90 or 95 percent rate.
[1:20:21]
WYNN: Senator, if I can just put some numbers behind what Mike and Mark have just said. I want to share some numbers with you that apply to simply CODIS hits on DNA samples that were collected just by Customs and Border Protection. In FY 2024.
[1:20:40]
So, just from October 2023 to June 2024, DNA samples submitted to CODIS by Customs and Border Protection have hit on ten homicides; 145 forcible sex offenses; 97 instances of larceny, burglary, robbery or embezzlement; and ten assaults.
That is just a sample, at less than one hundred percent compliance. So, I would just ask you to imagine if we were at compliance, the number of cold cases and crimes that we would be able to solve.
[1:21:16]
SCOTT: Why aren’t they doing it?
WYNN: Senator, we’ve speculated on that question on numerous occasions. And I can’t give you an answer that I would call definitive. I can speculate.
But to me, and to us, it’s a no brainer. We should be putting more effort into getting us closer to 100 percent compliance, every day.
[1:21:38]
SCOTT: So is it, do you think it’s a directive from senior leadership?
WYNN: Again —
SCOTT: You don’t know?
WYNN: I could only speculate.
SCOTT: Anybody else?
[1:21:55]
TAYLOR: Senator, as was articulated earlier, there were some CBP employees that recently went down to the southern border. And they visited approximately 12 different stations or offices that were processing migrants. And they noted that DNA was not being collected at any of those facilities.
[1:22:17]
So, you ask the question, is this being directed by executive management. For something that’s required by law, that’s part of the booking process, that sort of thing. I cannot believe, I don’t think a reasonable person would believe, that that has not been okayed somewhere up the food chain.
[1:22:36]
It would almost be akin to continuing questioning someone after you arrest them, to not read their Miranda rights. Or not taking their fingerprints. It’s part of the booking process, now, it’s codified in the law.
Particularly from the clarification that then-Attorney General Barr did, in early 2020, that DHS will collect DNA from those non-U.S. persons detained under United States law.
[1:23:03]
This is not a “you may,” or “you can if you would like,” it’s “you shall.”
And the fact that it’s not being done with, clearly, no repercussions, could lead one to reasonably deduce that this non-compliance is sanctioned at a high level.
[1:23:26]
Could DNA testing at the border have prevented any of the horrific murders by illegal aliens we have witnessed over the Biden administration?
WYNN: Senator, obviously, we cannot say so with certainty. But at a minimum, every collection of DNA represents a new potential investigative lead that could lead to the solving of many of the outstanding crimes.
[1:23:50]
SCOTT: If DNA would have been collected from illegal aliens entering our country, would it have prevented attacks, like the potential breach of the Marine Corps Base Quantico by Jordanian nationals in the U.S. illegally?
[1:24:05]
JONES: Senator Scott, that is another one that is hard to say. Because unless there was an open case of latent DNA that would have been matched to that subject, those individuals would have had their profiles logged, but they would not have come up as an active or an open situation.
If I may step back, you mentioned the Morin case earlier. What we do know about that case is that we, CBP, had the immigrant in custody three times and never collected his DNA. He became, on his fourth entry, a gotaway, and got past CBP and Border Patrol.
[1:24:45]
We know that in March of last year, he was involved in a home invasion and a rape of a mother and her nine-year-old child. DNA was taken at that crime scene and submitted to CODIS.
There was no match. Because we did not take that DNA.
Between March and August, this individual was free to roam about the United States, when Rachel Morin was raped and murdered.
Do we know, if we had that initial hit that we should have gotten, we could have stopped him? We don’t.
[1:25:16]
But we do know that law enforcement would have had a name, a photograph and fingerprints of who to look for and over that period from March to August, if he had been stopped by state and local, if he had been encountered by other federal officials, that record would have been in NCIC. And he would have been detained as a person of interest in that home invasion and rape of the mother and child.
[1:25:40]
So it works, sir. Is it going to stop things, logically we think so, we believe so. We can’t tell you, for sure. But I would bet my paycheck that they will most certainly prevent other criminality, when we’re able to identify someone who has already committed criminal acts.
[1:26:05]
SCOTT: So, we all have families, right? So what do you think the purpose is, that they want to open the borders, and not make sure criminals aren’t coming across. They have to have, the people who are making these decisions, they have to have families too. Why, do you think, they don’t care?
[1:26:23]
JONES: Senator, you actually have us at a loss for words, also. We can’t figure it out.
We have families, as you said. When we first got into this project, when it was originally assigned to us by our then commissioner, we started to research. And we worked with the FBI and Bureau of Prisons, and started looking at what the success stories were.
And they motivated us. Because it was individuals that we had encountered multiple times, and had never taken their DNA.
And they went on to do horrible crimes. Rapes and murders.
And each time we had a success story, it motivated us. We were able to now detect this person, who is in our country, that has committed criminal acts, and we’re now able to interdict them because of this law, and this process.
So, why? No, sir, I have no idea why.
[1:27:18]
SCOTT: Thank you for being willing to speak up. And I hope you’re being treated fairly. I don’t know if you want to talk about that?
JONES: Senator Scott, Senator Grassley has been a champion for us in the whistleblower retaliation case.
Our retaliation started in earnest in February of 2018, when the three of us were removed from our positions in one day.
I was the director of the WMD division, Mr. Taylor was my deputy, and Fred was part of our team. The division was disbanded. And since then, we have sat without a WMD division within Customs and Border Protection. That, to me, is also another vulnerability that has been created because we’ve been retaliated against for coming forward and bringing this to the attention of our leadership.
[1:28:20]
SCOTT: I just don’t get it. I just don’t understand why people don’t want to secure our country. It doesn’t make sense.
TAYLOR: Senator Scott, the initial attorney that wrote the initial disclosure, about CBP’s noncompliance with collecting DNA, very, very sharp gentleman. Unfortunately he has left federal service.
But it took us an hour and a half to explain to him. When we were first explaining our disclosure. Because it was absolutely not plausible to him.
He just kept saying, this is, this is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. This absolutely does not make sense.
SCOTT: Right.
[1:29:01]
TAYLOR: And as we started showing, providing him all the background information, for the law, we provided statistics from the FBI, we provided statistics from CBP’s website — this is how many encounters we had, we had 600,000 encounters, the whole agency sent in 304 DNA samples — and we presume most of those came from our JTTF [Joint Terrorism] Task Force guys, that were working with the bureau.
[1:29:28]
We’ve heard theories, about non-compliance, the fact that Attorney General Barr changed the law in March, 2020 and gave the Attorney General the absolute authority to order DHS to do so, there has been speculation that — they’re not bigger than us, they’re not going to tell us what to do.
That does not explain what had transpired in the decade beforehand.
[1:29:52]
But, to your point, and I think one of the greatest impressions that we made, on the individual, the investigator at the Office of Special Counsel, the one who wrote the initial disclosure report, was that he could not get over, just — he said he could put no logic to it.
He was quite an analytical individual. He said, it did not make sense, when he explained it to then Special Counsel Henry Kerner, either.
To your point, this is an absolute no-brainer. That the technology, we were going to speak to earlier, did not come down to, the FBI has streamlined the process. It adds about 30 seconds to the booking process. To swab DNA, to tie that particular swab to the, with a bar code, you can shoot with a gun, that’s automatically tied to the prints, to the person’s profile.
[1:30:40]
The backlog, according to the FBI, last week, it’s all but non-existent any more.
And if they don’t get results for two to five days, to Mark’s previous point, if this person is already out of custody, at least their DNA profile is linked to their arrest profile, their interdiction profile. Just like their fingerprints are, just like their photograph is.
[1:31:05]
And, great example that came up before, the recent New York machete case. Where the individual, the gentleman’s name was Christian Inga-Landi.
This was a case in New York City, you may be familiar. He tied up the young lady and the young man, and raped the young girl. He committed this crime on June 13 of 2024, DNA was collected from the young lady through the victim kit.
He was identified immediately. Because he gave, a DNA sample was taken by immigration officials three years prior to that. He was on the lam. The gentleman was arrested five days later.
[1:31:46]
And when they caught him, it was in the news, apparently he was hiding under a vehicle.
So, there was an example of, in a very short period of time, we know who this guy is. We know he’s here in New York. And we’re going to find him.
So, again, we understand there’s a lot of political things. […] This passed the house 416-4 and passed unanimously in the Senate. This is probably one of the least partisan pieces of legislation passed in the last hundred years.
I don’t follow all that. But we seldom see such agreement, that this is really a good idea, and somehow we’re not doing it.
And to your point, it is absolutely inexplicable.
[1:32:24]
SCOTT: Well thanks for what each of you are doing. And you’re right, Senator Grassley does a great job of working with whistleblowers, and taking tough issues, and trying to make stuff happen. So, thank you for being here.