WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Thursday spoke at a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee hearing on fiscal year 2024 budget priorities for the Western Hemisphere. In an exchange with Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Todd Robinson, Murphy raised concerns with Mexico’s level of willingness to partner with the United States on disrupting the trade of fentanyl and fentanyl precursors.

Murphy highlighted the Senate’s proposed funding in the fiscal year 2024 budget to fight fentanyl while House Republicans do nothing: “[W]e have nearly $1 billion in dedicated funding to help Homeland Security agencies’ work with the Mexican government. That is a record amount of funding. And I will also note that the Senate is taking this pretty seriously. As you know, the State and Foreign Ops budget has $125 million in dedicated counter fentanyl funding globally. Again, we’ve got about $850 million in the Homeland budget. The House has allocated virtually nothing to this, so hopefully we can convince our colleagues to work with us to get serious.”

Murphy asked Assistant Secretary Robinson about the state of discussions with Mexico on coordinating efforts to combat fentanyl: “My understanding is we have had an offer on the table to work with the Mexican government, to partner our expertise with their expertise to better identify and intercept fentanyl and fentanyl precursor at that specific port, but that that offer still remains on the table, that the ball is effectively in the Mexican government's court. We have funding appropriated, excuse me, funding proposed to help fund that partnership, but it appears as one of perhaps several offers that we have made that have not yet been accepted by the Mexican government.”

Murphy concluded: “I’m proud of the funding that we have put forward but it is dependent on having a willing partner, and these discussions that you reference around this particular port have been going on for a very long time. And it suggests that we might not, at least on this set of potential cooperative efforts, not have a partner as willing as we would like.”

As chair of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Murphy secured $824 million in new funding to stem the flow of fentanyl into the United States, nearly all of the $1 billion he originally proposed in May. This additional funding will be used to improve detection and seizure of fentanyl at ports of entry, dismantle smuggling networks and prevent profits from reaching transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) by building outbound capabilities to seize currency and firearms heading to Mexico, and fight fentanyl smuggling routes abroad.

A full transcript of Murphy’s exchange with Todd Robinson, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs at the U.S. Department of State:

MURPHY: “I have two questions, one on budget and one on policy. On budget, I will note that when we talk about the work we need to do with Mexico and other partners to counter the flow of fentanyl to the United States, there is funding both in the State and Foreign Ops budget but also in the Homeland Security budget – that's the Subcommittee of Appropriations that I chair.

“In fact, we have nearly $1 billion in dedicated funding to help Homeland Security agencies work with the Mexican government. That is a record amount of funding. And I will also note that the Senate is taking this pretty seriously. As you know, the State and Foreign Ops budget has $125 million in dedicated counter fentanyl funding globally. Again, we’ve got about $850 million in the Homeland budget. The House has allocated virtually nothing to this, so hopefully we can convince our colleagues to work with us to get serious.

“I want to talk for a minute, and I will ask this to you, Ambassador Robinson, about the degree of cooperation we are getting from Mexico. I will put a specific example on the table and ask you to respond. The port of Manzanillo is a really important port. That's where a lot of this precursor comes through, and we know a lot of it is moving freely to the cartels. We know there's an opportunity to interrupt a lot of that trade, and we know that's probably the more effective means to do it instead of waiting until it arrives at our southern border.

“My understanding is we have had an offer on the table to work with the Mexican government, to partner our expertise with their expertise to better identify and intercept fentanyl and fentanyl precursor at that specific port, but that that offer still remains on the table, that the ball is effectively in the Mexican government's court. We have funding appropriated, excuse me, funding proposed to help fund that partnership, but it appears as one of perhaps several offers that we have made that have not yet been accepted by the Mexican government. So can you give us an update on that specific proposal that we have made and how it sits in the context of overall Mexican government cooperation?”

ROBINSON: “Sure, thank you so much, and you are absolutely right. Our relationship with Mexico on this issue is of the highest importance. My understanding is our colleagues in [the U.S. Department of Homeland Security] and [the Drug Enforcement Agency] are continuing to talk with their counterparts on specifically what we can do at that port. I think everyone recognizes this is a key entrance point for precursor chemicals. Those talks are ongoing. Overall, I would say that our relationship across the board with our Mexican counterparts is quite good on operations at the border. We are looking at what we can do together to secure and shore up our border locations.

“There's no doubt that there are differences between what certain members of the Mexican government say regarding precursor chemicals and the production of fentanyl in Mexico, but despite those differences of opinion the operational relationship remains on track.”

MURPHY: “Well, listen, I’m proud of the funding that we have put forward but it is dependent on having a willing partner, and these discussions that you reference around this particular port have been going on for a very long time. And it suggests that we might not, at least on this set of potential cooperative efforts, not have a partner as willing as we would like.”

###