[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE WAY FORWARD ON BORDER SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-380 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Mike Rogers, Alabama
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island Peter T. King, New York
Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey John Katko, New York
Kathleen M. Rice, New York John Ratcliffe, Texas
J. Luis Correa, California Mark Walker, North Carolina
Xochitl Torres Small, New Mexico Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Max Rose, New York Debbie Lesko, Arizona
Lauren Underwood, Illinois Mark Green, Tennessee
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan Van Taylor, Texas
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri John Joyce, Pennsylvania
Al Green, Texas Dan Crenshaw, Texas
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Michael Guest, Mississippi
Dina Titus, Nevada
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
Val Butler Demings, Florida
Hope Goins, Staff Director
Chris Vieson, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 5
The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Texas:
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Witness
Hon. Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 13
For the Record
Statement of Amnesty International............................... 69
Statement of the Center for Victims of Torture................... 74
Statement of CWS................................................. 77
Letter From the Electronic Privacy Information Center............ 79
Statement of First Focus......................................... 82
Statement of HIAS................................................ 84
Statement of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)...................... 85
Statement of Physicians for Human Rights......................... 91
Letters From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee........................ 91
Appendix
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson....................... 95
Questions From Honorable Xochitl Torres Small.................... 97
Questions From Honorable Lauren Underwood........................ 98
Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers........................ 99
Questions From Honorable Clay Higgins............................ 99
Question From Honorable Michael Guest............................ 100
THE WAY FORWARD ON BORDER SECURITY
----------
Tuesday, March 6, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Thompson, Jackson Lee, Langevin,
Richmond, Payne, Rice, Correa, Torres Small, Rose, Underwood,
Slotkin, Cleaver, Green of Texas, Clarke, Titus, Watson
Coleman, Barragan, Demings, Rogers, King, McCaul, Katko,
Walker, Higgings, Lesko, Green of Tennessee, Taylor, Joyce,
Crenshaw, and Guest.
Chairman Thompson. The Committee on Homeland Security will
come to order.
What I would like to do is, for the members of the press,
we all ask that you part where you are right there and get to
the side, take your pictures as you like. But before we begin,
we would like to accommodate the public behind you.
OK, those press folk who are where you are, we are going to
ask that you get to the side.
The committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the
way forward on border security.
Now, before I begin, I want to express my condolences to
those who lost loved ones in the devastating storms in the
Southeast on Sunday. At least 23 people lost their lives, and
still more were injured in Lee County, Alabama, the Ranking
Member's district. I would like to speak for the Members of the
committee and say that our thoughts and prayers are with you
and all your constituents at this difficult time.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. In addition, I would like to express our
sympathies to Congressman Katko in the loss of his father last
week. A lot of us have been there. It is a difficult time. But
know that we are all in support of you.
Turning to today's hearing, I note it has been nearly a
year since the Secretary of Homeland Security testified before
this committee, as well as a number of the Members of the
committee are meeting you for the first time.
A great deal has happened in that time. The Department of
Homeland Security separated thousands of children from their
parents at the border. Two small children died in the
Department's custody. The President shut down the Federal
Government over demands for more taxpayer money for a border
wall. Most recently, the President declared a non-existent
emergency at the border because Congress would not capitulate
to his funding demands.
Clearly, oversight of the Trump administration's border
policy is long overdue.
Under my Chairmanship, the days of lax oversight of the
Department by this committee are over. With the hope of
informing our hearing discussion on January 4, 2019, I wrote to
Secretary Nielsen asking for documents related to the border
wall, the Department's interference with asylum seekers at
ports of entry, separation of families at the border, and
treatment of children in their custody.
More than 2 months later, the committee has only received a
handful of the requested documents. This is unacceptable. The
committee needs this information for its oversight, and the
Department's failure to provide it raises further questions
about this administration's credibility. Let me be clear. I am
prepared to use the tools at the committee's disposal to obtain
the information if the Secretary fails to comply.
Today, we will look at what the administration has said and
done about border security and line it up against the facts.
When it comes to border security, what the American people have
heard from the Trump administration is misleading at best. The
Secretary has said the administration had no policy to separate
children from their parents. But internal memorandum makes
clear she was aware the administration's policy would require
families to be separated.
No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that she knew
the Trump administration was implementing a policy to separate
families at the border. To make matters worse, the
administration bungled implementation of a cruel plan, losing
track of children and even deporting parents to Central America
without their children.
The Department also began limiting lawful asylum seekers
presenting themselves at ports of entry, driving desperate
families into more remote parts of the border and overwhelming
border personnel and resources in those areas.
Tragically, two young children died when they became ill in
custody. Shortly thereafter, the President shut down the
Government and declared a border emergency, an emergency that
does not exist, to get more funding for a wall.
The President himself admitted there is no emergency, even
as he was announcing his declaration, saying, ``I didn't need
to do this. I just want to do it faster.'' The President wants
to build a wall so there is something to point to or have his
picture taken in front of to convince the American people he
has border security figured out.
Real border security cannot be achieved by building a wall
on the Southern Border, blocking asylum seekers, or separating
children from their parents. These things are simplistic
solutions that may have political appeal for some but offer
little security value, if any.
Indeed, focusing on the Southern Border, to the exclusion
of threats elsewhere, undermines homeland security. Today, the
Secretary can choose whether to be complicit in this
administration's misinformation campaign or she can correct the
record and start a serious discussion about the way forward on
border security. For the sake of our country, I urge her to
choose the latter.
[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
March 6, 2019
I would note it has been nearly a year since the Secretary of
Homeland Security testified before this committee. A great deal has
happened in that time. The Department of Homeland Security separated
thousands of children from their parents at the border. Two small
children died in the Department's custody. The President shut down the
Federal Government over demands for more taxpayer money for a border
wall. And most recently, the President declared a nonexistent
``emergency'' at the border because Congress would not capitulate to
his funding demands.
Clearly, oversight of the Trump administration's border policy is
long overdue. Under my Chairmanship, the days of lax oversight of the
Department by this committee are over.
With the hope of informing our hearing discussion, on January 4,
2019, I wrote to Secretary Nielsen asking for documents related to the
border wall, the Department's interference with asylum seekers at ports
of entry, separation of families at the border, and treatment of
children in their custody. More than 2 months later, the committee has
only received a handful of the requested documents. This is
unacceptable.
The committee needs this information for its oversight, and the
Department's failure to provide it raises further questions about this
administration's credibility. Let me be clear--I am prepared to use the
tools at the committee's disposal to obtain the information if the
Secretary fails to comply.
Today, we will look at what the administration has said and done
about border security and line it up against the facts. When it comes
to border security, what the American people have heard from the Trump
administration is misleading at best.
The Secretary has said the administration had no policy to separate
children from their parents, but internal memoranda make clear she was
aware the administration's policy would require families to be
separated. No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that she knew the
Trump administration was implementing policy to separate families at
the border. To make matters worse, the administration bungled
implementation of its cruel plan, losing track of children and even
deporting parents to Central America without their children. The
Department also began limiting lawful asylum seekers presenting
themselves at ports of entry, driving desperate families into more
remote parts of the border and overwhelming border personnel and
resources in those areas. Tragically, two young children died when they
became ill in custody.
Shortly thereafter, the President shut down the Government and
declared a border ``emergency''--an emergency that does not exist--to
get more funding for a wall. The President himself admitted there is no
emergency, even as he was announcing his declaration, saying ``I didn't
need to do this. I just want to do it faster.'' The President wants to
build a wall so there is something to point to, or have his picture
taken in front of, to convince the American people he has border
security figured out.
Real border security cannot be achieved by building a wall on the
Southern Border, blocking asylum seekers, or separating children from
their parents. These things are simplistic solutions that may have
political appeal for some but offer little security value, if any.
Indeed, focusing on the Southern Border to the exclusion of threats
elsewhere undermines homeland security.
Today, the Secretary can choose whether to be complicit in this
administration's misinformation campaign, or she can correct the record
and start a serious discussion about the way forward on border
security. For the sake of our country, I urge her to choose the latter.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking
Member of the full committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Rogers, for an opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
calling this hearing today.
Thank you, Secretary Nielsen, for being here and for your
service to our country.
I do appreciate the Chairman and his acknowledgment of what
happened in my district on Sunday. It really is breathtaking
when you go down and see the devastation of a tornado that was
nearly a mile wide and stayed on the ground for 70 miles.
As the Chairman said, we have 23 dead, 90 injured, and more
than 100 homes just completely destroyed. This committee should
take a lot of pride in the fact that we have made a difference
in this country over the last 15 years. The first responders
were just wonderful.
Our local first responders, many of whom got training
through Federal money, were flawless, worked their hearts out.
FEMA did a great job. They were ready to go yesterday, nearby,
kept us informed. I know they are doing a great job in the
rebuilding.
But we make a difference what we have done in preparing
first responders around this country. I know the Governor has
been in touch working with EMA and the FEMA officials and they
are doing a great job. But I appreciate your prayers as we try
to start the rebuilding now that we have finished the search
and recovery.
With that, thank you, Secretary Nielsen for everything your
Department is doing to assist the citizens of Alabama's Third
Congressional District.
This hearing comes at an important moment. There is a
growing crisis at our Southwest Border. First, changing
demographics have created extraordinary challenges for our
Border Patrol. In the past, most illegal border crossers were
young Mexican men and our laws allowed to us swiftly return
them to Mexico.
Today, we see massive rise in the number of families and
unaccompanied children from Central America and beyond. Human
smugglers are exploiting the loopholes in our laws and take
advantage of our broken immigration system. Smugglers are
telling vulnerable families that your child is your, ``visa'',
to stay in the United States if they turn themselves in at the
border.
The smugglers' propaganda is working. Already, family
apprehensions in fiscal year 2019 are more than 800 percent
higher than 2013. We are also seeing migrants arriving at the
border in groups of record sizes. These massive groups
overwhelm everything from the remote Border Patrol stations to
busy ports of entry.
Seventy groups of more than 100 migrants each have been
apprehended by the Border Patrol since October of last year.
Just 5 months, 70 groups. Some of these are not just a hundred,
they are thousands. If you are curious, 2 years ago, we only
had due 2 groups of more than 100 people. That has happened in
a short amount of time.
Migrants arriving at our border had a long and arduous
journey. The smugglers and traffickers that advertise a ticket
in the United States don't care about their victim's well-
being, they only care about making money. They lead these
migrants into dangerous conditions without a second thought. As
a result, Border Patrol projects 158 percent increase in
migrants needing medical treatment for when they cross the
border from last year.
These change in migrant flows place men and women of CBP
and Border Patrol in perilous situations. Our officers are in
our search-and-rescue teams, paramedics are having to service
rescue teams, paramedics, and family counselors to groups of
over 100 strangers at a single time. Gangs and drug cartels are
taking advantage of our porous border to bring hundreds of
thousands of pounds of drugs into our country.
In fiscal year 2018, CBP seized 895,000 pounds of drugs at
the border. That includes approximately 2,100 pounds of
fentanyl. To put that in perspective, just 2 milligrams of
fentanyl are a fatal dose to a person according to the DEA;
2,135 pounds of fentanyl represents a lethal dose for 484
million people, more than the entire population of our country.
That equals--if that isn't of an emergency, I don't know what
is.
Contrary to what some say, CBP actually seizes more pounds
of drugs between ports of entry than at ports of entry. Since
fiscal year 2012, CBP has seized more than 11 million pounds of
drugs between ports of entry compared to only 4 million pounds
at ports of entry.
Mr. Chairman, we have to stop the flow of illegal
immigrants and community-destroying drugs across our Southwest
Border. We must put an end to transnational gangs that profit
off these illegal enterprises and bring crime to American
streets. The only way to do that is to secure the border.
We need an all-of-the-above approach to border security
that includes manpower, 21st Century technology, and barriers.
With this approach, we will deter human trafficking, human
smugglers, and others from crossing hundreds of miles of open
desert with innocent children and putting children in grave
danger. Fewer drugs will make it into the United States, saving
lives and making our communities safer.
We know an all-of-the-above approach works. In areas where
we built a wall system, illegal traffic has plummeted. In San
Diego, illegal traffic dropped 92 percent after the barrier was
erected. In El Paso, illegal traffic dropped 95 percent. In
Tucson, illegal traffic dropped 90 percent.
Let us build on this success. Border security and keeping
Americans safe used to be priorities for both our parties. I
have been on this committee since, just like the Chairman,
since its inception. We never argued about whether barriers
worked until Donald Trump wanted them. This is not rocket
science.
Now that today many of my Democrat colleagues are going to
be calling for the abolition of ICE, and I don't understand
that. Rather than use this hearing to score political points, I
encourage my colleagues to take this opportunity to hear from
the Secretary herself about the challenges at our border and
what the committee can do to address the changing dynamics as I
have just described. I welcome the Secretary's testimony and
the excellent work she has been doing for our committee and I
thank the Chairman for the time and yield back.
[The statement of Ranking Member Rogers follows:]
Statement of Ranking Member Mike Rogers
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my constituents in Lee
County, Alabama whose communities were ravaged by tornado strikes this
weekend. Our hearts are with them as they begin to rebuild their
families and homes. I'd like to thank the State and local first
responders who were on the scene to aid their neighbors. I know
Governor Ivey and others are in touch with FEMA officials and I'm sure
they'll do everything they can to help get folks back on their feet.
Thank you, Secretary Nielsen, for everything your Department is doing
to assist the citizens of Alabama's 3rd district.
This hearing comes at an important moment. There is a growing
crisis at our Southwest Border.
First, changing demographics have created extraordinary challenges
for our Border Patrol. In the past, most illegal border-crossers were
young, Mexican men. And, our laws allowed us to swiftly return them
back to Mexico.
Today, we're seeing a massive rise in the number of families and
unaccompanied children from Central America and beyond. Human smugglers
are exploiting the loopholes in our laws and are taking advantage of
our broken immigration system. Smugglers are telling vulnerable
families that a child is their ``visa'' to stay in the United States if
they turn themselves in at the border. The smugglers' propaganda is
working.
Already, family apprehensions in fiscal year 2019 are more than 800
percent higher than fiscal year 2013. We're also seeing migrants
arriving at the border in groups of record size.
These massive groups overwhelm everything from remote Border Patrol
stations to busy ports of entry. Seventy groups of more than 100
migrants each, have been apprehended by Border Patrol or presented to
CBP since Oct. 1, 2018.
If you're curious, there were just TWO migrant groups over 100
people that reached our Southwest Border in fiscal year 2017. In the
last 5 months, there have been 70.
Migrants arriving at our border have had a long, and arduous
journey. The smugglers and traffickers that advertise a ticket into the
United States don't care about their victims' well-being, they only
care about making money. They lead them into dangerous conditions
without a second thought.
As a result, Border Patrol projects a 158 percent increase in
migrants needing medical treatment after crossing the border over last
year. These changing migrant flows place the men and women of CBP and
Border Patrol in a perilous situation. Our officers are now search-and-
rescue teams, paramedics, and family counselors to groups of over 100
strangers at a time.
Gangs and drug cartels are taking advantage of our porous border to
bring hundreds of thousands of pounds of drugs into our country. In
fiscal year 2018, CBP seized 895,011 pounds of drugs at the border.
That includes approximately 2,135 pounds of fentanyl. To put that in
perspective, just 2 milligrams of fentanyl are a fatal dose to most
people according to the DEA. Two thousand, one hundred thirty-five
pounds of fentanyl represents a lethal dose for about 484 MILLION
people. That equals a lethal dose for more than the entire population
of the United States. If that isn't an emergency, I don't know what is.
And, contrary to what some say, CBP actually seizes more pounds of
drugs BETWEEN ports of entry than AT ports of entry. Since fiscal year
2012, CBP has seized more than 11 million pounds of drugs between ports
of entry, compared with only 4 million pounds at ports of entry.
Mr. Chairman, we have to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and
community-destroying drugs across our Southwest Border. We must put an
end to the transnational gangs that profit off these illegal
enterprises and bring crime to American streets.
The only way to do that is to secure our border. We need an ``all-
of the-above'' approach to border security that includes manpower,
21st-Century technology, and barriers.
With this approach, we will deter human smugglers and others from
crossing hundreds of miles of open desert with innocent children. And
putting those children in grave danger. Fewer drugs will make it into
the United States, saving lives and making our communities safer.
We know an all-of-the-above approach works. In areas where we have
built a wall system, illegal traffic has plummeted.
In San Diego, illegal traffic has dropped 92 percent. In El Paso,
illegal traffic has dropped 95 percent. And in Tucson, illegal traffic
has dropped 90 percent.
Let's build on this success. Border security and keeping America
safe used to be priorities for both Democrats and Republicans.
We used to hear Democrats calling for consensus. Now many of my
Democratic colleagues are going as far as calling to abolish ICE.
Rather than use this hearing to score political points, I encourage
my colleagues to take this opportunity to hear from the Secretary
herself about the challenges at our border and what the committee can
do to address the changing dynamics I have just described. I welcome
the Secretary's testimony about the excellent work she's doing to
secure our borders.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Other Members of the committee are reminded that under the
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
[The statement of Honorable Jackson Lee follows:]
Statement of Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
March 6, 2019
Thank you Chairman Thompson, and Ranking Member Rogers, for
convening this opportunity for the Homeland Security Committee to hear
from Secretary Nielsen on ``The Way Forward on Border Security.''
Thank you Secretary Nielsen for joining us for a discussion on how
to hold the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department)
accountable for its border security policy, programs, and activities.
Over the past 17 years we have learned a great deal about the
capacity and strengthen of the men and women who work at the Department
of Homeland Security.
I hold them in the highest regard for their dedication and service
to our country.
I joined my Democratic colleagues on the House floor in opposition
to the President's Federal Government shutdown in an ill-conceived plan
to force Congress to pay for his border wall.
My concern has and will continue to be for the well-being of DHS
employees who have been impacted by the shutdown on personnel, in
particular I want to know:
Have all employees received all back pay, including overtime
where earned?
What steps are being taken to address negative credit damage
caused by missed bill payments during the 35-day period? and
How is the morale of DHS personnel since the shutdown?
This Nation depends on the men and women of the Department of
Homeland Security to protect citizens from those who wish to do them
harm.
Because of the dedication of DHS professional we are better
prepared to face these challenges as one Nation united against a common
foe.
My primary domestic security concerns are:
Making sure that our immigration policies in word and deed
reflect that best of our Nation's values and institutions;
Separating fact from fiction in the debate over U.S.
immigration and border policy;
Controlling access to firearms for those who are deemed to
be too dangerous to fly;
Countering international and home-grown violent extremism;
preserving Constitutional rights and due process for all
persons;
protecting critical infrastructure from physical and cyber
attack, including technology used in public elections;
creating equity and fairness in our Nation's immigration
policies by addressing TPS and DACA recipients; and
strengthening the capacity of the Department of Homeland
Security and the Department of Justice to meet the challenges
posed by natural disasters.
As a former Chair and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security's
Subcommittee on Transportation Security my commitment to air travel
security and protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks remains
unwavering.
border security
Real border security cannot be achieved by building a wall on the
Southern Border, blocking asylum seekers, or separating children from
their parents.
These things are in fact making border security more difficult,
creating unnecessary tensions with our neighbors in Mexico, Central and
South America while here at home these policies appeal to anti-American
nativist views.
Our Nation must and should look at all threats, from those who seek
to cross our borders by air, who may try to exploit our maritime
borders, or who cross either of our land borders with intent to smuggle
or do harm, and develop a strategy to implement thoughtful, proven, and
fair solutions to keep America secure.
To further strengthen security along our border the practice of
impeding or metering persons outside of our borders in Mexico
undermines the enforcement of immigration law, treaties, and proper
application of Federal regulations intended to assure safety and
security.
The practice is called ``metering'' and is creating unnecessary
hardship for people seeking entry and fermenting a toxic environment
where men, women, and children are being held under conditions that can
easily lead to deteriorating health and safety conditions.
We should not be wasting resources on fabricated threats such as a
fake National Emergency, but seek out ways to identify domestic threats
and prevent the type of attacks that are becoming all too common.
By any metric, the spate of mass shootings in the last many years
has killed more Americans than ISIS or any other group.
Often, the shooters are born within our country's borders and have
ready access to high-powered, high-capacity weapons.
It is no coincidence that the rate of these shootings has
dramatically increased since the lapse of legislation banning assault
weapons.
temporary protected status and dreamers
I strongly advocate for a crucial legislative fix for debate and
vote that will provide permanent legal residence and a path to
citizenship to the more than 800,000 Dreamers, including the 124,000
who live in Texas, whose lives have been turned upside down because of
this administration's cruel, unwise, and reckless termination of DACA,
the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
And in connection with legislation to protect Dreamers, I will
insist that the administration rescind the revocation of Temporary
Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti, El Salvador, and Honduras, or failing
that, TPS for those countries be extended by Congressional legislation.
There are 44,800 residents of Texas who are TPS holders from El
Salvador (36,300), Honduras (8,400), and Haiti, who combined are
parents of 53,800 U.S.-born children in Texas and 14,000 of whom have
home mortgages.
These TPS holders are integral members of the Texas's social
fabric, having lived in Texas an average of 20 years, and contribute an
aggregate $2.2 billion to the Texas economy.
I, along with other Members who have served on this committee since
its inception, made a commitment that a terrorist attack of the
magnitude that occurred on September 11, 2001 would never happen again.
We needed that collaboration and cooperation with the public to
succeed in identifying and ultimately stopping the attackers; for this
reason, I believe that more can and must be done to get and maintain
public trust and support.
For this reason, it is imperative that the 28-minute video left by
the bomber be part of a comprehensive briefing on the Austin attacks.
Community involvement and support for the investigation and
prevention of violent acts should be uppermost in the minds of law
enforcement and policy makers.
A delay in having a similar briefing on the Austin bombing only
causes further complications because it will contribute to a public
perception that the lives lost did not matter.
The nature of the attacks and the skill of the bomb maker make this
briefing on the Austin bombings of vital importance to the work of this
committee.
This, coupled with the issuance of a Black Identity Extremism
report by the Federal Bureau of Investigations' Domestic Terrorism
Analysis Unit, leaves the African-American community once again
questioning the motivations of the Nation's premier Federal law
enforcement agency.
domestic terrorist threats and attacks
The FBI recently arrested Christopher Paul Hasson, a U.S. Coast
Guard lieutenant and self-identified white nationalist, after Federal
investigators uncovered a cache of weapons and ammunition in his
Maryland home that authorities say he stockpiled to launch a wide-
spread domestic terrorist attack targeting politicians and journalists.
Mr. Hasson, according to court records called for ``focused
violence'' to ``establish a white homeland'' and said, he dreamed of a
way to kill almost every last person on the earth, according to court
records filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland.
Unlike Dylann Storm Roof, the white supremacist who murdered 9
parishioners in a church because they were African American, Mr.
Hansson's plans for mass murder were stopped by investigators before
they could be carried out.
Unfortunately, these incidents do not seem to be isolated--as you
know during the last 9 days of last year's general election, Cesar
Sayoc sent bombs in the mail perceived enemies of President Trump.
Also, last year a series of bombing attacks in Austin, Texas that
killed 2 and injured 5 others has raised concerns about domestic
terrorists and their efforts to impose by violence their view of
American society.
Three of the deadliest mass shootings in American history have
occurred within the 2 years, including one in a church in Sutherland
Springs, in my home State of Texas.
The shooting in Las Vegas, where over 50 were killed and over 400
injured, to the shootings at high schools around the Nation and there
seems to be no end or solution in sights.
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, is the
eighteenth such mass shooting event in the first month-and-a-half of
2018.
We must do more to protect the American public from real threats
and spend less time on non-emergencies--and we do need to know that the
leadership at the Department of Homeland Security understand the
difference.
I look forward to the Secretary's testimony before the committee.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair also wishes to remind Members
of the committee and members of the audience that Rule 10(A)
prohibits breaches of committee decorum and allows the Chair to
respond accordingly.
With that, let me introduce our witness today. Secretary
Kirstjen Nielsen has been the Secretary of Homeland Security
since December 2017 and was last before the committee in April
2018. I want to thank her for joining us today and look forward
to her testimony.
I now ask the Secretary to rise and be sworn in. Please
raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of
perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and
correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief,
so help you God?
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Thompson. I want to thank the Secretary without
objection. The witness' full statement will be incremented in
the record. I now recognize the Secretary to summarize her
statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you. Chairman Thompson, Ranking
Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of the committee it is
my honor to appear before you today.
Before I begin, I want to note that our Department has many
missions. Our people work tirelessly every day around the clock
to strengthen the safety and security of the American people
against terrorists, transnational criminal organizations,
hackers, rogue nation-states, natural disasters, and more. I
want to applaud them always for their extraordinary vigilance
in protecting us all from persistent and emerge threats.
But today I want to focus on one core mission in
particular--our duty to secure our borders. This is one of the
highest priorities of our President, this administration, and
my Department. Indeed, it is among the most fundamental
responsibilities of any sovereign nation.
I want to start by stressing that our country remains a
beacon of hope, freedom, and opportunity to the world. We
welcome more immigrants, temporary workers, and foreign
travelers every year than any other nation on Earth. Each year,
more than 1 million people become lawful permanent residents of
the United States. Legal immigration has been a bedrock of this
country.
We want to strengthen legal immigration and welcome more
individuals through a merit-based system that enhances our
economic vitality and the vibrancy of our diverse Nation.
We also continue to uphold our humanitarian ideals, but
illegal immigration is simply spiraling out of control and
threatening public safety and National security. We face a
crisis, a real serious and sustained crisis at our borders. We
have tens of thousands of illegal aliens arriving at our
doorstep every month.
We have drugs, criminals, and violence spilling into our
country every week, and we have smugglers and traffickers
profiting from human misery every single day by exploiting
people who are seeking a better life, deceiving them about our
laws, and fielding everything from sexual slavery to child
explication to the smuggling of illicit goods.
Make no mistake--this chain of human misery is getting
worse. Yesterday we announced that the numbers of apprehension
at our Southern Border have spiked again substantially. Since
last year, we had been seeing 50,000 to 60,000 migrants arrive
at our Southern Border each month. But in February, we saw a 30
percent jump over the previous month with agents apprehending
or encountering nearly 75,000 aliens.
This is an 80 percent increase over the same time last
year, and I report today that CBP is forecasting the problem
will get even worse this spring as the weather warms up.
The projections are dire. The agency is now on track to
apprehend more migrants crossing illegally in the first 6
months of this fiscal year than the entirety of fiscal year
2017. At the current pace we are on track to encounter close to
1 million illegal aliens at our Southern Border this year.
Our capacity is already severely restrained, but these
increases will overwhelm the system entirely. This is not a
manufactured crisis. This is truly an emergency.
What is different about the current migrant flows--and this
is important--is not just how many people are coming but who is
arriving.
Historically illegal aliens crossing into the United States
are predominantly single adult males from Mexico with no legal
rights to stay and who we could quickly detain and removed
within 48 hours, but in recent years we have seen the numbers
of vulnerable populations, children, and families skyrocket.
Over 60 percent of the current flows are family units and
unaccompanied alien children and 60 percent are non-Mexican.
Because of outdated laws, misguided court decisions, and a
massive backlog of cases, we are often forced to release these
groups into the United States and we have virtually no hope of
removing them in the future. Importantly, our ability to help
those truly in need is severely limited.
The vast majority of these individuals are from Central
America. While many of them initially claim asylum and are let
into the United States, only 1 in 10 are ultimately granted
asylum by an immigration judge. Unfortunately, when it comes
time to remove the other 90 percent, they have often
disappeared into the interior of our country.
Smugglers and traffickers have caught on, realizing that
the outdated laws, lack of resources, and bad court decisions
effectively give them a free ticket into America. Information
about the weaknesses in our system has spread quickly in
Central America. In fact, they are advertised. Our booming
economy under President Trump has made the dangerous journey
even more attractive to migrants.
As a result, the flow of families and children has become a
flood. In the past 5 years, we have seen a 620 percent increase
in families or those posing as families apprehended at the
border. This last fiscal year was the highest on record, and of
great concern to me is that the children are being used as
pawns to get into our country.
We have encountered recycling rings where innocent young
people are used multiple times to help aliens gain illegal
entry. As a Nation, we simply cannot stand for this. We must
fix the system.
Today's migrant flows have created a humanitarian
catastrophe. In one study, more than 30 percent of women
reported sexual assault along the way and 70 percent of all
migrants reported experiencing violence.
Smugglers and traffickers are forcing migrants into
inhumane conditions, demanding extraordinary sums of money, and
putting their lives in danger. Vulnerable populations,
especially children, are coming into DHS sicker than ever
before.
This is also a public safety and National security crisis.
TCOs are using the situation to line their pockets, fueling a
rise in other illegal activity and the spread of violent crime
into our country. Gang members are smuggling new recruits into
the United States, with CBP recording a 50 percent spike over
the last fiscal year in the number of gang members apprehended
at the Southern Border alone. DHS personnel are grappling daily
with the movement of drugs, illicit goods, and unknown threat
actors coming across the borders.
So what are we doing about this? At the President's
direction we are confronting it head-on in many ways. Let me
try to quickly summarize.
We have championed a border wall system which includes
infrastructure technology and additional personnel. We have
implemented virtually every measure within our authority to end
catch-and-release to keep aliens with no legal right to stay
from being released into our country. We worked with the
Pentagon to deploy troops to the Southern Border, which has
helped us achieve tens of thousands of apprehensions and turn-
backs of illegal aliens. We have dramatically increased
referrals for prosecutions of single adults illegally crossing
the border from 12 percent at the start of the administration
to nearly 50 percent today.
We have worked tirelessly with the Northern Triangle
countries. I myself can attest to the many trips that I have
made and the conversations and negotiations I have had, to deal
with the root causes of migration and to address the challenges
at the source.
I talk to my counterparts in Central America almost weekly.
I travel down there regularly. This month I am happy to report
that we expect to sign a historic regional compact, the first
ever with those countries, to counter irregular migration,
human smuggling, trafficking, and the formation of caravans.
This is something I have been pursuing for years and will have
a real effect on this crisis.
We have stepped up efforts to protect women and children
from being abused, kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and exploited
upon the dangerous journey and are doing more to dismantle
TCOs, including through concerted interagency action and deeper
foreign partnerships.
We have intensified operations to seize illicit drugs,
especially opioids, as they are smuggled into the United
States, including the deployment of new technology. We are
putting in place important measures to reduce asylum fraud, so
we can better help those who are truly fleeing persecution.
This includes having certain individuals wait in Mexico until
their claims are processed and where they are afforded
humanitarian protection to ensure that the flow is safe and
orderly.
But it is simply still not enough. We need Congress to act
so that we can take operational control of the border, as
Congress directed us in law to do, to protect vulnerable
populations, to reduce the life-ending flow of drugs into
America, and to confront the scourge of human trafficking.
Without Congressional action, America's borders will never
be secure. Until we deal with the outdated laws that contribute
to this problem, the situation will only get worse. Simply put,
the laws are not keeping up with the migrant flows. The gaps in
the system are obvious.
Just as laws must be revised to address technological
advances and emerging threats, so, too, must the laws be
changed to address vastly different circumstances at the
border.
If migrants arrive with children, we can only detain them
for days and then we have to release them. Even when they have
no legal right to stay, we cannot keep them together as a
family.
Chairman Thompson. Please summarize your statement.
Secretary Nielsen. Please.
So what do we need? We need Congress to change the law to
promote family unity, to ensure the safe and prompt return of
UACs back to their home countries, and to close loopholes that
allow dangerous criminals to get released into our communities.
Happy to, in response to questions, talk more about our
activities with the Northern Triangle. But I would just like to
conclude my remarks by asking for Congress to work with me. I
am happy to meet with anyone that has a suggested solution.
No rational person would design an immigration system like
we have today. It is dangerous for Americans, it is dangerous
for migrants, it undermines our Nation's values, and it fails
to uphold our fundamental obligations to the American people.
Although we may disagree on solutions, I hope there can be
a consensus that the current system isn't working and that this
is an emergency we must address together.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Nielsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen
March 6, 2019
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished Members
of the committee: It is an honor to appear before you today.
I want to start by thanking the men and women of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) for their exceptional service to our Nation.
Last week, we celebrated the Department's 16th anniversary, and we
marked the extraordinary progress that has been made to protect our
Nation against a vast array of threats and hazards. In the past year
alone, DHS has made notable strides and reached new milestones. For
example, we:
Responded decisively to record-breaking natural disasters
and helped Americans rebuild when they needed our help the
most;
Prevented the hacking of U.S. elections and guarded against
foreign interference in our democracy;
Hardened our digital defenses, organized ourselves for the
interconnected era with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency, and pushed for tougher consequences against
cyber adversaries;
Created a new hub--the National Risk Management Center--to
identify and mitigate the most serious risks to our Nation's
critical infrastructure;
Thwarted terrorist plotting and helped bring dangerous
individuals to justice;
Launched new, sophisticated efforts to block terrorists and
criminals from reaching the United States, including through
our new National Vetting Center;
Ramped up security measures to protect Americans against
emerging threats--from weaponized drones to chemical and
biological weapons;
Reorganized our intelligence and science & technology
organizations to better meet the needs of front-line defenders;
Strengthened our campaigns against human trafficking and
smuggling, child exploitation, drugs, and transnational
criminal organizations;
Raised the baseline of aviation security across the board--
and around the world;
Took decisive action to enhance school safety and security
Nation-wide in order to stop attacks before they happen;
. . . and much, much more.
We have also undertaken historic efforts to secure our borders and
enforce our Nation's immigration laws. This is the subject of today's
hearing, and this morning I want to outline for you the very real
humanitarian and security crisis we face, how we are responding, and
what's urgently needed from Congress to fix the situation.
The men and women of my Department will tell you that it is no easy
task to secure the more than 7,000 miles of America's shared border
with Mexico and Canada while facilitating legal trade and travel. Each
day, dedicated DHS officers and agents inspect hundreds of tons of
cargo for illegal substances or explosives, process thousands of
individuals for admission, and patrol many miles of remote border. They
do this in order to answer a crucial question: Who and what is coming
into the country? This mission--safeguarding our territory--is one of
the most critical charges of our Department and one of the most
fundamental responsibilities of any government.
the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border
Let me start by saying, the United States leads the world in
welcoming individuals fleeing persecution. In the 2017 calendar year,
the United States granted asylum and refugee status to more individuals
than any other country in the world. We welcome those who come to us
legally, especially those who are truly fleeing persecution and who
seek refuge in our country.
Illegal and uncontrolled migration, however, poses a serious and
growing risk to U.S. public safety, National security, and the rule of
law. This cannot be a partisan issue. Every Secretary of this
Department has sounded the alarm about our unsecured border and
highlighted the associated threats and consequences to our National
security. Today we are seeing the results of a failure to act and a
broken system.
Our Nation is facing a dire humanitarian and security crisis at our
Southern Border. In the first 4 months of the fiscal year, we saw
approximately 60,000 migrants each month cross illegally or present at
ports of entry without documents. Moreover, the numbers are rising. In
February, agents apprehended or encountered more than 76,000 aliens, a
31 percent increase over January, and CBP is forecasting the problem
will get even worse this spring. The agency is now on track to
apprehend more migrants crossing illegally in the first 6 months of
this fiscal year than the entirety of fiscal year 2017. Our capacity is
already severely strained, but these increases will overwhelm it
completely.
What's different about the current migration flow is not just how
many people are coming but who is arriving. For most of recent history,
the majority of individuals arriving illegally or without documentation
were single adults, who we could quickly detain and remove. This is how
the immigration system is supposed to work. However, in recent years we
have seen the proportion of vulnerable populations--children and
families--skyrocket. Because of outdated laws and misguided court
decisions, we are often forced to release these groups into the
interior of the United States and we have virtually no hope of removing
them.
The details here are critically important. Historically, illegal
aliens crossing into the United States were predominantly single adult
males from Mexico, and they were generally removed within 48 hours if
they had no legal right to stay. Now over 60 percent are family units
and unaccompanied alien children, and 60 percent are non-Mexican. Many
of these families are from the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala,
Honduras, El Salvador) and claim asylum, so they are released into the
United States--as required by the Flores court decision--while they
await a court date that can be years away. Only 1 in 10 individuals
from the Northern Triangle are ultimately granted asylum by an
immigration judge. Unfortunately, when it comes time to remove the
other 90 percent--who have been determined by an immigration judge to
have no legal right to stay in the United States--they have absconded
from their last known location. And we do not have sufficient resources
to find and remove them.
Make no mistake: The problem is getting worse. The smugglers and
traffickers have caught on, realizing this is a ``free ticket'' into
America. As a result, the flow of families and children has become a
flood. In the past 5 years, we have seen a 620 percent increase in
families--or those posing as families--apprehended at the border. This
last fiscal year was the highest on record. Children are being used as
pawns to get into our country. We have even uncovered ``recycling
rings'' where innocent young people are used multiple times to help
aliens fraudulently gain entry. As a Nation, we cannot stand for this.
The phenomenon of large groups (which is defined as a group of 100
or more aliens apprehended together in a single event) of migrants
organized into caravans arriving along our Southern Border provides a
window into the wide-spread challenges faced everyday by DHS personnel.
For example, in fiscal year 2017, CBP encountered only two large
groups. By fiscal year 2018, this grew to 13 groups. And this fiscal
year through February 28, CBP has experienced 68 groups in the U.S.
Border Patrol's El Paso, Rio Grande Valley, Tucson, and Yuma Sectors.
This is not a manufactured crisis. It is real, it is serious, and it is
overwhelming our front-line personnel.
Apprehending large groups places a tremendous strain on CBP's
limited resources, pulling front-line personnel to conduct humanitarian
efforts and drawing resources away from front-line enforcement,
effectively placing border security at risk. Associated with the
increase in large groups and caravans, we saw a 21 percent increase in
the number of unaccompanied alien minors from the year prior, and a 40
percent increase in number of family units in fiscal year 2018 compared
to fiscal year 2017. To make matters worse, we know that transnational
criminal organizations (TCOs) are taking advantage of these large
groups as a distraction in order to conduct criminal activity elsewhere
on the border, as they know CBP resources will be tied up.
Today's migration flows have created a humanitarian catastrophe.
Criminals are targeting vulnerable populations along the dangerous
journey to our borders. In one study, more than 30 percent of women
reported sexual assault along the way, and 70 percent of all migrants
reported experiencing violence. Smugglers and traffickers are
exploiting these migrants. They are forcing them into inhumane
conditions, demanding large sums of money, and putting their lives in
danger every day. Vulnerable populations--especially children--are
coming into DHS custody sicker than ever before, arriving with
illnesses and injuries. In recent weeks, an average of 56 aliens a day
have required emergency medical care at the Southern Border.
The care of those in DHS custody is paramount, and the United
States Border Patrol is doing everything in its power to handle this
crisis, but our facilities along the Southern Border were not designed
to support such large vulnerable populations. These facilities are
short-term processing facilities, designed to hold individuals for 72
hours or less. I am grateful for the $415 million in humanitarian
assistance Congress provided in the most recent DHS appropriations
bill. The bottom line is that Border Patrol stations built decades ago
are not designed to handle this crisis and are not the best facilities
to house children with their parents for extended periods.
This is also a public safety and National security crisis. TCOs are
using this situation to line their pockets, fueling a rise in other
illegal activity and the spread of violent crime into our country. The
results are disturbing. Across the Nation, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) officers made approximately 266,000 arrests of aliens
with various criminal charges or convictions in 2017 and 2018--which
included roughly 100,000 charges or convictions for assault, 30,000 for
sex crimes, and 4,000 for homicides. Many of these were individuals who
came across illegally at our Southern Border.
DHS personnel have also witnessed an increase in the trafficking of
illegal drugs into our communities. Alarmingly, CBP has reported that
fentanyl smuggling between ports of entry at the Southern Border has
more than doubled over our last fiscal year, from fiscal year 2017 to
fiscal year 2018. Although these seizures represent just a quarter of
fentanyl seizures along the border, the rate at which they have
increased is concerning. Fentanyl was responsible for more than 28,400
overdose deaths of Americans in 2017. Just a few weeks ago, CBP made
its largest fentanyl bust in U.S. history, seizing 254 pounds of
fentanyl--enough for 115 million fatal doses--in a truck trailer
compartment. These drugs are smuggled at and between ports of entry,
but our officers and agents are not able to devote the full resources
and attention they could to interdicting them because of the migration
crisis that is taxing our resources.
A tough border security posture is essential to keep other
potential threat actors out of the United States. There are thousands
of individuals on the terrorist watch list that traveled through our
Hemisphere last year alone, and we work very hard to keep these
individuals from traveling on illicit pathways to our country. While
most terror suspects attempting to reach the United States do so by
air, terrorist groups are clearly interested in exploiting deficiencies
along our borders to enter the United States. We must vigilantly guard
against any such efforts.
Moreover, last year alone, DHS encountered 3,000+ ``special
interest aliens'' (SIAs)--individuals with suspicious travel patterns
who could pose a National security risk--at our Southern Border.
Foreign partners throughout the Western Hemisphere continue to share
their concerns with me about the growing volume of SIAs. Often these
partners lack the ability to determine the identities and intentions of
such individuals before they cross international borders and make their
way toward our own.
responding to the crisis
DHS is grateful that Congress was finally able to pass a budget for
the Department, but the crisis is getting worse and our current funding
neither provides adequate resources nor the additional authorities that
our DHS personnel need to gain full operational control of our border.
Congress has repeatedly failed to give DHS the resources needed to
confront this situation and to handle the influx of aliens, drugs, and
other illicit traffic into our country. That is why I strongly support
the President's decision to unlock additional funding for physical
barriers, including resources from the Department of Treasury and the
Department of Defense.
Moreover, I applaud the President's decision to declare a National
emergency. This is a crisis--pure and simple--and we need to respond
accordingly. We cannot stand idly by as our border security is further
compromised and our immigration laws are exploited. Now is the time to
act and to uphold our fundamental responsibility to our citizens and
our Nation to safeguard U.S. territory. Although we may disagree on
solutions, I hope there can be a consensus that the current system
requires immediate attention.
Despite these challenges, DHS personnel have worked hard to keep
our communities safe and have done their best to uphold our Nation's
laws. Our agents, officers, and enlisted personnel--those from CBP,
ICE, USCIS, USCG, and beyond--have done an extraordinary job of
prioritizing the highest threats and risks in their operating areas and
going after them. Whether they are apprehending illegal aliens,
interdicting smugglers, conducting life-saving rescues of migrants, or
arresting dangerous individuals sneaking between our ports of entry--
the work by our DHS personnel on the border is imperative to our
continued security and prosperity as a Nation. DHS is taking an end-to-
end approach to the humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern
Border. Below are examples of the actions we have been taking:
Constructing Border Barriers and Leveraging Technology.--The United
States has long built barriers along its Southern Border, first in 1909
and regularly since then according to need. DHS is now constructing the
first new border wall in nearly a decade, which will improve our
ability to impede and deny illegal entry. Since the first barriers were
constructed in San Diego in 1991, U.S. Border Patrol field commanders
have continued to advocate for border wall and the enduring capability
it creates to prevent illegal entry while allowing additional time for
agents to respond. At the same time, we are aggressively pursuing the
deployment of new technology at our borders to increase the situational
awareness of our agents and officers and to detect illicit activity.
Deploying the U.S. Military.--DHS is grateful for the robust
involvement of Department of Defense (DOD) and National Guard personnel
who have been deployed to support our border security mission. Every
administration since President Ronald Reagan has sent troops to the
border, and other Presidents before him, including President Woodrow
Wilson who deployed 150,000 guardsmen to secure our Southern Border in
1916. Our Nation's troops and enabling personnel are assisting with
surveillance, force protection, logistics, medical response, and much
more. Already these deployments have enabled thousands of drug
interdictions and apprehensions of illegal aliens. We are continuing to
work closely with DOD on expanding barrier protections, as well as
exploring additional ways to collaborate to ensure CBP personnel are
freed up to perform their border security mission effectively and
supported in crisis conditions.
Amplifying Regional Cooperation.--As Secretary, I engage almost
weekly with my counterparts in Mexico and the Northern Triangle
governments of Central America to work toward addressing the migration
crisis at the source. Last month, I met with security ministers from
the Northern Triangle in El Salvador to discuss an action plan to deal
with the crisis. I am pleased to report we reached a breakthrough and
agreed to negotiate a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) to address the
smuggling, trafficking, irregular migration, and formation of caravans.
These efforts will include a whole-of-Government approach to addressing
the security-related drivers of migration and improving border security
in the region. Our joint statement, which outlined a clear path toward
increased collaboration between the United States and Northern
Triangle, emphasized four areas of increased collaboration: Combatting
Human Trafficking and Migrant Smuggling, Countering Organized Crime and
Gangs, Expanding Information and Intelligence Sharing, and
Strengthening Border Security. I look forward to reporting back to
Congress on the signing of the final regional MOC.
Instituting the Migrant Protection Protocols.--Late last year, we
announced a major milestone--the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)--to
address the urgent humanitarian and security crisis at the Southern
Border. We have begun to implement MPP, which relies on long-standing
statutory authority to allow us to return migrants to Mexico to await
the conclusion of their U.S. immigration proceedings while ensuring
they receive all appropriate humanitarian protections. Ultimately, MPP
will allow us to focus more attention on individuals legitimately
fleeing persecution, dissuade those who intend to file false claims,
and bring order to a chaotic flow.
Protecting Vulnerable Populations.--At my direction, DHS personnel
have put in place new policies, procedures, and resources to protect
children and families. This includes surging medical assistance to the
Southern Border to deal with the arrival of large groups and sick
individuals, as well as protocols to ensure that unaccompanied alien
children are not held with individuals who could pose a danger to them
while in DHS custody. We have also doubled-down on our efforts to crack
down on human smuggling and trafficking, including the abuse of
children. And every day the extraordinary men and women of CBP go above
and beyond the call of duty to save lives of migrants in trouble,
including women, children, and infants found abandoned in the desert by
smugglers. These rescue missions, which take place between ports of
entry in remote locations on our Southern Border, are extremely
difficult but also demonstrate our commitment to upholding America's
values and rescuing those who need our protection.
Combating Transnational Criminals.--DHS is stepping up its efforts
to dismantle TCOs. We have reached agreements with governments in the
region to increase action against TCOs, including through greater
intelligence sharing, integrated units of U.S. personnel and partner
agencies, joint investigations, and more. Here at home, we have also
worked with other departments and agencies to take a more holistic
approach to combating TCOs, including improving interagency
coordination structures to take down nefarious groups with greater
precision and coordination.
Countering Illegal Drug Smuggling.--DHS continues to seize
thousands of pounds of illegal and dangerous drugs, including fentanyl,
as they are smuggled into the United States. We are deploying
additional technology and resources at the Southern Border both at and
between ports of entry to help detect and disrupt drug-smuggling
activity. This also includes deeper cooperation throughout the U.S.
Government and with regional partners to find and bring drug smugglers
to justice and dismantle cartels.
Confronting Asylum Fraud.--DHS is putting in place important
measures to reduce asylum fraud and frivolous filings. For example, we
have implemented a ``Last In, First Out'' approach, which means we
prioritize the most recently filed applications when scheduling
affirmative asylum interviews. The aim is to deter individuals from
using our Nation's large asylum backlogs solely to obtain employment.
By cutting down on asylum fraud, we will be able to devote more
attention to applicants who are legitimately fleeing persecution and
require U.S. protection under our laws.
Increased Local Cooperation.--DHS recognizes the inordinate impact
that the surge of illegal migration has had on our border communities,
and we have stepped up cooperation to enlist State and local officials
in our border security efforts. For instance, DHS has doubled the
number of 287(g) agreements with local law enforcement to enlist their
voluntary cooperation on immigration enforcement. At the same time, we
have increased available funds for Southwest Border localities to
provide assistance on border protection through grant programs. DHS is
also working with partner agencies in States, and especially with
county, local, and Tribal agencies to share information, provide
resources, and build communication capacity.
a comprehensive solution
Despite all of our efforts, DHS cannot fix this crisis on its own.
That is why I respectfully request, and will continue to ask, that
Congress pass legislation to fix outdated laws and gaps in our
authorities. These legal impediments hamper enforcement of the law,
weaken border security, and endanger both the American public and the
illegal aliens making the dangerous journey to the Southwest Border.
They are also ``pull'' factors that drive illegal migration and
undermine the territorial integrity of the United States. Only Congress
has the Constitutional authority to enact immigration law. We are,
therefore, completely dependent on Congress to change the outdated
statutes that impede our ability to enforce the law and that handicap
our ability to keep America safe.
There are several key legislative reforms that we need to address
this crisis. Among other actions, we ask Congress to do the following:
Promote Family Unity.--One of the main challenges is the inability
of DHS to keep families together during the immigration proceedings. In
1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) entered into the
Flores settlement agreement relating to detention of minors and their
release. Since that time, litigation on this agreement has continued,
and multiple court decisions interpreting the agreement have impeded
the United States Government's ability to maintain custody of minors
and, now, based on the most recent interpretation, families. The
provisions of the settlement agreement should be superseded by
legislation. Legislation on this issue should be focused on allowing us
to keep families together during their immigration proceedings and
promoting a uniform standard of care and accommodation for minors in
custody, while ensuring our laws are enforced.
Ensure the Safe and Prompt Return of Unaccompanied Alien Children
(UAC).--We must also update our laws to ensure that all UACs who are
not victims of trafficking or persecution (regardless of their country
of origin) can be returned home and reunited with their families.
Current law has created a financial incentive for TCOs, smugglers, and
traffickers to transport UACs to and across our border. The result is
that children are exploited by criminals for their own gain, and are
put in danger. We must stop this exploitation and ensure the safe and
prompt removal of UACs. Government officials in Central America
continue to express to me their urgent desire to have their children
returned home, not harbored in the United States. This requires a
legislative fix.
Crack Down on Asylum Fraud and Protect Those Who Need It.--We have
requested that Congress reform asylum standards to deter fraud and
otherwise ensure that those truly eligible for protection have prompt
access to the judicial system to adjudicate their claim. Specifically,
Congress should legislate a standard that requires that it is more
probable than not that the statements made by the alien in support of
the alien's claims are true. Reforming this standard helps promote the
adjudication of meritorious asylum claims by ensuring those who are
statutorily ineligible for asylum are not found to have a credible fear
of removal.
Safeguard Americans from Dangerous, Criminal Aliens.--We also need
Congressional assistance to update laws that allow criminal aliens to
circumvent the removal process. Right now, the system is broken, and
because of a series of misguided court decisions, DHS is forced to
release dangerous criminal aliens from custody and is unable to remove
others from the United States even when they have been convicted of
serious criminal offenses. Specifically, we must clarify the definition
of ``conviction'' in the Immigration and Nationality Act to address
aliens who receive post-conviction relief or sentence modifications for
the purpose of flouting immigration consequences. In addition, we must
remedy U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court decisions,
including Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016), that have
made it increasingly difficult for ICE to remove convicted aliens on
criminal grounds of removal.
We must also urgently close loopholes created by the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). This
decision generally requires that DHS release a criminal alien ordered
removed who has been detained for 180 days after the period for removal
began unless DHS can show that there is a significant likelihood that
removal can be effectuated in the reasonably foreseeable future. The
result is that we have been forced to release dangerous individuals--
including those responsible for terrible crimes--back into the
population. We must close loopholes created by the Zadvydas decision to
give DHS authority to keep dangerous criminal aliens who are subject to
final orders of removal off our streets and keep our communities safe.
Finally, for the safety and security of the American people, Congress
should ensure that DHS has full authority to detain and remove alien
criminal gang members, alien gang associates, and aliens who
participate in gang-related activities. We must be able to safeguard
Americans from aliens associated with criminal gangs, including
detaining and removing violent gang members such as MS-13.
conclusion
Make no mistake: Despite the challenges DHS faces, we welcome those
who come to us legally--including those who are truly fleeing
persecution. America is a beacon of hope and freedom to the entire
world, and we welcome more immigrants every year than any other nation
on earth. Nevertheless, we must be able to uphold our values and the
rule of law while also maintaining our security.
That is why I call for common-sense solutions--including physical
barriers, fixes to outdated laws, and the resources needed to bring
order to the chaos. Today, I implore Congress to listen to the
solutions offered by those who see this security crisis up close. The
humanitarian crisis can no longer be ignored. The security crisis
cannot be wished away. We must change the status quo now. It will
require bold action to address gaps in our border security that are
being taken advantage of every day.
I thank this committee again for its leadership on this issue, and
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
We allowed you to go over because some people need to hear
you for the first time.
Secretary Nielsen. I greatly appreciate that, sir.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. As I said in my opening
statements, Madam Secretary, we have sent requests for a number
of information to you and we have not gotten the information
back. Can you commit to this committee to get that information
back?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Thompson. It is in detail. It is not where it
needs to be, so I want to encourage you there.
Asylum seekers. A lot of us have had an opportunity to talk
to a number of people involved. Can you tell the committee why
asylum seekers are being turned around, contrary to law?
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, all asylum seekers have the
opportunity to present their case. We are not turning anybody
around.
What we are doing is exercising statutory authority that
enables us, in conjunction with Mexico, to return to Mexico
migrants who have arrived from that country to await their
processing. This is to assure a safe and orderly flow and to
ensure that their humanitarian rights are protected.
Chairman Thompson. So your testimony is that, to your
knowledge, no one presents themselves for asylum and is not
presented their rights as to what they have to do?
Secretary Nielsen. Our policy and processes when we
encounter, as you know, an alien, is we do provide them with
information on their legal rights, their ability to access
counsel.
I am not sure if you are referring to credible fear. If you
do not pass that initial credible fear screening, obviously
then you do not--you can appeal that. But generally speaking,
you do not go on to meet before an immigration judge for your
asylum claim.
Chairman Thompson. So is that something you do in writing?
Or you do it orally?
Secretary Nielsen. Both. Both. They are presented with
information in writing, and then we also, of course, advise
them orally.
Chairman Thompson. Can you present this committee with the
written direction that asylum seekers receive from your
Department when they present themselves?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Chairman Thompson. The other situation is, the President
made a comment that he really didn't need to do the emergency
declaration, he just wanted to do it faster. Do you have any
information for the committee as to what he was talking about?
Secretary Nielsen. My conversations, of course, with the
President, generally speaking, are protected under privilege.
But what I would say is his explanation in general in
public has been that he hoped Congress would act, that it
didn't have to come to issuing the emergency declaration if
Congress had met his request to fund the resources that CBP has
requested.
Chairman Thompson. To your knowledge, are you aware of
family members who have been separated from their children and
deported back to a country without their children?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Thompson. Can you provide this committee with a
list of those individuals?
Secretary Nielsen. I am happy to do that with the one
caveat that, as you know, that is part of on-going litigation
in Ms. L, and as long as there are no privacy concerns from the
court, of course we are happy to provide that. A lot of the
information is in the Ms. L court with respect to each migrant.
I would also just note that, consistent with long-standing
practice and the law, before we deport any alien after they
have gone through the process and receive a final order of
removal, we do ask them if they would like to take their
children with them. At that same time, their consulate or
embassy, for purposes of issuing them travel papers, also asks
them, Would you like to be removed with your children as you
are removed? As part of Ms. L, the judge also asked us to go
back--ask the parents again, in conjunction with the ACLU,
which we did.
So there was no parent who has been deported, to my
knowledge, without multiple opportunities to take their
children with them.
Chairman Thompson. So is this with counsel present?
Secretary Nielsen. I am sorry?
Chairman Thompson. Is this with their attorney present?
Secretary Nielsen. I can't speak to every case with that,
sir.
Chairman Thompson. So what is----
Secretary Nielsen. They have the right to a counsel, as you
know, but the U.S. Government does not pay for that, pursuant
to the law.
Chairman Thompson. So explain how one would acquire counsel
if they don't know it.
Secretary Nielsen. We give them lists of available
resources, legal resources in the area. We work closely with
the NGO's to ensure that they understand the options for that.
Then certainly, when they work with the consulates and
embassies as part of that removal process to receive the travel
authorization, the embassies and consulates also provide them
with information and ability to access counsel.
Chairman Thompson. Some of us have had an opportunity to
see some of the enhanced barriers being placed on ports of
entry. We tried to find a policy directive that said we should
close lanes and put barriers on those, concrete barriers and
barbed wire. Are you familiar with any such policy?
Secretary Nielsen. The general direction for the safety of
the migrants and the officers who work at the ports of entry is
to ensure a controlled environment, particularly after we saw
the violence from one of the caravans in the fall. Many of the
local border chiefs, border--excuse me, the OFO officers at the
ports determined what was needed to ensure that there was
safety and security at the ports. So that is for the migrants,
that is for the officers.
So generally speaking, that was done on a case-by-case
situation with the overall direction to ensure the integrity
and safety of that area.
Chairman Thompson. So there is no written policy?
Secretary Nielsen. It is not a policy, sir, per se. But the
direction is clear--to protect officers and migrants and ensure
a safe and orderly flow.
To do that, we have to make sure that the migrants go
through the designated area. So the enhancements to the port of
entry was to disable them from at their own risk, which we have
seen many times, running across lanes of traffic or trying to
go around a port of entry.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on something you referenced in your
opening statement and then the Chairman probed you on, to more
fully understand this asylum-seeker circumstance.
You made reference in your statement that for many of--
well, first of all, that 90 percent of the asylum seekers are
denied when they actually finally have their hearing. Those 90
percent generally have already blended into the society. We
can't get rid of them.
If we know only 10 percent are going to be approved based
on history, I just don't understand why we are letting people
in while they wait on their hearing. You made reference in your
statement that many of them are allowed to stay in Mexico until
their hearing date.
My question is, why aren't all of them required to stay in
Mexico until their hearing date, so that way we can monitor
them while they are here for the hearing and if they are
approved, they can stay, if they can't, they go back to Mexico?
Is that because of some statutory reason or why?
Secretary Nielsen. It is actually more based around we are
trying to do this in a very reasoned way. So we are expanding
that program across the border. We work and notify the Mexicans
as we do that. You have seen statements made by their
equivalent to Secretary Pompeo and my equivalent that they are
determined to protect the humanitarian rights.
So we do it in conjunction with them. As we expand the
program, we are doing it in a systematic way. But the goal is
to expand that across the border.
Mr. Rogers. So you are trying to get to the point where
only people can get in for the hearing at the time of the
hearing?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Excellent.
What can we help you with to make that happen more rapidly?
Secretary Nielsen. So we have all of the authority we need
from the underlying INA statute. What we are looking for is
additional requests, if any, that we need to come back to you
with. This requires some new things--for example,
transportation from the ports to the courts. So when we have
the court date, we will go back to the port to pick up the
migrant, take he or she to the court. That is not a
transportation need we have had in the past.
So that is just one example, but we are looking through to
see if we can fund those as we expand the program with our
current resources. If not, we would come back with a request.
Mr. Rogers. My understanding is that the Mexican government
has made available asylum to all asylum seekers who have been
coming from south of Mexico into the country trying to get to
the United States. Is that accurate?
Secretary Nielsen. My understanding is they have offered
both asylum to the vast majority, if not all, of the migrants
but they have also offered work permits.
Mr. Rogers. So if somebody is fleeing Venezuela or Honduras
because of their concerns over safety, and they get into
Mexico, by the time they get to Mexico's northern border to
come in our country, there is no danger to them and their
safety.
Secretary Nielsen. My plea to anybody that chooses to take
this journey is to please seek protection as soon in the
journey as possible. It is an extraordinarily dangerous
journey. So my advice to migrants throughout the region is
please accept protection as soon as possible.
Mr. Rogers. OK.
I would like to give you some time--you made reference to
the Northern Triangle that you--in your opening statement--if
you would like to talk more about it, would you tell us what
you had in mind?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. So beginning about 9 months ago, I
traveled to the region many times between the border and the
Northern Triangle in Mexico. I have been there about 25 times
and have had multiple discussions with my partners in the
Northern Triangle.
What we are working on together are ways to dismantle
transnational criminal organizations, to identify the criminals
who are preying on the vulnerable populations, to work with
international organizations such as UNHCR to increase asylum
capacity in the region, to make sure that we are sharing
information so we understand who is in the flow--that latter
relates to the increases in special interest aliens that are in
the flow--and to make sure that we can keep families together.
So how can we design a system that begins at the start to make
sure that migrants are protected and they don't need to take
this dangerous journey?
Mr. Rogers. Great. Do you know how much the smugglers
charge people to get across the border generally?
Secretary Nielsen. So it varies. Our estimates and then
most recently as last week what we heard from Mexican
counterparts is about $6,000 a migrant. It is more for
families.
Mr. Rogers. To your knowledge do they coach the migrants as
to what to say when they get to the border to be able to get
in?
Secretary Nielsen. We have seen instances, absolutely,
throughout the region where they are provided information on
pieces of paper. There are also advertisements through social
media. There is a WhatsApp conversation particular to this, to
give them, if you will, specific words to claim credible fear
once they reach our border.
Mr. Rogers. Great.
Thank you. My time is expired. I appreciate your service.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Member for holding this hearing and the Chairman's leadership
on the issues.
Madam Secretary, let me thank you for your service.
Over of the past couple of months, I am very proud of the
Members of this committee, particularly my colleagues on the
Democratic side, who almost everyone have been to the border
because of their desire to be proficient and efficient on
making the right decisions.
So my knowledge of this committee has been that every
single Secretary of Homeland Security I have had a terrific
working relationship with regardless of the Presidential
politics or party, because our commitment here is to secure the
Nation. I believe if a horrific tragedy happens again, it is
this committee and that in the Senate that will be looked to by
the American people to devise the right approach.
Do you believe that you, as Secretary of Homeland Security,
have the independence of the White House to make the right
decisions? Can you independently make a decision in contrary to
the President of the United States on behalf of the American
people for what is best for them?
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am, what I can tell you is I take my
oath with utmost extreme importance. I always do my best.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Is that your oath to the American people
or your oath to the President of the United States?
Secretary Nielsen. No, ma'am. The oath, as you know, is to
the Constitution and the people.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right, and in that vein, do you have the
ability to make independent determinations?
Secretary Nielsen. I do what I believe is best for the men
and women of DHS and this country.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Have you advised the President on his
emergency declaration? Have you given him the grounds for this
emergency declaration in the context of what emergency means?
Secretary Nielsen. What I have done is I have given him all
the facts from the men and women working at the border, many of
whom I know you have met with, and thank you for that. So what
I do is I give him the operational reality. Here is what we are
facing, here is what we are seeing, here are the facts. By my
read of it, it is an emergency, it is a dual crisis. That is
the information I provide.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, if there is any data that you have
given him in particular, I am going to request that it be made
available to this committee, whether in a Classified session,
or not, in writing. If there have been any memos that you have
directed to the President that would have given him the basis
of calling for, in my opinion, a false emergency declaration, I
will not judge your data, and you are giving facts, then I
would like that to be submitted to this committee. Let me----
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am, if I could, I would be remiss if
I didn't say, much of the information that I give in private to
the President, of course, is covered under confidentiality
privileges. We are happy to give you any information that we
work on from the operators, we are very transparent. Most of
that information, as you know, is published on our website.
Happy to give you that. But I would not be able to speak to any
particular conversation I had with the President.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I will not dwell on that. I will
leave this to the Chairman of the full committee on the
question of confidentiality. I think Members of Congress are
due Classified information and there is a question of
confidentiality or privilege. I am not sure what you are
exerting here. But I would offer that----
Secretary Nielsen. I am not--it is not mine to exert or
waive.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. So I would say that I would want
the material that you had provided to the President of the
United States to make his decision.
Let me ask you, do you have a census of all of the children
that are being detained in the various facilities, both the
ones at the border and others, that are in partnership with
HHS? Do you know how many young people are detained?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am. I don't have that number in
front of me. We have all of the numbers----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Would you provide that for me?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. The next question is, what is the pathway
of reuniting those children detained? My number is about
12,000-plus. What is the pathway for reuniting those children
presently existing in detention centers who have been there for
1 year, 2 year, 3 years-plus?
Secretary Nielsen. So, the best data that we have is the
data that is been approved from the Ms. L case. I believe you
all have access to that. I don't want to take up time, unless
you would like me to, in reading it. But it walks through how
many children remain in the custody----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But can you give me a number for the
record?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So, there is--sure. It breaks down
two--of the original 2,816 that the court identified, 2,735
have been discharged.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. But I am asking you for those that
are in the partnership between Homeland Security and HHS, you
have centers around the Nation, some run by Southwest Keys,
upwards of 12,000 children. Have you tried to reunite them with
some guardian or family member?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So, HHS is, as you know, under
TVPRA, it is required to find a sponsor for the child. That is
what they do. So that is part of----
Ms. Jackson Lee. That is a program that I designed and I
believe that it should be in cooperation. I would ask you on
the record not to give the answer now but I need to know the
numbers and how many are being reunited. Because ICE has
represented that they are stopping those families from being
reunited.
Secretary Nielsen. ICE is not stopping families from being
represented. There are 3----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Reunited.
Secretary Nielsen. Reunited. There are 3 instances, long-
standing practice, which CBP, not ICE, encounters a family unit
presenting as a family unit, where separation may be necessary.
The first one is if the adult accompanying that child is not a
parent or legal guardian. The second, if there is a risk to the
child. The third is if the parent otherwise needs to go to a
custodial prosecutorial setting.
Long-standing process, the numbers are not high, happy to
provide them with you. But that is what CBP does at the border
for the protection of the child.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will have
questions for the record. Thank you. The answers have not been
given. Thank you so very much.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. Chair recognizes
the gentleman from New York, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, thank you for your service and I appreciate you
being here today. I would like to focus, if we could, on
unaccompanied minors, specifically involving MS-13. My
district, unfortunately, is probably the epicenter of MS-13. We
had a series of 25 murders within 18 months in the fall of 2015
to the spring of 2017. I think almost all the victims were
immigrants, documented and undocumented.
So it was a slaughter within the immigrant community. What
we found was that many of those murders were carried out by
unaccompanied minors. I think in the most recent series of
indictments, of the 11 indicted for murder, 7 of them had come
across as unaccompanied minors.
Let me commend your Department and others. Since April
2017, there have been no murders. There are 25 in the previous
18 months, none in Suffolk County since then. I commend you for
that. HSI has done an outstanding job. FBI, Justice Department,
are working in conjunction with the Suffolk and Nassau County
police. So I thank you for that.
But what was found at the time was that these minors coming
across, a number of them, were actually sent by MS-13 or--if
they weren't sent by MS-13, the families that volunteered to
take them in from HHS were either supporters of MS-13 or had
relatives back in Central America whose lives were being
threatened if they did not take them in. Then they went into
the schools and in certain schools, there are actually areas of
the school that were taken over by MS-13 young people.
Again, as I said, a series of the--and lots of those
murders were carried out by MS-13. What the police said at the
time was, they were concerned that there was no vetting when
these unaccompanied minors--I know they get turned over to HHS
so this is more--maybe more of an HHS issue than yours.
But again, as to whether or not they had any MS-13
connections, nor was there any vetting of the families who were
volunteering to take them. Nor were the local police notified
when these unaccompanied minors were coming into these school
districts. The school district had no choice but to take them.
So, I ask you now, is there increased vetting as to knowing
whether or not these unaccompanied minors have any MS-13
connections, whether or not the families volunteering to take
them have MS-13 connections, and are local law enforcement
notified when these unaccompanied minors come into their
districts?
Secretary Nielsen. Thank you. Let me take them in bite
sizes. We do now do background checks. One of the things I was
very concerned about when I came in as Secretary is that we
were not doing enough to protect children to ensure that the
adult coming to pick them up out of HHS care did not pose them
a threat. Certainly one of the threats that could be posed
would be if that adult was part of MS-13.
We now do background checks. HHS uses the information on
that background check to determine the suitability of the
sponsor before they release the child. I am not aware, and I am
happy to get back to you, for the record, I am not aware of HHS
consistently tells communities where UACs are placed and if
there is a concern that the UAC might have gang ties. I am not
aware of that but I am happy to get you that information from
HHS.
On the front end, when we encounter UACs, certainly if we
believe they are a risk in any way, the brief time that we have
them before we transfer them to HHS, we will separate them out
from the other population of children for the safety of the
other children. But other than that, we do not have a
systematic way to ask UACs or look into their background while
they are in our custody.
Mr. King. Do you feel there is enough cooperation between
DHS and HHS?
Secretary Nielsen. We do work very closely together. Day to
day, we share the modeling, the projections, what children are
coming in, what children they are releasing. It does, in my
opinion, need to be a bit stronger with respect to ensuring
that the sponsors do not pose a threat.
Mr. King. OK. Thank you, Secretary.
Again, thank you for your efforts. It has been--again, that
drop-off for murders has been phenomenal. From 25 to zero. So
thank you very much.
Chairman Thompson. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, welcome. Thank you for being here today.
Now let me establish, from the outset, that we all want
stronger border security. The question is what is the most
efficacious way of getting us there and not creating a solution
that fills a political promise but doesn't really achieve
strong border security.
So I want to just follow up on an issue brought up by the
Chairman earlier regarding border crossings. Look, I have long
held that and I have an interest in ensuring that we are making
policy based on sound data and credible threats. So it is my
understanding, and you have testified to some of this this
morning, that your Department keeps accurate statistics of the
number of apprehensions at the border. Is that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. It is, yes.
Mr. Langevin. These statistics are compiled annually by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection and published publicly on
its website. That is correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. We actually compile them monthly
and publish them, but yes.
Mr. Langevin. According to this report, so the number of
apprehensions at the border in 2000 was 1.6 million. Does that
sound right?
Secretary Nielsen. It was over a million. Yes, sir.
Mr. Langevin. OK. These statistics show that in 2018 the
number of apprehensions had fallen to just under 400,000. That
is a drop of 75 percent. Is that right?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sounds about right.
Mr. Langevin. OK. So I have a chart that I would like to
display that shows the change in apprehensions. So I want to
ask you about what the President had said about border
apprehensions. While touring the South Texas border on January
10, the President stated of the Border Patrol, there were so
many apprehensions ever in our history. So, Secretary Nielsen,
what the President said was not accurate, was it?
Secretary Nielsen. I apologize. I don't know the full
context of that. What I can tell you is we have encountered
more family units per month than ever in history.
Mr. Langevin. No, no. What the President said, is it
accurate or not?
Secretary Nielsen. I just don't know the context of his
statement, sir. If he was talking about family units in a
particular sector, that is----
Mr. Langevin. No, no. I am talking about the number. We
went from 1.6 million in 2000, apprehensions, and 400,000 in
2018. The President said that there were never so many
apprehensions at the border in history, up until now. Is that
accurate? Was the President accurate?
Secretary Nielsen. Again, it depends on the context,
because it depends on the type of migrant, sir.
Mr. Langevin. OK. It is either--the 400,000 figure is
either accurate or it is not. If it is accurate then the
President was not accurate. Is that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Again, we have had monumental high
numbers in some areas of the border----
Mr. Langevin. Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to get a yes
or a no. It seems self-evident----
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, I just don't know the----
Mr. Langevin [continuing]. To me.
Secretary Nielsen. I just don't know the context of his
statement.
Mr. Langevin. OK.
Secretary Nielsen. So I am trying to give you my most
accurate testimony. What I can tell you is that, in some
places, we have had record months of families. In some areas,
we have had record numbers of apprehensions.
Mr. Langevin. OK. Well----
Chairman Thompson. The gentleman, I think he is asking for
the total number, not a selected category.
Secretary Nielsen. The total number, we are on track for
this year for 900,000 apprehensions at the border.
Chairman Thompson. But that wasn't the question.
Secretary Nielsen. OK.
Mr. Langevin. Is the President misleading the American
people? Is he accurate in what he is saying? It is the largest
amount of detentions or is it not, apprehensions at the border?
Secretary Nielsen. In some categories, we have had record-
breaking apprehensions.
Mr. Langevin. OK. Well, the President has claimed--and the
way I read it, it has misled the American people. It gave the
public fundamentally flawed factual information on a key border
question. Did you take any steps to correct the information
when the President stated what he did?
Secretary Nielsen. We provide information that we gather
from CBP and, well, all of our components for that matter. We
provide them as a matter of course, to the White House, and we
try to put those numbers in context.
Mr. Langevin. Well, Madam Secretary, you know, the reason I
ask these questions is they really go directly to the heart of
the rationale for the President's emergency declaration. The
President has been telling the public that there is an
emergency at the border because crossings and apprehensions are
at record-high levels.
But as you really have conceded yourself in the testimony,
the facts are exactly the opposite when you are talking--
looking at the actual number. Apprehensions today are
substantially smaller than they were 20 years ago. So my time
is expired, but it is inaccurate. It is deceitful, I believe,
to be inflating numbers or making statements that are not
accurate. The President is just wrong.
Secretary Nielsen. Chairman, would you mind if I just
responded briefly? What I would say, sir, if the larger
question is about the emergency, unfortunately, what we are
seeing is a very different situation. So it is not just the
number. It is the abuse of the migrants along the way. It is
the sexual abuse. It is the violence. It is the new phenomenon
that we see of large groups coming, which the system was not
prepared to care for.
Many of our facilities were made for maybe 100 people a
day. We are seeing 1,800 family units in a given sector on a
given day. So when you put all of the facts together, the
problem is not just the vastly increasing numbers, and again,
we jumped another 30 percent from last month. But it is the
type of migrant that our system is not set up to protect.
Originally, it was single adults from Mexico; now it is
mostly Central Americans, and the vast majority are vulnerable
populations, which are families and children. All of that
together is a crisis, because the system is not built for that
type of flow.
Chairman Thompson. Well, Mr. Langevin, we will follow up
with some more direct information on that. I would ask the
Secretary if yes or no would be very helpful in some of the
questions that you asked. I think that is what Mr. Langevin was
really trying to get to. Not anything else.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, welcome to this committee. I have been
following the border probably longer than I care to--back when
I was a U.S. attorney, Western District of Texas, to 15 years
on this committee, a Chairman of this committee. Hard to get a
good solution, but I can tell you, at least as I see it, and I
just want to get your understanding, that the threat has
changed.
It used to be in the old days, we had predominantly males
crossing for work. Now we have more family units than ever
crossing because the coyotes understand the legal loopholes
that we talked about. They now know how to exploit them and
they are. They are making a heck of a lot of money off it in
the process and putting children in harm's way up that
dangerous journey as they go northbound. In fact, in February,
I think the apprehensions were 76,000 immigrants that were
apprehended at the border.
Then you throw on the fentanyls, the meth labs, dangerous
drugs coming into this country, the human sex trafficking. I
think it is a crisis. I think the President is correct in
saying it is an emergency and that we need dire action now.
I am disappointed we didn't pass the Goodlatte-McCaul bill
last November. I think it would have solved a lot of these
problems. But about every Democrat voted against it and 20
Republicans voted against it. That was a historic opportunity
and here we are talking about this problem when we know that
the laws are the magnet that draw them into the United States
of America.
Until Congress acts--I look at you and I feel not sorry
but--it is not your fault. It is Congress that has failed to
act to solve this problem. Until Congress acts to solve the
problem, we are going to continue to have this constant problem
on our border.
I think the President is doing everything he can, in a
creative way, as well, to get security down there that I think
is very important. But I want to also talk about root causes.
You talk about the Northern Triangle. You spent a lot of time
down there, I am going down with the--put my foreign affairs
hat on, the Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee and I are
going down to Colombia, to Venezuela. You have got 3 million
migrants coming out of Venezuela into Colombia and they are
probably going to start heading up north.
This is a humanitarian crisis and it is worse. We are going
down there, and we are also going to go to the Northern
Triangle. Can you tell us the latest on this Central American
Security Initiative and how we can stop these families from
making--paying $6,000--you must be very desperate to say, Here,
Coyote, let me give you $6,000 to take my child up north. Very
desperate situation. What can we do to stop that desperation?
Secretary Nielsen. I would just--in the time that I have,
let me just give you a couple examples and I can also refer
back to a question that Congresswoman Jackson Lee asked me. The
number of unaccompanied children is part of the humanitarian
crisis. These are children whose parents decided to send them
alone on a very, very dangerous journey at the hands of, most
often, smugglers and coyotes or traffickers, into the United
States.
What we hear from the Northern Triangle governments, they
have said this publicly, I am sure that they will tell you when
you visit them, is they want their children back. Our laws
uniquely allow us to send Mexican children back home after they
have gone through a process, and/but do not have a legal right
to stay. But under the law, we cannot send children from other
countries back except for Mexico and Canada.
So the Northern Triangle governments have said to us, they
will say to you, Please send us our children back. We want them
reunited with their families and communities here. We don't
want the smugglers to be able to convince parents to send
children on this perilous journey where they are absolutely
victims of violence and abuse.
As you know, sir, very unfortunately, because of the
increase of violence, at ICE, when we have families with
children, we have to give every girl a pregnancy test over 10.
This is not a safe journey. So I ask again that we change the
law, we treat all children the same, and we afford them the
opportunity to go back home if they have no legal right to be
in the United States.
The other part of this that I think we need to do is we
need to find a way to be able to keep families together.
Families need to be able to be kept together, go through the
process. If they have a legal right to stay, we will welcome
them here. If they don't have a legal right to stay, the most
humanitarian thing to do is to remove them efficiently and
effectively. Both of those changes we need from Congress.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I see my time is
expired.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Miss Rice.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I just want to ask you to qualify the
question that was asked before. Can you confirm that there has
never been a parent deported under your tenure without finding
out if they want their children to go with them? Simply yes or
no. Can you confirm that?
Secretary Nielsen. To the best of my knowledge, every
parent was afforded that option.
Miss Rice. OK. Secretary Nielsen, on June 17, 2018, you
tweeted, We do not have a policy of separating families at the
border. Period. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced
the Justice Department's zero tolerance policy to prosecute all
individuals who crossed the border outside of ports of entry.
He made that announcement on April 6, 2018.
In a memo to you, dated April 23, regarding the Justice
Department's zero tolerance policy, CBP Commissioner Kevin
McAleenan, USCIS Director Francis Cissna, and then-ICE Acting
Director Thomas Homan stated DHS could also permissibly direct
the separation of parents or legal guardians and minors held in
immigration detention so that the parent or legal guardian can
be prosecuted pursuant to these authorities. Did you read that
memo? Yes or no.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Miss Rice. Did you concur with this assessment made by your
component agency leaders? Yes or no.
Secretary Nielsen. There are many assessments in there. I
concurred with their recommendation on what to do to increase
consequences for those crossing the border illegally.
Miss Rice. The piece that I just read, do you concur with
that?
Secretary Nielsen. I am sorry, could you read that
particular----
Miss Rice. DHS could also permissibly direct the separation
of parents or legal guardians and minors held in immigration
detention so that the parent or legal guardian can be
prosecuted pursuant to these authorities. That specific
statement----
Secretary Nielsen. As I understand it, we have the legal
authority to do that, yes.
Miss Rice. Did you agree with that?
Secretary Nielsen. What I agreed to do is----
Miss Rice. No, did you agree with that----
Secretary Nielsen. But that wasn't----
Miss Rice [continuing]. Assessment that they made?
Secretary Nielsen. That wasn't a recommendation, ma'am. It
is a legal--it is a legal statement. We do have the legal
authority to do it, as I understand it.
Miss Rice. Were you aware that the zero-tolerance policy
would lead to minors being separated from their parents? Yes or
no.
Secretary Nielsen. As we increased consequences for those
who break the law, just as everywhere----
Miss Rice. Yes or----
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am----
Miss Rice. I have such limited time, Madam Secretary. I am
sure you can appreciate that. Can you please----
Secretary Nielsen. As a--as a consequence----
Miss Rice. Just answer yes or no?
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. For a parent going to jail,
we in this country do not take the children to jail.
Miss Rice. So I take that as a yes, that you understood
that the zero tolerance policy was going to lead to minors
being separated from their parents?
Secretary Nielsen. As it has in the last three
administrations.
Miss Rice. OK. So the answer is yes. At the end of
February, Buzzfeed News reported that you did not issue
guidance on how to implement the zero-tolerance policy until
May 4, which was about a month after the Attorney General
Sessions announced the policy. Did you discuss this policy with
Attorney General Sessions before he announced it on April 6?
Yes or no.
Secretary Nielsen. This was an on-going discussion.
Miss Rice. No, yes or no. Did you discuss the zero-
tolerance policy with the then-Attorney General Sessions before
he made the announcement on April 6? Yes or no.
Secretary Nielsen. At some time before the announcement, we
had the conversation. I did not know he was making that
announcement that day.
Miss Rice. But you knew--you had a conversation with him
about the zero-tolerance policy, yes or no?
Secretary Nielsen. Zero tolerance means prosecuting those
who break the law, yes, we as law enforcement agencies----
Miss Rice. Yes, thank you.
Secretary Nielsen [continuing]. Talk about prosecuting
those who break the law----
Miss Rice. Thank you. Thank you. So then why did you wait
until May 4 to issue implementation guidelines?
Secretary Nielsen. Because we wanted to work within the
Department to ensure we could do it in an appropriately safe
way with compassion. As you mentioned the memo from my
component heads came April 23. I then issued after many
consultations with them the direction to increase prosecution
between ports of entry, which is the only place where that is
against the law, for all adults coming across the border
illegally.
Miss Rice. So we all know the results of the policy, and
the compassionate, lack of compassion----
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am, it is not a policy, it is the
law. We enforce the law.
Miss Rice. The policy is a policy. You just talked about
discussing that policy with the then-attorney general. So I
have 1 minute left, I have three quick questions. During your
tenure as Secretary, how many times have you waived
environmental regulations required under the Endangered Species
Act for border barrier construction?
Secretary Nielsen. There are multiple laws that we look at,
I can get you----
Miss Rice. I am asking you specifically about this----
Secretary Nielsen. I understand, and I am trying to answer
it. I believe 4 or 5----
Miss Rice. Four or 5----
Secretary Nielsen. But I will get you the exact answer.
Miss Rice. During your--thank you. During your tenure as
Secretary, how many times have you waived environmental
regulations under the Clean Water Act for border barrier
construction?
Secretary Nielsen. It would be the same number. Again, I am
happy to get you the exact number.
Miss Rice. OK. During your tenure as Secretary how many
times have you waived environmental regulations under the Clean
Air Act for border barrier construction?
Secretary Nielsen. It should be the same. I will get you
the number.
Miss Rice. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. The Chair now
recognizes gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko.
Mr. Katko. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
kind words about my father, I very much appreciate it. Welcome,
Ms. Nielsen, it is nice to see you again. I have a rather
unique perspective on the border and I know a lot of people are
going to talking about the immigration component.
But the crisis isn't just--not with respect to immigration,
it is with respect to the drugs that are pouring across this
border and that are killing our kids at a rate of 5 an hour for
heroin alone, which is frightening.
One of the big components of that fentanyl, and just a tiny
amount of fentanyl is what is proving fatal, most of the heroin
overdoses now because fentanyl is being mixed with the heroin.
Can you tell me if there has been any significant seizures of
fentanyl at the border recently?
Secretary Nielsen. At the border, yes. In the interior as
well--ICE overall interdicted more--enough fentanyl last year
to kill every American twice over----
Mr. Katko. That is frightening.
Secretary Nielsen. Substantial amounts of fentanyl.
Mr. Katko. So that is enough to kill every single American?
Secretary Nielsen. Twice, yes, sir.
Mr. Katko. Amazing. Now when I was on the border, I was a
Federal prosecutor in El Paso, Texas and I was charged with
going after a cartel-level drug traffickers and we could
literally get on the roof of the U.S. Attorney's Office in El
Paso with binoculars and see one of the cartel member's houses
across the border in Juarez.
So--and I am intimately familiar--based on the prosecutions
I did there, about their patterns and practices. I know that
they use oftentimes the same smuggling routes for drugs that
they use those for human traffickers, as well.
But I also know that when you beef up security and you beef
up scrutiny at the ports of entry, at least back when I was
there in the mid-1990's that they often just simply went around
and avoided the ports of entry. Can you tell me, is that still
holding true today, where if you put a pressure point in one
place, they find the other holes in the border and go across
there?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir, that is still true.
Mr. Katko. OK. So with respect to that, is it important--
isn't it fair to say it is important that if you have--if you
increase the scrutiny at the ports of entry, which is
absolutely critical, that you also need to beef up the other
parts of the border with barriers where necessary, and sensors
and all the other things?
Secretary Nielsen. It is not an either/or----
Mr. Katko. That is exactly right--that is my point.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Katko. OK. So I think it is incumbent when we have this
discussion to understand that we all agree--both sides of the
aisle--that beefing up the ports of entry and the security, and
using the highest technologies we can there is critically
important.
I was always amazed at the ingenuity of the drug
traffickers in secreting the drugs--and humans in vehicles
coming into the ports of entry, so we have got to do that. But
as soon as you do that they are going to go out to the areas
where the weak points are. Can you tell me where some of the
weak points are now that need barriers?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure, particularly in the Rio Grande
Valley which is one of the areas that we will focus on with the
new border funding. El Paso is a particular area where we see
increased flow, particularly with the number of families, it is
well over 1,000 increase in families traveling through that
particular area. Of course when I say El Paso--you know I mean
the sector----
Mr. Katko. El Paso sector, I understand.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir, through the ports of entry. So
those are the two main areas. As you know we have a border
security improvement plan that we provide, that we update each
year and we go in a risk-based way as to where those smuggling
routes and violence are.
Mr. Katko. Now the barrier that is being contemplated, that
has been a subject in much consternation over last several
months, it is not for the entire Southern Border, is it?
Secretary Nielsen. No, sir.
Mr. Katko. How much are we really talking about? How many
more additional miles of barrier are we talking about?
Secretary Nielsen. About 700--a little more than 700.
Mr. Katko. That--and is it fair to say that up until this
administration it is been a pretty bipartisan agreement that
barriers are needed at certain points along the border?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Katko. OK. I want to switch gears, if I may, just for a
moment with respect to cybersecurity, which I am the Ranking
Member of that subcommittee right now. There is a bill that we
are going to be submitting next week that suggests and asks
that a Cyber Security Infrastructure Advisory Committee be
created, similar to what we did with TSA--the ASAC Committee.
Are you familiar at all with that bill, and are you--do you
think an advisory committee is necessary?
Secretary Nielsen. So we are happy to work with you on
that. We do have a critical infrastructure advisory council
already, but we have been looking into whether we need
something that can focus more specifically on cyber because it
is a unique expertise as you all know. So we are happy to
continue to have our staff work with you on technical
assistance on that.
Mr. Katko. Right, and as far as saying that cybersecurity
is probably one of the biggest threats to our country right now
overall, and so the more we can have information flowing going
back and forth between the stakeholders and Homeland Security,
the better it is going to be.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. I know it is not the
particular topic today, but I will just say as I have said
before--the threat to cybersecurity is blinking red, it is
absolutely one of--if not the highest threat that we have faced
in the homeland.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Ms. Nielsen. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. Chair now recognizes
gentleman from California, Mr. Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this most important hearing, and, Secretary Nielsen,
thank you very much for being here as well, ma'am. We just
wanted to very quickly follow up with some of the comments made
from my colleague--learned colleague from New York, Mr. Katko.
Ma'am would you say as they continue to squeeze the
Southern Border, are we going to look--there is so much money
in drugs now.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. You just came back from the Northern Triangle,
you know what's causing all kinds of problems is our U.S.
dollars corrupting those systems in Central America.
So as you continue to squeeze the Southern Border, would
you say our sea ports are also going to be susceptible as being
areas of the smuggling, and possibly the Northern Border--
Canadian border, would you say that is also a place that could
be used--if not now, but in very near future by smugglers to
bring in drugs?
Secretary Nielsen. We do it all based on risk, but yes,
sir, criminals will find a way unfortunately to do whatever
their criminal act----
Mr. Correa. As long as we keep use--paying for those--
unfortunately those illicit drugs people are going to find a
way.
Secretary Nielsen. The drug demand is a very large problem,
yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. Thank you. I am going to shift very quickly
ma'am, and last year, Secretary Nielsen, I sent you a letter
regarding family separation dated June 20, 2018. I have not
gotten a response yet from your office that is satisfactory.
These are black-and-white questions.
I resubmitted this letter to your Border Patrol Chief Carla
Provost last week, and I am going to submit the same letter to
you today. I am hoping that we can work together to find some
answers to these questions on family separations. One of my new
assignments is I am going to be Chair of a subcommittee on TSA
security.
Like everybody else in this committee, we are all concerned
about safety, especially terrorists, anti-terrorists
activities. You stated recently that, to Congress, in fiscal
2017, DHS prevented 3,700 known or suspected terrorists from
coming into the United States. I think most of these were being
stopped at our airports. Is that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Correa. Something like 3,700 were actually stopped by
our TSA agents at airports, maybe less than 100 Southern
Border--excuse me--less than 10 at the Southern Border and more
like 100 at our Northern Borders. That sound about right?
Secretary Nielsen. The majority were through the air
environment. The only thing I would just add is many of them
are actually identified by CBP as part of the vetting before
they travel. So they are either stopped from traveling or, as
you say, stopped by TSA or CBP once they arrive.
Mr. Correa. So this is the work that you do in coordination
with other nations around the world? Brazil--I know Brazil is a
very popular jump-off point to the United States, in terms of
possible suspected terrorists.
Secretary Nielsen. Brazil has a much more open visa
enterprise. So, because of that, yes, sir, we do see it being
exploited, unfortunately.
Mr. Correa. The reason I ask this is because I want to do a
deeper dive into some of these numbers to really put our
resources where we really need to focus on stopping terrorists.
In fiscal year 2018, open-source reporting by CBP data, only 6
suspects caught at the Southern Border. I presume you continue
to have the vast number being stopped at our airports?
Secretary Nielsen. So I can't speak to the--as you can
understand, I can't speak to the particular number of
terrorists stopped at the Southern Border because that is
Classified, at least not in this setting.
Mr. Correa. Correct. I will look forward to working with
you in a Classified setting to address these issues.
Secretary Nielsen. I would be happy to. Just really
quickly, for perspective, though. I would say, as you know,
there is another category called special interest aliens, where
those who have been identified as individuals who travel or
have other aspects that are very similar to a terrorist. We do
have increasing numbers of those coming throughout the system--
Mr. Correa. Let me say, I am running out of time. I want to
work with you on these issues----
Secretary Nielsen. I understand.
Mr. Correa [continuing]. And deeper dive. But our TSA
officers, I am concerned because TSA was put together after 9/
11. They were actually being paid by the airports at that time.
Now, we find out, TSA officers have to be professionals. They
have to be well-trained because we see where the challenge is
when it comes to stopping terrorists coming into the United
States.
So I look forward to working with you and coming up with a
package for some of these officers to make sure they are the
best of the best. Finally, I wanted to say, I was in the
Northern Triangle, I think, the day or so before you were
there.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Correa. I want to say, hats off to those northern
tribal countries trying to work with us. I know Honduras, for
example, the jump off point to a couple of those caravans, the
president of Honduras told us that 90 percent of that first
caravan, those folks had actually been returned to Honduras.
The second caravan, about 5,000, 60 percent had actually
been returned, and the rest has actually stayed in Mexico. What
I am trying to say, if I would make factual--if I had more time
is, this is not a border issue. This is a regional refugee
challenge.
My colleague, Mr. McCaul, talked about all the refugees
from Venezuela to Colombia, but this is a refugee issue.
Mexico, I understand, is holding a lot of those refugees and
offering them, in your words, permits to stay, work permits. I
am hoping we can turn the discussion from building a wall to
border security to addressing a refugee crisis in this
continent.
The one--if I may, Mr. Chairman, the one word people in
Central America kept repeating to me was folks in Central
America want hope, hope for a better life, a better job, some
security. I hope you can sit down and put the political
rhetoric aside and focus on giving these human beings a little
bit of hope of staying and building lives.
Mr. Chair, I yield.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Nielsen, for being here today. Secretary Nielsen, what is the
volume of drugs that is coming through the Southern Border
illegally?
Secretary Nielsen. I don't have--I don't have the exact
figure at my fingertips, but it is going up, particularly
cocaine, methamphetamines and, unfortunately, fentanyl.
Mr. Walker. Our numbers show, since fiscal year 2012, about
15 million pounds seized. Does that sound--that is in the
ballpark?
Secretary Nielsen. It does, but it sounds like it might not
include the Coast Guard.
Mr. Walker. OK. So, 15 million pounds, that--would you say
that is a crises, 15 million pounds?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walker. We talked about fentanyl a little bit earlier,
a drug so powerful that less than 5 pounds can kill over a
million people. Our numbers show that almost 1,700 pounds in
fiscal year 2018. Is that somewhere in the ballpark?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Walker. Would that be a crisis to the DHS?
Secretary Nielsen. It is because it is a extraordinary
danger to our communities, but it is also a danger to those who
are inspecting packages. We have spent a lot of time on
training. We had to do a lot of things differently, even for
the dogs who were dying just by virtue of breathing the fumes
from the fentanyl.
Mr. Walker. We have talked about the massive amount of
individuals--or people coming across the Southern Border. Do
you have any estimates per year of what that looks like?
Secretary Nielsen. We are on track right now to be at
900,000 this year.
Mr. Walker. Are apprehensions of family units and aliens of
accompanied alien children increasing or decreasing right now?
Secretary Nielsen. They are increasing extraordinarily
rapidly. Family units went up about 30 percent from last month,
and the same for UACs. Those are the two vulnerable populations
that are dramatically increasing.
Mr. Walker. Yes, I think in the fiscal year 2018, the
number was 107,000. Already, the first 4 months of fiscal year
2019 that starts in October is 99,000. Now, have you had a
chance to meet former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Walker. OK. I wonder if we would also consider this a
crisis, because, since the previous administration, that number
has increased 572 percent. My question, at what point does it
become a crisis?
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, if you ask the men and women of DHS
they would tell you, when one migrant dies, when one person is
not afforded the opportunity to efficiently claim asylum, they
would tell you--for a community that has been the victim of
violence due to criminals that come in that flow, they would
tell you, any--it just takes one. It takes one terrorist, it
takes one criminal to ruin a family's lives, and it takes one
overdose to kill an American.
Mr. Walker. Did you have any idea of the level of how
difficult and dangerous the issue was just a few years ago
before you took the position? Or has this been something that
has been sort-of a knowledge that you have ascertained since
you have been in the position of Secretary?
Secretary Nielsen. I, before becoming Secretary, did not
have the opportunity to speak in detail to the men and women on
the front lines. No, I was not aware of how dangerous a
situation it is.
Mr. Walker. Do you think most Americans truly understand
how dangerous this situation is?
Secretary Nielsen. I do not, no.
Mr. Walker. If most Americans had a chance to go to the
border, would they consider this a crisis?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir, just by the pure numbers
coming in and our inability of the system to properly take care
of them.
Mr. Walker. What kind of job do you say the men and women
that work for Immigrations Custom and Enforcement, ICE, what
kind of job on the front lines are they doing?
Secretary Nielsen. Extraordinary. They work every day, many
times at risk of their own lives. Assault on Border Patrol
agents continue--or, excuse me, on Border Patrol officials
continue to rise.
They do it with compassion. They live in these communities.
They enforce the law, but they want to make sure and continue
to ask me to ask to Congress to change the laws so that the
system can be more humane.
Mr. Walker. You know, we talk a lot about as far as people
having input who actually are on the front lines doing the
work. I--according to our numbers--in 2017--we talk a lot about
children and we should.
We should make sure that we restore as many children as we
can. I did hear the three reasons of why that may be a problem
sometimes prosecutorial, the guardian poses a risk or there is
another issue that you have to take a look at.
But according to our numbers there were 906 children that
were rescued from exploitation just in 2017. Does that number
match your numbers, as well?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. Human trafficking and child
exploitation are something that we are working on. We are about
to release the first ever DHS strategy to combat that. But yes,
the numbers are going up.
Mr. Walker. So all of these numbers continue to go up,
whether it is the human trafficking or it is the drug
smuggling. The former colleague just talked about the more we
squeeze the border. Well, evidently the numbers continue to
rise. So as we look at all these numbers, in summary, can you
tell the American people this is not manufactured crisis, this
a legitimate National emergency?
Secretary Nielsen. This is a legitimate National emergency,
this is a twin crisis, and we can do better as a country. We
have to have a system where we can protect vulnerable
populations, we can secure our border which is our sovereign
responsibility, we can protect communities, while facilitating
legal trade and travel.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the young lady from New Mexico,
Ms. Torres Small.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Nielsen. I am the only Member on this committee
that represents a Southern Border district. In fact, I
include--and it includes 180 miles, almost, of that Southern
Border and a lot of it is remote, rugged terrain. We have seen
in recent months that my district has experienced more migrant
families showing up between ports of entry and--such as the
boot heel of New Mexico.
As we have learned through the tragedy of two migrant
children deaths under CBP custody, most of the CBP facilities
near these rural areas aren't equipped to process large groups
of migrants. We have to ensure that our agents on the ground
have the adequate resources and technology to effectively
patrol these areas, keep our communities safe, and provide
quality care to migrants voluntarily presenting at our border.
What changes in policies and procedures have you
implemented to ensure that CBP can adequately adapt to the rise
of people voluntarily presenting at the border and who are
showing up between ports of entry, specifically in these remote
areas?
Secretary Nielsen. So what we have done, I would take it a
couple different ways. On the health screening, as you know,
unfortunately particularly because of those remote areas, many
of the migrants when they reach our border are very sick.
So I have worked with CDC, we have worked with HHS, we have
worked with the local communities. I have spoken to your
previous Governor and your current Governor about this exact
issue. I have asked my bipartisan advisory council to look at
this particular issue on families and children and what we can
do better.
We have increased our medical screening. We screen every
child that comes into CBP care. ICE, as you know, if the
migrants proceed onto ICE detention, do receive, within 7 days,
a full medical checkup. So we focused a lot on the--on the
medical part.
In terms of the ability to understand what migrants are
coming through remote areas, we are working much more closely
with Mexico to identify the flows so that we can have CBP there
to rescue them as soon as possible. As you know, we rescued
4,300 in distress last year alone, many of them coming through
remote areas where they are dehydrated, they are cold, they are
otherwise sick, they haven't had adequate resources and food
for quite some time.
So we continue to look at all of the processes, but this is
something that we are trying to do the best we can within the
limited resources that we have.
Ms. Torres Small. One of the issues that I didn't quite
hear addressed there is transportation.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Ms. Torres Small. As you know, one of the children who
died, part of the challenge was the transportation to a medical
facility. So sometimes the hardest but most-learned lessons
come from past failures. What is the status of the
investigation into the deaths of those two children? When will
you release the results of those?
Secretary Nielsen. So, as I understand, the status of the
investigation right now is with the medical examiner. So until
the medical examiner in both cases releases their final
findings, our Office of Professional Responsibility and our
investigator general cannot complete their report. I did ask
this question recently, I have not been able to ascertain from
the ME when that will be done. But as soon as that will be
done, the other parts of the oversight will wrap up their
investigations and I am sure they will provide, as appropriate,
their findings.
Ms. Torres Small. Do you have any sense of a time line?
Secretary Nielsen. I don't. I have asked, of course, that
we do it as quickly as possible. There are some extenuating
circumstances there. I think the ME is trying to look at
information about the health of the child as they traveled
along the journey. So I really don't. I wouldn't want to speak
for them.
Ms. Torres Small. What can you do to make sure that it
comes--happens as quickly as possible, as you said?
Secretary Nielsen. I can just keep bugging them and ask
that we do it very speedily so that we can incorporate any
lessons learned into our processes and procedures.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. Are you looking into the
policy of metering at the ports and how that might increase the
role of human traffickers to take migrants between ports of
entry and also drive them to these rural areas?
Secretary Nielsen. So, it does--as I mentioned earlier, it
does have to be an ``and'' approach, it can't be an ``either/
or'' approach. The queue management at the ports is simply to
ensure that CBP can perform all its statutory missions but,
very importantly, to protect the migrants coming in. As you
know, when you have seen the facilities, they were built for
maybe 100 people a day. They are just not adequate to process
and hold large numbers of people.
Ms. Torres Small. One of the challenges, though, is if you
are controlling it at the ports of entry, they can still go to
a place between the ports of entry where there is the same lack
of facilities and sometimes worse. So are you looking at that
impact?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am, and that is why our
operators have asked for impedance and denial in the form of
obstacles.
Ms. Torres Small. Thank you. What has done--CBP done to
minimize attrition in hard-to-fill locations such as Lordsburg
or Deming to make sure that we have agents in our most remote
stations?
Secretary Nielsen. So, we continue to look at this, I know
we are running short on time. I am happy to work with you. We
work closely with the unions on this issue. We are looking at
everything from retention bonuses to ability to add additional
salary when we transfer, additional benefits on the backend,
but, yes, this is a problem that we take very seriously and
where we are working with all parties on.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
Chair now recognizes gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
thank you for your time, your dedication to our country and for
your devotion to restore sovereignty along our Southern Border.
My colleague earlier, Representative Langevin, put a graph up.
I have asked that it be put back up, that request had been
declined. But I will refer to it because it certainly shows
that an all-of-the-above strategy to secure our border works.
Since 2000, our colleague's graph showed a decrease in illegal
apprehensions.
Since 2000, 19 years ago, we have built more than 650 miles
of physical barriers along the border to help control illegal
crossings. We have deployed sensor technology and increased
Border Patrol staffing. This is exactly why--and a bipartisan
solution exists before us, my friends, and it does not make
sense to me why this has become a partisan issue since
President Trump's election. Physical barriers, technology,
enhanced capacity to respond, they work.
This does not mean the current crisis does not exist. Let
me just put this in context for the American people. Perhaps
the most famous invasion in the history of the world, D-Day,
73,000 American troops landed in the D-Day invasion. We have
76,103, according to my numbers, apprehensions along our
Southern Border last month. We have a D-Day every month on our
Southern Border.
Just to put this in context for America, yes, physical
barriers work. Enhanced technology works. The ability to
respond and arrest, to process works. Of course, none of us
want to separate families. We, as Congress, we have to fix the
laws and allow these law enforcement professionals to do their
job. I know the men and women of Border Patrol be highly
professional and patriotic in their mission to secure our
border.
I know first-hand from my experience as a cop, from my
service on this committee, and from standing alongside front-
line defenders, our border agents deserve respect. They
certainly have mine.
I would like to highlight two cases, Mr. Chairman, which
exemplify the professional manner in which border agents
conduct themselves. On the morning of January 22, a Honduran
gentleman, along with his elderly wife, illegally crossed into
the United States. They were apprehended and taken into custody
by Border Patrol.
A few days later, while still in U.S. custody, the Honduran
gentleman complained he didn't feel well. He had received
medical care, he was immediately brought to a hospital, medical
center in El Paso. Within hours, the Honduran gentleman was
treated by a team of American doctors less than 12 hours after
reporting his discomfort. He had a brand-new pacemaker
surgically implanted. The next day, he was given medical
clearance and his follow-up prescriptions.
American taxpayers gave this man a pacemaker that crossed
into our country illegally. We are certainly a compassionate
and generous Nation.
Another such example involves a forced separation of a
mother and her child by coyotes which, by the way, human
coyotes give our animal friends a bad name. The smugglers
convinced a mother that it was easier to move the pair
separately. They separated the child from their parents, they
left the 3-year-old child on the banks of the Rio Grande.
It was Border Patrol agents who rescued that child. It is
Border Patrol agents who rescue thousands of people from
smuggling and trafficking routes every year. The Southwest
Border is arduous terrain, difficult, inhospitable terrain.
Those who choose to come here illegally do so at great risk to
themselves, their families, and certainly their children if
they bring them.
Madam Secretary, please share with America--how many
rescues did Border Patrol successfully perform last year?
Secretary Nielsen. Over 4,000, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Over 4,000 rescues. Madam Secretary, if you
were given more funding and additional qualified agents, would
you be able to better secure our border and more
compassionately enforce the laws that you have sworn to uphold?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir, again what is important to
understand is first of all this is a National security concern
to protect our border. Second, Congress has directed DHS to
take operational control of the border. I cannot do that with
these laws and with these resources.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam. It is our responsibility to
change the laws where they need to be changed. I am committed
to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner, Mr.
Chairman, to change the laws as necessary. It is the law
enforcement professional's job to uphold those laws and they
are doing so now. I yield.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. The gentleman from
Louisiana complimented our men and women who are doing this
job. For the record, Madam Secretary, how many vacancies to you
have in CBP as of this hearing?
Secretary Nielsen. I am happy to get back to you--what I
can tell you, the good news is last year was the first year
that we were able to hire more than who left. So we are
reversing the trend there.
Chairman Thompson. Give me a guesstimate.
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, I don't want to guess under oath, I
am happy to get you the number.
Chairman Thompson. So if I said you had over 2,000
vacancies what would you say?
Secretary Nielsen. I would say I would be happy to get
you--respectfully sir, I just--I don't have----
Chairman Thompson. Does that sound about right?
Secretary Nielsen. I will get you the number.
Chairman Thompson. A thousand?
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, I will get you the number.
Chairman Thompson. Please get me the number.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Chairman Thompson. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Illinois, Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of
lawyers in this room and I am not a lawyer, I am a nurse. Madam
Secretary, I want to be very clear about what the family
separation policy is doing to children's mental and physical
health. I want to know if DHS even considered their health when
developing these policies.
So I only have 5 minutes, so for these questions I am
looking for a yes or no answer if you could? When you
officially began family separation in spring 2018 were you
aware of research showing it causes trauma that can do both
immediate and long-term damage to children's health?
Secretary Nielsen. The information that I was aware of at
the time was that the trauma is from part of the journey to
come up to the border illegally.
Ms. Underwood. OK--so again, we are looking for yes or no
answers, ma'am.
Secretary Nielsen. That was what I do know within the
context of the question.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Were you aware that the trauma of family
separation is connected to something called toxic stress?
Secretary Nielsen. I have--not familiar with that term, no.
Ms. Underwood. OK, were you aware that toxic stress can
actually change a child's brain because it is still developing?
Secretary Nielsen. I wasn't familiar with the term.
Ms. Underwood. OK, were you aware that the effects of these
traumas are accumulative, they get worse the longer the trauma
goes on?
Secretary Nielsen. Can I--yes, I will--sorry. I would like
to clarify because we are missing a bigger point here, but yes,
ma'am, I am sorry respectfully let me answer your questions.
Ms. Underwood. Were you aware that the traumatic effects
don't go away, even if a child is reunited with their family?
Secretary Nielsen. I understand that they are--no.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Were you aware that family separation
can lead to behavioral changes and learning delays for
children?
Secretary Nielsen. Just to be clear, family separation
includes the 60,000 UACs who are separated by their parents
before they ever got to the border.
Ms. Underwood. I understand. My question is about the
traumatic effects.
Secretary Nielsen. I am--so let me just say this and maybe
it will help you with your questions. Families need to be put
together, children should never be put in this situation.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
Secretary Nielsen. We need to fix the systems so that they
are not.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. Were you aware that family
separation can lead to behavioral changes and learning delays
for children?
Secretary Nielsen. Again, kids should be with their
families.
Ms. Underwood. I--OK, so I will take that as a no. Were you
aware that it increases a child's risk of heart disease,
diabetes, and cancer?
Secretary Nielsen. I would ask all parents to go to ports
of entry, not to separate their children and send them on the
journey alone.
Ms. Underwood. OK----
Secretary Nielsen. And not to break U.S. law.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. Were you aware that it increases
a child's risk of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse? As
a reminder, these are yes or no questions.
Secretary Nielsen. I--ma'am, if I just cut to the chase, I
think we are agreeing children need to be with their families.
We need to fix the system so that we can enable them to do
that----
Ms. Underwood. I understand. Ma'am I am trying to ascertain
your knowledge--your prior knowledge of the health impacts of
these children when they are separated at the border.
The American Psychological Association reports that family
separation is on par with beating and torture in terms of its
relationship to mental health. Were you aware of that research
prior to instituting the policy of family separation?
Secretary Nielsen. We--there is no policy of family
separation. What we did was increase the number of parents that
we referred for prosecution. That is what we have done for the
last three administrations because it is the law----
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. I will take that as a no. Let's
go back even further to the El Paso pilot program for family
separation that reportedly began in 2017. Yes or no, did DHS
consult with any pediatric health experts before beginning the
pilot?
Secretary Nielsen. I was not at DHS at that time, I was
there in July. I was not aware of the pilot at that time. Then
I was working in a different department.
Ms. Underwood. OK, so that would be a no.
Secretary Nielsen. No, ma'am, I just can't speak to it--I
wasn't there----
Ms. Underwood. OK.
Secretary Nielsen. I am not going to speak to what I don't
know.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. Yes or no, did DHS collect or
analyze any medical data from the pilot program to evaluate how
family separation affects a child's physical and mental health?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, as I said I have advisory council
looking at it right now who includes a well-known doctor who is
looking at these issues.
Ms. Underwood. Can you provide a copy of that data and
DHS's analysis to our committee?
Secretary Nielsen. Of course. The report is not finished,
but it is a FACA body, so everything is public.
Ms. Underwood. Great. Did you consult with any pediatric
experts before this policy officially began in the spring of
2018?
Secretary Nielsen. We generally and regularly work with
them, as you know the children are cared for by Health and
Human Services----
Ms. Underwood. Right.
Secretary Nielsen. But to the extent that we have children
in DHS detention centers we follow all guidelines by the AMA--
Ms. Underwood. Right.
Secretary Nielsen. We work very closely with the medical
community.
Ms. Underwood. OK, so then would you provide a copy of that
communication from DHS with those experts to the committee?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure, when it becomes available.
Ms. Underwood. OK. Thank you. So the American Academy of
Pediatrics wrote to DHS 6 times to explain how family
separation hurts children, and made a number of public
statements--yes or no, are you aware of those warnings?
Secretary Nielsen. I am, which is why I continue to ask
this committee to work with me so that parents do not separate
their children. There were 60,000 last year that were separated
by their parents.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you.
Secretary Nielsen. You are talking about 2,000 children
that resulted from their parents choosing to break the law
which is why I have continually asked parents to go to a port
of entry.
Ms. Underwood. Thank you. So from what I have heard today,
I am not sure if DHS was so negligent that they didn't know how
traumatic family separation was for children or if they knew
and did it anyways. But in my opinion, both are unacceptable.
Tearing kids and their parents apart like this immoral--
ma'am, it is un-American and it is just plain wrong. Thank you
for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Nielsen, I
will be following up. I yield back.
Secretary Nielsen. So, sir, I would like to respond
briefly, if I could----
Chairman Thompson. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Arizona, Ms. Lesko.
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, if I could just--if I could just
really quickly because I think it is very important to just put
this in a brief context.
Chairman Thompson. No.
Secretary Nielsen. OK.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Secretary Nielsen. I didn't have any time, just to be
clear, to respond. But OK, thank you, with respect. I
appreciate that.
Chairman Thompson. Madam Secretary.
Secretary Nielsen. Oh, thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Editorializing is not part of the rules.
So I would just remind you of that. The gentlelady from
Arizona, Congresswoman Lesko.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary, for being here. You have a very difficult job, and I
believe you are doing a good job. I have 5 minutes, I have a
question, but I do want you to follow up on what you just
wanted to say.
Secretary Nielsen. I just want to clarify really quickly.
There is so much misunderstanding. There was--the only
instances at which children have ever been separated in the
last 2 years is the 3 instances that I went over, which is
long-standing practice, and when the parents chose to break the
law.
Just like when parents break the law in the United States
of America, we do not put the children in jail with the
parents. So the parents came illegally. If they would come to a
port of entry, there is no family separation. If we pick up a
family in the interior, there is no family separation, which is
why there has never been a comprehensive policy of family
separation. I am sorry, ma'am. Please.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you
categorize or believe that the men and women that are with the
Border Patrol and ICE are experts on illegal immigration and
what is happening at the border, since they are there each and
every day and dealing with these items? Would you believe they
are experts on this?
Secretary Nielsen. I do. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Lesko. Madam Secretary--Mr. Chairman--Madam Secretary,
do you believe--would you say that these men and women who work
for Department of Homeland Security, who have the boots on the
ground each and every day, and are dealing with this, do they
believe that there is a crisis on our Southern Border and a
National humanitarian and security crisis?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. Madam Secretary, as you--as someone
who is the head of this agency, who I assume has gone to the
border numerous times, has talked to Border Patrol agents and
ICE agents and other DHS employees on numerous occasions, do
you consider yourself well-versed in what is happening at our
Southern Border, and what is happening about illegal
immigration in our country?
Secretary Nielsen. I do, yes. I have taken substantial
opportunities to meet with the experts and to understand the
problem and the complexity of the laws.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you. So, therefore, Madam Secretary, I
would ask you, do you believe that we are in a--that there is a
crisis on our Southern Border, that there is a National
security and humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border? Do you
believe that the President of the United States was justified
in declaring a National emergency?
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am, it is an emergency. As a
Secretary of Homeland Security, I can no longer assure you of
who is coming into this country. That is a direct National
security threat. We are on par to have over 900,000 this year,
first of all.
Second of all, I have seen the vulnerable populations. I
have been to Mexico; I have talked to the Northern Triangle
countries. This is a true humanitarian crisis that the system
is enabling. We have to change the laws.
Mrs. Lesko. Thank you, Madam Secretary. You know, I was
here when we tried to pass immigration law last year, which
would have combined common-sense immigration reforms that would
have helped solve some of these problems, especially the
cartels abusing our loose immigration laws on asylum claims.
It would have helped decrease the number of people that are
traipsing thousands of miles to get into the United States,
that you have said 30 percent of the women are being sexually
assaulted. I believe you said, the children--the girls, at 10
years old, have to be tested for pregnancy because of these
sexual assaults that are going on.
This is just--please, my colleagues, please, let's work in
a bipartisan fashion. We were trying to be bipartisan last year
when we tried to pass immigration reform, combined with border
security funding. Unfortunately, not one of my Democratic
colleagues voted for that.
The bill did not pass. Would we please stop being so
partisan on this issue and against President Trump and please,
let's try to solve this problem for the sake of our entire
Nation? Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
To the gentlelady from Arizona, there is no question about
bipartisan, but if--it is just one side. You know, Democrats do
have opinions, and when our opinions are not valued, then we
vote against it. A genuine bipartisan effort in this area and
in other areas would be more than appreciated.
Madam Secretary, according to your records, at the end of
fiscal year 2018, there were 3,740 vacancies in CBP, there was
1,815 vacancies in Border Patrol. So I await your numbers, but
that is a lot of vacancies. If we have some problems, some of
us would say, let's fill the vacancies that Congress has been
so graciously supportive of accommodating you. But almost 5,000
vacancies is a lot of vacancies.
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, if I could really quickly. We would
be happy to work with you on that. As you know, we do have new
hiring strategies. I will just note that it is a very difficult
environment right now. It is a very dangerous job. We have an
increase of 40 percent in assaults on Border Patrol. We are
working to hire, having more fairs, more ways. So, happy to
work with you on that. We agree on the need for additional----
Chairman Thompson. Madam Secretary, I look forward to
working with you. If you bring it to our attention, that it is
a problem, we will work with you. But to my knowledge, it has
not been brought to my attention, as Chair, nor have we ever
had a hearing talking about the problems with filling vacancies
within that Department. If there is an issue to go with it, we
would be more than happy to work with you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan,
Congresswoman Slotkin.
Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary
Nielsen for coming before us. I represent Michigan, so the
Northern Border. I know we are talking a lot about the Southern
Border. Let's remember that we have significant border
locations to our north, and they shouldn't be ignored.
I am also a former CIA officer and DOD official, so I am a
big believer in border security and have spent my life
preventing homeland attacks. But I also believe we have to be a
country of morals and values. The separation of children, it
didn't matter who you were, where you got your news, the vision
of a small child in a cage, separated and crying, I think just
hits everyone's heart. We cannot be a country that perpetuates
that.
So I just want to understand, separated out from the
situation, the unaccompanied minors, which are a large group of
people. There are parents, you are right, send them up here on
their own coming across the border. Leave that aside, because
that was a big problem under the Obama administration, many
administrations before. The separation of families, the
purposeful separation of families once they arrived as a family
unit. Did you initiate the separation of families for the
express purpose of deterring families from coming to the United
States?
Secretary Nielsen. No. I did not. Again, the whole purpose
of that was to increase consequences for those who choose to
break the law. That is a bedrock of our criminal--as you know--
the way that our criminal system works. If there is no
consequence, we do not see the instances of the crime
decreasing.
So what we did was we increased the number of prosecutions.
We didn't make up the law, the law was already there. Former
administrations also referred adult parents for prosecution. We
took the prosecution numbers from about 20 percent to about 55
percent.
Ms. Slotkin. So what did you do? I understand it is
complicated, we have a big bureaucratic system. When you saw
those pictures of babies in cages, what did you do? What did
you do, to just scream bloody murder up the chain to the
President, to say, I cannot represent an agency that is forcing
its Border Patrol to do this? What did you do?
Secretary Nielsen. So I went to the border. I spoke to the
men and women there. I looked at the facilities myself. I
talked to HHS, to understand and visited their facilities, as
well, to understand the care that they provide to the children
once they are in their custody. Then I spent a tremendous
amount of time working with the Northern Triangle in Mexico to
stop the phenomena closer to the source to help stabilize those
areas so that the children and families are not traveling here.
Ms. Slotkin. OK. It just feels like it potentially wasn't
enough if we are still dealing with those separations.
Secretary Nielsen. Just to be clear, we are not. We do not
refer parents currently for prosecution, even when they break
the law by entering our country between ports of entry.
Ms. Slotkin. So switching gears to the Northern Border. So,
I am also very concerned--our border agents do amazing things
every day. We have a much higher volume of traffic of trade
coming through our Northern Border than through our Southern
Border, and I am concerned about the vacancies. Have any border
personnel from the Northern Border been moved and detailed to
the Southern Border to fill staffing gaps? Can you give me a
couple of details on that, if so?
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. We did have--we have surge models
throughout the Department, whether it is FEMA, whether it is
TSA, we do everything based on risk. So when we saw risk in
gaps, we move around the personnel in a temporary fashion to
address that gap.
Ms. Slotkin. I just feel like the attention has all been
focused on the Southern Border when in reality the volume of
trade and then also the people watch-listed, the volume is much
higher coming through the Northern Border.
I think you made some misleading statements, and I think it
is important to be very, very specific when we are talking
about a terrorist threat or watch-listed individuals, some
misleading information about the number of watch-listed
individuals coming through our Southern Border. Can you state
for the record, are more watch-listed individuals coming
through our Northern Border or our Southern Border?
Secretary Nielsen. So I don't remember actually answering
that question. I think the question was about the known or
suspected terrorists that we stop a day on the Southern Border,
what I was saying is there were about 3,000 special interest
aliens that we stopped at that border compared to the Northern
Border. Again, as you know, the number of terrorists actually
crossing the border is Classified. Happy to do that in a
different setting.
Ms. Slotkin. OK. I will look forward to doing that and I
yield the rest of my time to Congresswoman Rice.
Secretary Nielsen. I would say really quickly, we do take
the Northern Border seriously. I just met with your colleagues
on the Senate side from Michigan. We have the border strategy
implementation plan coming out soon. We do have a Northern
Border strategy, which you know focuses on security, critical
infrastructure and all of the interdependences between, so
happy to come talk to you more about that.
Ms. Slotkin. Thank you for not forgetting about us. I
appreciate that.
Chairman Thompson. The gentlelady from New York.
Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms.
Slotkin. I think it is really important, taking--continuing
what Congresswoman Slotkin was talking about, about making the
record very clear and not allowing any misleading statements.
It was a policy announced by the attorney general of this
country that families were going to be separated. That was a
policy. He did not say we are going to start enforcing a law.
It was a policy by this administration that only ended when
there were pictures of little kids in cages that had been
ripped away from their parents.
So I think it is really important, Madam Secretary, that
you talk about it and you use the right language. This was not
the law, OK? This was a policy that the attorney general of
this country announced was a new policy they were going to rip
kids away from their parents. So I think it is very important
that the record reflect that. I thank my colleague, Ms.
Slotkin, and I yield back.
Secretary Nielsen. OK. So, respectfully, sir, I would like
to respond to that, because----
Chairman Thompson. Let me just say, do it in writing so we
won't have the confusion----
Secretary Nielsen. I would like to respond quickly, because
I can tell you----
Chairman Thompson. No, no, no, gentlelady. We have been
back and forth.
Secretary Nielsen. We have. But it is appropriate for me to
clarify for the record, because I think you are trying to get
to the truth. I think that is what you were, too. So I just
want to just quickly say that the AG memo that was issued
directed all U.S. attorney offices along the Southwest Border
to prosecute all adults who were referred for prosecution. That
is what it did.
Miss Rice. That is a policy. That is a policy.
Secretary Nielsen. Not as you described it.
Miss Rice. Madam Secretary, that is a policy, when you knew
that that policy was going to result in children having to be
taken away from their parents. That is a policy. You should
admit it.
Secretary Nielsen. The consequence of any adult going to
jail in this country is they are separated from their child.
That wasn't the point of it. The point was to increase
prosecutions for those breaking the law and not exempt any
class of aliens. That is what the AG directed.
Miss Rice. It was very clear what the attorney general
meant.
Chairman Thompson. Well, we will follow up with that. For
the record, Madam Secretary, are we still using cages for
children?
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, we don't use cages for children. In
the border facilities that you have been to, they were not made
to detain children. As the children are processed through, they
are in some parts of those facilities.
Chairman Thompson. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. I am being as clear as I can, sir.
Respectfully, I am trying to answer your question.
Chairman Thompson. Just yes or no. Are we still putting
children in cages?
Secretary Nielsen. To my knowledge, CBP never purposely put
a child in a cage, if you mean a cage like this.
Chairman Thompson. Purposely or whatever, are we putting
children in cages as of today?
Secretary Nielsen. Children are processed at the border
facility stations that you have been at, some of the----
Chairman Thompson. I have seen the cages. I just want you
to admit that the cages exist.
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, they are not cages.
Chairman Thompson. What are they?
Secretary Nielsen. Areas of the border facility that are
carved out for the safety and protection of those who remain
there while they are being processed. If we have two gangs, we
separate them into separate areas of that facility.
Chairman Thompson. No, no, no. Madam Secretary----
Secretary Nielsen. A father and daughter, we separate that
from another son.
Chairman Thompson. We are not going to go through the
semantics. Now, I saw the cyclone fences that were made as
cages. You did, too. All you have to do is admit it. If it is a
bad policy, then change it. But don't mislead the committee. Do
not mislead the committee.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
Green.
Mr. Green of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Member and Secretary, thank you for the hard work that
you do leading probably one of the most diverse departments in
all of our Government. As an emergency medicine physician, I
trained in my emergency medicine residency down in Texas, did
some rotations in Austin, Texas. I have pronounced opiate
overdoses. I have pronounced those people dead and it is a
horrific thing to have to do.
As I understand it, 300 deaths a week in this country are
happening due to heroin overdose and that 90 percent of that
heroin is coming across the Southern Border. It has been
suggested by the folks on the other side of the aisle that that
is only at points of entry. I would like to ask you, if you
could tell us about what is happening between the points of
entry, the drugs that you guys are seizing, and what you are
expecting is going though.
Secretary Nielsen. Sure. So, first of all, this is another
example of it is not an either/or. We thank this committee and
others who supported our request for additional non-intrusive
inspection equipment, which will vastly help our interdiction
efforts at the ports. We do see criminals continuing to take
advantage of gaps between the ports of entry where there is no
barrier and smuggle drugs in.
We also unfortunately see them using families and children
as pawns. So often they will send a group of migrants across
the border in one area where there is no barrier, while CBP is
responding to that location. They then will smuggle drugs
nearby through another vulnerable part of the border.
Mr. Green of Tennessee. There is a--changing the subject a
little bit, there is a New York Times article this--I believe
it was Saturday. The title of the article is ``You Have to Pay
with Your Body''. It is about a woman who hired a coyote to
bring her over the border. Of course, she was assaulted many
times during that process.
The New York Times article then said that she was held once
she got to the United States and repeatedly raped by the
coyotes. I just ask the question, I guess it is 31 percent of
women that are coming across the border this was are having to
face similar experiences. How many women does it take being
raped before this really is a crisis?
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, if you are asking my opinion, it is
one. It is one child who dies, it is one woman who is raped,
because this system doesn't need to work that way. We can fix
the system to protect venerable populations.
Mr. Green of Tennessee. Thank you, I would agree 100
percent with you. In regard to the child separation, and we
have talked about the cages here, as I recall, the images that
circulated around the internet were actually from the Obama
administration. They later found out that the picture that
circulated the internet of a child in a cage came from the time
frame when it was the Obama administration.
My question, doesn't it seem reasonable that if all the
investigations that are going on--and you just recently have
been subpoenaed to provide information about the names of
children that have been separated. Unfortunately, they only ask
you to go back to the Trump--you know the window of the Trump
administration in those subpoenas.
It seems to me that if it were--because we are concerned
about the children, if the images are really from back in the
Obama administration, why wouldn't we ask for that data going
back further than just the Trump administration?
It is really about protecting and caring for and making
sure the safety of the children. Why wouldn't we go back to
when the separations really started?
Let me just stop you, you don't have to answer that
question. I will answer it for you. It is because this isn't
about just the safety of children, it is about slamming the
President.
Let me ask you this question, it is a hypothetical, I only
have a little bit of time left. How many lives could we
actually save--yes, how many lives could we save if we really
secured our border?
Secretary Nielsen. You know, again I would be hazarding a
guess here, sir, but we have 4,300 that we have saved if you
extrapolate out those unfortunately that we find have died
along the journey, hundreds of thousands.
Mr. Green of Tennessee. Yes, I would think it would be that
number, too. How many women in that--if we were going to
multiply the 31 percent times just this year, how many women in
the first few months of this year have come across the border
illegally that way that you have processed?
Secretary Nielsen. I don't have the breakdown of women from
family units----
Mr. Green of Tennessee. OK.
Secretary Nielsen. But the family units have continued to
go up----
Mr. Green of Tennessee. It would be great to know that
number, and then we can multiply it times Doctors Without
Borders as 31 percent and come up with that many women probably
got raped this year, because of our failed policies. Thank you.
I yield.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I have been
sitting here listening to this for quite a while, and just want
to make a couple of observations. One is the choreography is
just amazing. When the Democrats ask a question, Madam
Secretary, you never have the answer.
You don't have any of the numbers and you are going to get
back to us, but when the Republicans ask a question, boy, you
are right on top of that with the statistics and the numbers,
you have got it all right down there in front of you. I wonder
if this has kind-of been orchestrated.
Second, there is a great deal of obfuscation. We talk about
the zero tolerance or family separation--you say, it is not a
policy, it is the law, you are obeying the law, no, it is a
policy, you are not doing it now. If you are not doing it, are
you breaking the law--which is it?
Then you said that cybersecurity is a red light that is
blinking that is the most dangerous thing that is facing this
country. Yet you requested $8 billion for a wall and only $1.35
billion to deal with cybersecurity. That seems to me a, kind-of
a misplaced priorities there.
Then going back to the Chairman's point about the number of
vacancies in the border--and our personnel, I would ask you and
I know this is a topic for tomorrow but it is kind-of
interesting that you paid $1.9 million to Accenture to help you
with that problem and they have hired 35 agents. So yes, I
would say there is a pretty big management problem.
But my question is a broader one. We know that we need
comprehensive immigration reform, we would like to see it
bipartisan. We are reached across the aisles since I was first
elected here and got nothing in return.
But it is more than just border control. We need to deal
with the DREAMers, the DACA recipients, TPS--they are all
living in the situation of uncertainty. You testified that you
had never met a DREAMer last year. I wonder is that still true?
Secretary Nielsen. No, ma'am. As you know they have under
the court case right now they are legally present and we
continue to renew those who are part of the original
application process.
Ms. Titus. So have you talked to this DREAMer, do you know
anything about their story? I mean, I have got thousands of--
13,000, actually--DREAMers in my district, I know their life
stories, I know about their families. I am not just sitting
across a courtroom from them. Have you met with any of them?
Secretary Nielsen. I think that is why we agree that they
deserve a legal status, which is what I have said every time I
have testified. I support a legal status for the DACA
population.
Ms. Titus. So you don't think the DREAMers are a security
threat to this country?
Secretary Nielsen. When they commit a crime, or they
otherwise fail a background check, as you know, they no longer
are covered under the DACA program.
Ms. Titus. Do you feel that they are a security threat to
this country?
Secretary Nielsen. Some of them have committed crimes, they
are no longer part of DACA. So by definition, if you are a DACA
recipient, you have not committed a crime.
Ms. Titus. Do you feel like they are a threat to our
economy?
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am, I support their legal status.
Ms. Titus. So that means you would support a clean bill to
give DACA recipients a pathway to citizenship?
Secretary Nielsen. No, I would not. The reason for that is
because we can't handle that situation without handling the
situation that brought them here to begin with. I don't want to
inadvertently create a new pull factor. I want to make sure
that we secure the border and that we are able to give legal
status to the DACA population.
Ms. Titus. So you don't think they are a security threat,
you don't think they are an economic threat, but you wouldn't
support any kind of pathway to citizenship?
Secretary Nielsen. I won't support things that will
continue the crisis that we have at the border by serving as a
pull factor alone, no ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Well, what about the people who are TPS, who are
here now? They are not----
Secretary Nielsen. I also----
Ms. Titus. They live here now, they have been here 20
years. We have many families that are mixed status, do you see
them as a security threat, or an economic threat? Would you
support some kind of protection for them as a pathway to
citizenship?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am, and in the letter to Senator
Shelby from the White House during the appropriations
negations, the administration also supports that.
Ms. Titus. If we brought a clean bill to give TPS pathway
to citizenship, you and the administration, and your colleagues
across the aisle would support that? Because there is a bill
that is on the table right now, Promise Bill, I believe, is the
acronym for it.
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am, as the Secretary for Homeland
Security, I can't support something that will automatically--I
mean, every time we have done a program that provides
additional paths for citizenship for those who are illegally
present, it does serve as a pull factor.
Ms. Titus. TPS is not illegally present.
Secretary Nielsen. Their status--we have a court case, as
you know, but the program itself was temporary. So they do not
have the temporary protected status, but we of course are not
deporting them as we work through the court case. But I agree
with you that, yes, we need to provide a legal status.
What I am concerned about is I want to make sure that we
secure the border at the same time, and reduce the pull factor
so that people are under the impression they can come here
without any legal right to stay, to then be subject to
protections later.
Ms. Titus. In your opening statement you said you want to
encourage and support legal immigration. It is the illegal
immigration you are worried about. Is not TPS, and are not the
DREAMers--are not they under the category of legal immigration?
Secretary Nielsen. The TPS was a protected temporary
status, as you know. They----
Ms. Titus. Legal, or illegal?
Secretary Nielsen. It is neither, they are----
Ms. Titus. It is not legal?
Secretary Nielsen. They are legally present----
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Secretary Nielsen. But they are not immigrants.
Ms. Titus. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much
for your patience.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Taylor. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I would
like to thank you, Secretary Nielsen, for appearing before this
committee to speak on the vital issue of border security,
particularly on the Southern Border.
The consistent inability of Congress to comprehensively
address this matter has left you and the President with the
inability to take the actions that are necessary, to provide
what we need for protection. Lack of border security has
downstream consequences in our country.
One of these I would like to refocus on and that is the
opioid crisis and the devastation and the heartbreak it has
created particularly in my home State of Pennsylvania. I, too,
have met with coroners. As a doctor, as a legislator the
opioid-related deaths in my home State are on the upswing and
are consistently above the National average.
Some reports, as we have discussed, indicate that almost 90
percent of heroin is illegally smuggled into our country
through our Southern Border. Secretary Nielsen, do you believe
that a physical barrier is necessary in places of high risk
along our Southern Border to stem the flood of narcotics into
our country?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. As a doctor, as a legislator facing
this incredible opioid crisis, watching families separated,
watching children and young adults die, do you and other
experts believe that the construction of additional barriers
and walls will help combat the opioid flow into our country?
Secretary Nielsen. Absolutely.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. In a bipartisan fashion. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being
here. I have got a whole bunch of questions, and I am going to
ask that where you can you just tell me yes or no. Question,
what does a chain link fence enclosed into a chamber on a
concrete floor represent to you? Is that a cage?
Secretary Nielsen. It is a detention space, ma'am, that you
know has existed for decades.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Does it differ from the cages you put
your dogs in when you let them stay outside? Is it different?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. In what sense?
Secretary Nielsen. It is larger. It has facilities. It
provides room to sit, to stand, to lie down.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So did my dog's cage. Are the jails
different than the cages that you have allowed the children to
be put in?
Secretary Nielsen. I am sorry. Which jails?
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Are the jails that you put their
parents in? Or the adults that come here with children that you
say are coming here illegally?
Secretary Nielsen. The detention centers, most of them, no,
ma'am. They have a border around the outside. But they
essentially sleep in dorm-like conditions.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So they live in better conditions than
the children.
Secretary Nielsen. No, ma'am. I just want to be very clear
on this. As migrants are processed through the Border Patrol
station, which were not built, again, for vulnerable
populations, they are there for up to 72 hours.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. I just want to know if the children
are in cages, what do you consider the detention facilities to
be? Because I am suspecting that you are putting children in
places that seem to be less livable than these adults.
I want to have--I have a number of questions. I want to
start by discussing Maria Juarez, a toddler who died in my home
State of New Jersey, after being detained by DHS. After fleeing
violence in Guatemala, she and her mother were detained by CBP
and held in ICE custody at a private facility in Texas. Within
a week, Maria began to exhibit upper respiratory symptoms,
including congestion, a cough, and severe fever of 104 degrees.
Maria and her mother were released after 3 weeks in custody and
cleared for travel to New Jersey by personnel in Texas who did
not have the requisite credentials doctors to provide medical
clearance.
After arriving, her mother took Maria to an emergency room
almost immediately. She remained hospitalized for the rest of
her life, 6 weeks, dying on Mother's Day last year. Outside
doctors made it clear that Maria did not receive the medical
care she deserved while in custody of DHS.
Secretary, after learning of Maria's death, did you
immediately take any action to improve access through the
quality of health care at DHS facilities, yes or no?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, we continue to do all we can to
improve within our resources.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Is there an outside investigation
every time someone dies in DHS custody so that we can
understand what happened?
Secretary Nielsen. OPR investigates every one under--either
in addition to or under direction of the IG.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. On a different topic, we all should
know, border security isn't just about the Southern Border, and
this has been raised a couple of times. So I want to ask about
a concerning program I recently learned about where TSA is
working with the Saudi government to create a Saudi Arabian
Federal air marshal program that would have Saudi government
agents fly armed on flights to the United States.
The Saudis are actually paying the salaries of several
full-time TSA employees working on this program. As a section
of the 9/11 Commission report stated, while in the United
States, some of the 9/11 hijackers were in contact with and
received support or assistance from individuals who may be
connected with the Saudi government.
Madam Secretary, is this really happening, No. 1? Will you
commit to provide this committee any and all documentation of
this program, including training materials being shared with
the Saudis and who is being trained?
Secretary Nielsen. We are happy to provide you materials,
ma'am, and come brief you. I am happy to have the TSA
administrator----
Mrs. Watson Coleman. All right, how long would I have to
wait to get this information?
Secretary Nielsen. That I can't answer, but what I can do
is get you an answer today as to when we could be able to
provide that to you.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I don't know if I asked
this--I was talking so fast. Do you continue to separate
parents from children as they are coming across the border?
Secretary Nielsen. In 3 instances, when the child is at
risk, the adult accompanying them is not a parent or guardian,
and the third instance is when the parent needs to go to a
custodial environment.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. So are any of these coming at the port
of entry, seeking asylum?
Secretary Nielsen. Some of--sure. Some of them might be
claiming asylum, yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I first want to thank you and the men and
women that serve under you for the important role that you
provide in protecting our country. I want to ask you a couple
of questions as it relates to the current situation at our
Southwest Border. Do you believe that we are currently seeing
an immigration crisis on our Southwest Border?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, I do. The numbers are increasing so
quickly that our system, which I have testified to before, was
at the breaking point. It is clearly breaking.
Mr. Guest. Do you believe we are also facing a human
trafficking crisis on our Southwest Border?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guest. Finally, do you also believe that we are facing
a drug trafficking crisis on our Southwest Border?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Guest. Particularly I want to turn my attention through
the remainder of my questioning toward the drug trafficking. As
I look at the figures that have been provided, it appears that
we are on track to seize a record number of illegal narcotics
that are being attempted to be introduced into our country.
Does that seem correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Guest. What can we do as a country? What is the single
most effective thing that you believe that we can do to prevent
illegal drugs from entering America?
Secretary Nielsen. We need to take operational control of
the Southern Border. So that is increasing our ability to
detect at the ports of entry. It is also having situational
awareness, impedance and denial and responsibilities between
the ports of entry.
Mr. Guest. Do you believe that a physical barrier is an
important part of our strategy to decrease the flow of illegal
drugs from entering America?
Secretary Nielsen. I believe that. But more importantly,
the men and women and professionals of CBP believe that.
Mr. Guest. I think there was a question earlier about what
we are doing along our Northern Border. Do we have the same
type of crisis at our Northern Border that we are currently
seeing on our Southern Border?
Secretary Nielsen. We do not have a humanitarian crisis and
we certainly do not have the numbers of those trying to enter
illegally without a legal right to stay.
Mr. Guest. I believe you talked in your official testimony
about the transnational criminal organizations, or what we
commonly refer to as drug cartels.
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Guest. What can we do as a Congress to provide you
additional support as we seek to fight drug cartels from
bringing their controlled substances into our country?
Secretary Nielsen. Congress has been extraordinarily
helpful, thank you, with both the INTERDICT Act and the STOP
Act. Those have been very helpful in giving us additional
authorities to comprehensively look at the drug issue.
At this time, we believe we have all the authorities we
need. We work throughout the Department to combat this. This is
part of that regional compact that I mentioned that we hope to
sign soon with the Northern Triangle.
But we also work very closely with international partners
throughout the world to dismantle all of the illicit
marketplaces. ICE alone has over 200 investigations into the
illicit marketplaces to take them down where they are selling
the drugs.
Mr. Guest. Just in general, would you agree that we as a
Congress have not given you the tools that you and your
officers need to prevent drugs from illegally entering the
country across our Southwest Border?
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, we need a barrier. We cannot take
operational control of the border without it.
Mr. Guest. So--and I would agree. Is your opinion, the
opinion of experts that you have spoken with, without a
physical barrier, it would be all but impossible for us to
secure our border from those people seeking to introduce the
poison that we know as whether it be cocaine, methamphetamine,
heroin, fentanyl, from entering our country through our
Southwest Border?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. The professionals speak in
terms on a risk-based way of vanishing time. In other words,
there are parts of the border where the cities in Mexico and
the United States are so close together that a drug smuggler or
a mule can disappear in a matter of seconds into the United
States, without a physical barrier.
Mr. Guest. Ma'am--Madam Secretary, wouldn't it be
advantageous if we were able to funnel all of traffic, whether
it be commercial, passenger, traffic, through our ports of
entry where we could then concentrate our technology and our
manpower on screening individuals and vehicles entering the
country there instead of having to spend man-hours and manpower
securing the unsecured portion of our border that do not
currently have a physical barrier?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir, and it would reduce the
humanitarian crisis.
Mr. Guest. One final question, Madam Secretary. Some
Members of Congress have advocated abolishing ICE, the
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, which is an agency that
is under your control. My question is, would this make our
communities safer? Or would the American public be placed at
greater risk if we as a Congress took the unprecedented move to
abolish this needed law enforcement agency?
Secretary Nielsen. I can say with absolute certainty that
the United States would be unsafer, sir. Part of their mission
is anti-trafficking, they do counter-child exploitation, they
do counter-weapons of mass destruction proliferation. They also
help with antiquities and returning illicit goods because they
also have Customs enforcement.
But they are a top-notch investigative unit of the U.S.
Government. They are mimicked as a best practice throughout the
world. Without them, we would not be able to protect children
and victims of trafficking.
Mr. Guest. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you. Chair now recognizes the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I serve as the
second vice chair for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. It has
been some time since you have come and you have met with us.
Will you commit today to coming back to meet with the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. OK, do that soon?
Secretary Nielsen. If--yes.
Ms. Barragan. Great, thank you. Madam Secretary, we know
that ex-FBI Director James Comey took contemporaneous memos on
his meeting with Trump and his interactions. We also know that
your former boss, Secretary John Kelly, also wrote
contemporaneous internal memos about his interactions with the
President, in particular, how he was ordered to give Mr.
Kushner the top security clearance.
My question is very simple, and I remind you, Ms.
Secretary, that you are under oath. Have you taken any
contemporaneous memos about your interactions with President
Trump?
Secretary Nielsen. No, I have not.
Ms. Barragan. Madam Secretary, do you know how many
children have died in CBP custody under your tenure as
Secretary?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes. So we have the numbers for CBP and
ICE.
Ms. Barragan. Can you give me the numbers of how many
children have died?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, I can, if you will give me 1
second. I just don't want to misspeak. But this last year we
had--or so far this year, we have had 3, as you know, in CBP
custody----
Ms. Barragan. So far, Madam Secretary? Are you expecting
more children to die?
Secretary Nielsen. No, ma'am. I just want to be accurate
with the time. To be clear, any death is a tragedy. Any death
should be prevented. Part of what I have asked this body to do
is change the laws so that we have a better chance----
Ms. Barragan. Do you know the names of the children that
have died?
Secretary Nielsen. One was a stillborn death, but the other
two were Felipe and Jakelin.
Ms. Barragan. Have you spoken to their families at all,
Madam Secretary?
Secretary Nielsen. I have not spoken with their families,
no, ma'am.
Ms. Barragan. OK. I want to turn to--I want to turn to a
slide that I have, if we can put it up. There it is. You
testified that asylum seekers are not being turned away at the
ports of entry. Is that your testimony here today?
Secretary Nielsen. They are not turned away, they are
brought in--I am not sure if you are talking about the migrant
protection protocol. But in that case----
Ms. Barragan. Any asylum seeker who comes to a port of
entry, you--you basically have just said----
Secretary Nielsen. They are allowed to make their claim.
Ms. Barragan. OK. Well, let me tell you, Madam Secretary,
either you are lying to this committee or you don't know what
is happening at the border. I have been there first-hand, and I
have seen it twice. More recently, it just happened on
Saturday, when I happened to be crossing the border with my
mother. I heard a gentleman say, I am from Honduras. I want to
apply for asylum. He was already at the turnstile, at the
PedWest entry.
The agent said, Sir, unless you have a visa, you need to
leave. You need to go away. They didn't say what you just said
people do. They didn't say, Here is where you go get on a list.
They didn't say, Here is the information where you go get
access to counsel. As a matter of fact, I pulled out my phone,
I started to record. You know what? I was asked to stop
recording.
Why? Because they don't want the American people knowing
what is happening at that Southern Border. Madam Secretary, I
don't know if you know what is happening, or if this is
happening without you knowing, but it is totally unacceptable.
As a Member of this committee, you are darn right I am going to
hold this--you accountable for knowing what is happening at the
border.
Do you know--do you know that two Members of Congress had
to sleep overnight and spent 14 hours in the cold, on the
concrete, at the Otay Mesa point of entry so that Maria, the
woman who was tear-gassed at the port of entry, would be
allowed to present herself because she was on U.S. soil and
legally that is what asylum allows? Did you know that?
Secretary Nielsen. Ma'am, what I know is I would ask you--
Ms. Barragan. Yes or no, did you know that two Members of
Congress had to do that?
Secretary Nielsen. I know that we have a process, as I----
Ms. Barragan. OK, you obviously don't know. But see, this
is what I am saying. You don't know these things. Two Members
of Congress. Does it take two Members of Congress to be there
to witness somebody presenting themselves for asylum at the
port of entry? That is not what the law says. Are you familiar
with the asylum laws, Madam Secretary?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Ms. Barragan. Where in the asylum law does it say that when
you present yourself at a port of entry--and by the way, when
you are on U.S. soil, that you can be sent by another agent to
another port of entry? Is it anywhere in the asylum law?
Secretary Nielsen. What we are trying to do is----
Ms. Barragan. It is not in there. I know--it is a yes or
no. It is not in there.
Secretary Nielsen. What we are----
Ms. Barragan. Because what you all are doing is not within
the confines of the law. You talk about a list. Under what
authority is there, in U.S. law, that a list could be started
to have people wait in Mexico? Do you have that authority?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Barragan. What is--under the--what authority?
Secretary Nielsen. The authority is to do all that we can
to protect the migrants coming here. It says----
Ms. Barragan. OK, well that is not what--that is not what
the asylum law says----
Secretary Nielsen. Asylum law says----
Ms. Barragan. I would ask, can you produce--can you produce
every single list at the port of entry that is under U.S.----
Secretary Nielsen. I do not--we do not have the list, to be
clear. The list is in Mexico.
Ms. Barragan. So you have the authority to do a list but
you don't have access to a list? You don't control that list?
Secretary Nielsen. What I mean by the list, ma'am, is that
we----
Ms. Barragan. So you are basically farming this out to the
Mexican authorities----
Secretary Nielsen. Would you like me to answer any of your
questions, Congresswoman----
Ms. Barragan. Well, you don't have answers. You----
Secretary Nielsen. But how do you know? Because you are not
giving me the opportunity----
Ms. Barragan. Because these are simply yes or no questions.
Secretary Nielsen. It is----
Ms. Barragan. It is authority--there is this law, this is
what it is under, and you haven't done that. The very last
thing I want to say because my time is up is you said that you
waited to give direction on how to implement the zero tolerance
policy because you wanted to do it with compassion. Do you know
how outrageous that sounds? You wanted to separate children and
families and you wanted to do it with compassion? So in the
mean time, you didn't do anything at all and you let kids be
separated without tracking them.
Do you know how outrageous that is, Madam Secretary? You
have no feeling, no compassion, no empathy here.
Chairman Thompson. Gentlelady's time has expired----
Ms. Barragan. I yield back.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Crenshaw.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam
Secretary, for being here and helping us answer the fundamental
question of whether we care about our sovereignty and the rule
of law in our country. Unfortunately, the now cynical view that
I am not so sure we all agree on that, that we all value the
rule of law and value the ability to manage our border
effectively.
A lot of questions have come up about the humanity of our
policies, as they should. There is some rightful anger about
family separation. But unfortunately, it is myopic because
nobody ever talks about the other issues that we might have
when it comes to our humanity.
There was a young woman in my office yesterday, she is from
Mexico, she is about 18 years old. She was taken across the
border, kidnapped about 5 years ago, on the third attempt,
because they were turned back twice by Border Patrol. The third
attempt, they made it through and she was brought to New York
City where she was raped approximately 30 times a day for 5
years. I don't know why nobody talks about that kind of stuff.
When I was at the border in McAllen, in 1 day, in 1
location, 16 kids came across with adults that didn't--that
were not their parents. Further questioning and follow-through
led to a stash house of 54 people kidnapped inside in Houston.
Nobody talks about that humanity.
Those are direct results of the fact that our asylum laws
are taken advantage of, those are direct results of the fact
that that woman in my office was allowed to walk straight
across the border, nobody stopped her, there is no wall,
nothing, would have been turned back otherwise and not been in
New York City to suffer the absolute nightmare that she did.
Then we get to the question of whether walls work and this
has been a really fun conversation over the last couple months.
Do walls work? Madam Secretary, would you agree that there is 3
parts to security--personnel, technology, and barriers?
Secretary Nielsen. Absolutely.
Mr. Crenshaw. Can you just take one of those away?
Secretary Nielsen. No, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. When I was down at McAllen and Brownsville,
what we see is Brownsville has about 35 miles worth of
barriers, and as a result, only 6 percent of the crossings in
that sector take place because walls work. Would you agree with
that?
Secretary Nielsen. Walls work, yes, sir, as evidenced.
Mr. Crenshaw. McAllen, about a thousand people were
crossing in--on some days, because they don't have the
infrastructure. Would you agree that the biggest difference
between the McAllen corridor and the Brownsville corridor would
be the physical barriers?
Secretary Nielsen. The wall system, yes, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. Been a lot of red herrings that have been
thrown out there to argue these points. Drugs like fentanyl
come through ports of entry, yes, we know. You would agree with
that, right?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Does that have anything to do with the
conversation about whether we need barriers between ports of
entry?
Secretary Nielsen. It does not, because it is not an
either/or.
Mr. Crenshaw. There is a--there is always the conversation
about we just need more technology, because then the border
agents can just chase people around, as we see--because we can
sense them coming through.
Is that the only solution, or do you need that plus
barriers plus personnel?
Secretary Nielsen. No, we need all three. We also need the
ability to detain and remove when there is no legal right to
stay.
Mr. Crenshaw. There is the point often made that the border
crossings are the lowest in years--we had about 400,000 last
year, although that is quickly on the rise of--as you have
noted, 76,000 just this last month. The point is often made
that because it is lower than in the year 2000 that there is no
crisis.
Is that accurate? Is 400,000 a year a low number?
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, it is not, but again, if I could,
respectfully, it is because of the flow, it is because these
are families, it is because these are children, that is why it
is a crisis. It is a terrible, horrific journey that they
undertake.
Mr. Crenshaw. Let's get to that. As these arguments are
made against points that, frankly, we are not even making, you
mention the children and why that is the nexus of this crisis.
Why does that happen? Is it because of our asylum laws? Is
it because of the fact that if you bring a child across the
border, well--and I think, as you mentioned this before, if you
bring a child with you, it is your ticket into the United
States, all you have to do is claim asylum.
Would you agree that our asylum process is completely taken
advantage of?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Crenshaw. Would you agree that if we were to put more
resources at ports of entry so that we could humanely bring
people in and hear their asylum case but not let them loose
into the country, would that dramatically reduce these illegal
crossings, as well? Would that be part of the solution, as
well, to reform the actual asylum process?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Are there any other issues in the last 20
seconds I have that--that you want to mention or follow up on?
Secretary Nielsen. I appreciate that. I would just say that
my heart breaks for the system that we have. It does not allow
us to help vulnerable populations as soon in their journey as
we need to help them.
There is nothing humane about a system that contemplates
what we see today, that contemplates 60,000 children coming
across the border unaccompanied, that contemplates the rape and
abuse, the trafficking, the child exploitation, the 70,000
Americans who died last year from drugs.
I am extraordinarily compassionate in my job, which is why
I am asking Congress to work with me to change the laws so that
we can have a safe and orderly flow, so we can take care of
those who need asylum, so that we can take care of the
vulnerable populations who believe they have no options in
their country.
That is why I spend so much time in the Northern Triangle,
to help them build resilience and stability. Apologies, but
thank you for the time, I just wanted to clarify.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, I yield.
Mr. Correa [presiding]. Thank you. Ms. Nielsen, before I
move to Mr. Rose, just very quickly, any thoughts on a matrix
to measure the efficiency of all these taxpayer-invested
dollars? Does the wall work? How efficient is that versus, you
know, investing, for example, in a fusion center in the
Northern Triangle?
Any thoughts? Are we putting one together, these matrix and
how these investments work?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, sir. A lot of it is covered in the
border security improvement plan, but we are happy to come
brief you in detail on anything you would like us to come----
Mr. Correa. Love to have a detailed deep dive on these
matrices on the efficiency. Now, Mr. Rose, if I can, please?
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman. Madam Secretary, it is good
to see you again and, you know, I want to start off, first of
all, I don't doubt your love of this country and I understand
that you are serving it. That is not what this is about.
But what this is about here is solving problems and saving
lives and upholding our values. My district, Staten Island and
South Brooklyn, has lost an ungodly number of people to the
opioid epidemic. My district has lost an ungodly number of
people to terrorist attacks.
So as we look at the facts, I want to make sure that we are
operating on the same plane here. First of all, is it true that
your data--your own Department's data shows that the vast
majority of drugs coming through the border--heroin,
methamphetamine, fentanyl--are found at ports of entry?
Secretary Nielsen. Where we can detect it, yes, sir.
Mr. Rose. In most cases, it is over 80 percent?
Secretary Nielsen. Right, but I just want to clarify we
don't know what is coming between----
Mr. Rose. Well so--so that--that is what I wanted to get
into next. So now you could easily say in response to that that
is true, but that is just what we are measuring.
Do you have any sense then of across the entire border,
across our entire--the entire country, hypothetically,
theoretically, based off your simulations, what percentage of
our drugs is coming in from ports of entry or any other
sources? What is the breakdown?
Secretary Nielsen. The breakdown--and I am happy to show
you the--the modeling, we would love to come in and chat more.
What I can tell you is the instances of interdiction of illicit
drugs has gone up across the board.
So it has gone up at the ports of entry thanks to new
technology, but it has also unfortunately gone up between ports
of entry. When you try to compare the two, the majority of the
drugs continues to come through the ports of entry, but we are
seeing the amount increase between the ports of entry.
Mr. Rose. So the vast majority are still coming in through
the ports of entry based off these models?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes, and thank you for the NII
equipment.
Mr. Rose. Yes, so then what my question is, is what are
your priorities based off that model? Please--please, for the
respect of all of our intelligence, because I am doing my best
to respect yours and your service--what are your priorities
based off that model to address fentanyl streaming into our
country and killing our kids?
Secretary Nielsen. So what we do, we look at it from a
risk-based perspective of today's threats, but we also have to
anticipate where the flows go tomorrow, which is why between
the ports is concerning. But as you know, we also look at the
mail, so we have also used the authorities that we have to work
to identify the fentanyl coming from China.
We are working with China on--they have agreed to make
illegal some of the precursors to fentanyl, so we are working
there. We have border enforcement security teams throughout the
Nation, where we work with State and locals on investigations
to really get at the cartels and the trafficking within the
country.
Then we work at the source through the National Targeting
Center with our international partners to ensure as much as we
can----
Mr. Rose. But what I--what I did ask--and again, I am
trying not to be adversarial here--is in terms of, based off
this model and the fact that you are dealing with limited or
not zero sum amount of funds, your priorities, as my
understanding, are mail, ports of entry.
I did not hear you say, though, that my priority to prevent
the children in Staten Island and throughout this country from
dying from overdoses is the border, is the border wall. So I
want to understand here, because that is what we have declared
a state of emergency around. That is what declared it around.
So I want to understand how many less children will be
dying because of this border wall. I do not understand the math
or the science or the planning behind this. That is my issue. I
do not understand how this leads to any positive effect on the
opioid epidemic, to any positive effect in terms of our efforts
at counterterrorism. What models are this based off of?
Secretary Nielsen. We are happy to come share with you in
detail, sir, but in general, the impedance and denial prevents
that smuggling through that part of the border where we have
physical barrier. So the criminal then has a choice. They can
try to smuggle through the ports of entry where we are also
increasing technology, or they go and find another part of the
border that is unsecured.
Mr. Rose. So you think that our current stance with this
additional investment at ports of entry is satisfactory at this
point?
Secretary Nielsen. No, sir. I think it helps us at the
ports of entry, but what we see is the increase of interdiction
of drugs between ports of entry.
Mr. Rose. How much more money do you need at our ports of
entry?
Secretary Nielsen. Right now we have this wonderful influx
to get NII machines. So I would love to get back to you. We are
going to see how much more that improves our ability to
interdict.
Mr. Rose. Thank you.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Rose.
If I can call now on Mr. Green, State of Texas?
Mr. Green of Texas. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, what happened to give me your tired, your
poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the
wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the
homeless, the tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the
golden door? What happened?
Madam Secretary, asylees are not illegals. Madam Secretary,
do you know the number of people who came through Ellis Island?
Secretary Nielsen. No, sir, not----
Mr. Green of Texas. I do. Twelve million. Do you know where
they came from?
Secretary Nielsen. All over the world.
Mr. Green of Texas. I do. Germany, Ireland, Britain,
Scandinavian countries, Southern and Eastern Europe. They were
not illegals. There was no flotilla in New York Harbor to
prevent them from coming to Ellis Island. There was no family
separation at Ellis Island.
Past administrations have, when asylees were trying to get
to this country, found ways to accommodate asylees. They didn't
build walls. When the Cubans were fleeing Castro, we created
wet foot, dry foot. One foot on dry land and you could walk on
in to a pathway to citizenship.
Madam Secretary, you know who Scarface is?
Secretary Nielsen. I am sorry----
Mr. Green of Texas. I will tell you. Al Capone, the son of
Italian immigrants. Not all of those people who came through
Ellis Island were saints. Scarface was a bootlegger, dealt in
prostitution, gambling, one of the greatest criminals this
country has ever suffered. The son of immigrants, it is
unfortunate. I would never want a Scarface in our country, I
don't want MS-13 in our country, but I also don't want to see a
wall as a solution to a humanitarian crisis.
Madam Secretary, these Border Patrol agents are also
victims. The children, but the agents are victims, too, because
they are required to enforce a corrupt policy, a policy that
separates babies from their mothers, places them in cages.
I was at the border, I saw those babies locked up on top of
each other. We would not treat animals, the Humane Society
wouldn't allow it, the way those babies were treated. Madam
Secretary, they are victims.
You have all of these vacancies in part because a good many
people don't want to be a part of that kind of circumstance.
They are victims, too. The children are victims, and the people
who are forced to do what they are doing to these babies are
victims, too.
Madam Secretary, here is the problem. We have surpassed our
color quota. There are those who believe that we already have
too many people of color in this country. And these, one of
whom happens to be the President of the United States of
America, would institute policies that would prevent people of
color from coming to this country.
White babies would not be treated the way these babies of
color are being treated, Madam Secretary. This is about color.
We have opened our doors. Your tired, your poor, huddled masses
yearning to breathe free, except we now have our quota of
people of color. I yield back the balance of my time.
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, if I could just respond to a couple
of things. We do----
Mr. Green of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if she responds, I would
like to have the opportunity to respond to her response.
Chairman Thompson [presiding]. Well, the gentleman made
statements. He really didn't ask any questions, so in interest
of time we will----
Secretary Nielsen. But--OK.
Chairman Thompson. We will go to the gentleman from Kansas
City, Mr. Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. I am
conflicted. In seminary, we were required to study Robert Frost
and Dr. John Swomley, a legendary author and theologian, forced
us to study all the writings of Robert Frost.
One of them is called Mending Wall, which you may be
familiar with. One of his most famous--he wrote it in 1914,
just outside of Boston. When you have to dissect that, what did
Robert Frost mean in the opening line, which says, and I quote,
``Something there is that does not love a wall.'' Something
there is that does not love a wall, Robert Frost, 1914.
So you dissect it, Frost is saying nature--shorten this--
nature or God does not love a wall. We can speak
euphemistically, metaphorically that walls don't make good
neighbors. Walls make long-term enemies.
I may be wrong about everything. You know, I have studied
seminary through college and then spent 3\1/2\ years in
seminary. So, we started this whole issue. I mean, if you look
at the Great Wall of China, do you have any idea how many times
China has been invaded since they built the wall?
Secretary Nielsen. No, sir.
Mr. Cleaver. I mean, you wouldn't know that. I am not
trying--so I am not--it is not--most historians would say a
lot, because there is no--we--I mean, we can't even figure
out--historians can't figure out how many times they have been
invaded.
Started building on it 200 B.C., primarily to keep the Hans
out, the aliens, I guess we would call them today. As you know,
that didn't help. It went all the way through the Ming Dynasty.
What I am trying to come to the conclusion for of my
question is, do you see anything wrong with the United States
of America, the most powerful nation that God has allowed to
exist, building a wall?
Secretary Nielsen. Sir, the idea in part of the wall is
actually to ensure safe and orderly flow, which actually
protects those traveling. When they come through the desert or
they come through more remote areas, they put themselves at
risk and they almost always do that by paying a smuggler who
then further preys upon them.
So the idea of a barrier is a safe and orderly flow so that
migrants who choose to come here come through a legal port of
entry where they can be cared for. That is where the resources
are, that is where we can provide them the best medical care,
and that is where we can most quickly process their claim.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. The busiest and the longest land
border in the world is what?
Secretary Nielsen. I would say it is ours.
Mr. Cleaver. The busiest and the largest, the longest land
border in the world is between the United States and Canada.
Secretary Nielsen. But that is not the busiest, sir, but it
is the longer--though it is the longer border, yes.
Mr. Cleaver. We might have to have an argument about the
busiest based on--I don't want to get into the trade amounts
coming across the border from Canada, but it is 5,525 miles,
and we have a lot of illegal people coming across the border,
particularly between Vermont and Quebec, and the going fee is
about $4,000 to bring people across the border.
It just--and the numbers coming across--I am sure you know
this--are increasing. So, my final question--I have 12
seconds--would you be OK with building a wall to separate the
United States and Canada?
Secretary Nielsen. So we do everything by risk, as you
know, sir. Right now, the risk is not such that it would
necessitate physical barriers, but we do very closely work with
the Canadians to ensure safe and orderly flow.
What we do is we continue to analyze that daily to ensure
that we do have mechanisms to provide security to both
countries and to those traveling populations.
Mr. Cleaver. My time is up. Thank you.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. Chair now
recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings.
Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Nielsen, thank you for being with us today--I
apologize for being a little late, so you may have already
answered this question, but let me just ask you, do you agree
with the President declaring a state of emergency at the
border?
Secretary Nielsen. I do believe it is an emergency.
Mrs. Demings. Do you think that same system or process
could use to address mass shootings in America to make sure
that we have the resources that we need to deal with mass
shootings?
Secretary Nielsen. I would have to refer, of course, to
the--I am not----
Mrs. Demings. Give me your personal opinions and views.
Since you do deal with the security of our Nation, what do you
feel about declaring a state of emergency as it pertains to
mass shootings in this country since countless numbers of
people die right before our very eyes on a regular basis?
Secretary Nielsen. We need to do a lot more. That is a
particular authority that the President has, but in general is
it an emergency that we need to address? Yes.
Mrs. Demings. So do you think that declaring a state of
emergency as it pertains to mass shootings in this country
would be a process that the President should consider?
Secretary Nielsen. Again, I can't speak to his particular
authority there, but what I can say is what we are doing at
DHS, happy to tell you now or later.
Mrs. Demings. How many Customs and Border Patrol officers
or agents have you had to die in the line of duty during your
tenure?
Secretary Nielsen. We have had--I have the numbers here. I
can look them up, but it is about, you know, 15 to 20. I am
sorry----
Mrs. Demings. I would just ask you, Secretary----
Secretary Nielsen. Not in the line of duty. Not in the line
of duty. We have had----
Mrs. Demings. OK, how many in the line of duty at this----
Secretary Nielsen. Zero.
Mrs. Demings. Border----
Secretary Nielsen. Zero.
Mrs. Demings. Where there is a crisis?
Secretary Nielsen. Zero.
Mrs. Demings. Zero have died in the----
Secretary Nielsen. In this last year.
Mrs. Demings. How many Customs and Border Patrol officers
or agents would you say have been seriously injured in the line
of duty at the border, the Southwest Border in particular,
during your tenure?
Secretary Nielsen. So we could get you those figures. We
have at least 60 instances of rockings and the assaults have
gone up 40 percent.
Mrs. Demings. OK, I remember a city near Orlando where
there was 1 murder in January and 1 murder in December and they
reported that murder rate had gone up 100 percent. So you are
not--you don't know in terms of serious injury, how many
officers or agents have been seriously injured during your
tenure?
Secretary Nielsen. Happy to get you that information.
Mrs. Demings. At this crisis at the border? OK, change of
direction for just a minute. Secretary Nielsen, you know that
the Fifth Amendment requires that private property owners must
receive just compensation for property seized under eminent
domain. Is that correct?
Secretary Nielsen. Yes.
Mrs. Demings. OK, in some cases, the Federal Government can
assume ownership of private property before compensation has
been adjudicated and before a land owner has received payment
for their land. Now, we can certainly debate whether seizing of
land from private property owners is the right thing to do or
not.
We know that some property owners in Texas whose land may
be seized, they had deeds predating State-hood in Texas, but I
would like to focus on just compensation. Determining just
compensation seems to be a challenge for the Department.
There have been reports about the discrepancies between
those who are represented by--have legal representation versus
those who don't and what the Department feels the land value is
versus other sources. How does the Federal Government determine
just compensation for land seized at the Southwest Border?
Secretary Nielsen. It is usually based on the market rate,
the amount of acreage and then, of course, a variety of other
factors, including the terrain of the land and what it could
otherwise be used for.
Mrs. Demings. USA Today has reported that some landowners
were offered less than $100, while the market value was up to
120 times greater. You said that they used fair market value to
determine that?
Secretary Nielsen. The general market value, yes.
Mrs. Demings. OK. So do you have any explanation at all for
the discrepancies?
Secretary Nielsen. I am happy to look further into it and
come and talk to you about it.
Mrs. Demings. What Federal resources exist to help
landowners, who are the mercy of the Federal Government,
negotiate just compensation for their land?
Secretary Nielsen. To my knowledge, the United States does
not have the ability to pay for counsel for them. But, of
course, it usually takes 12 to 16 months for this process to
complete. So, during that time, we work very closely both with
the area--the courts, if they are involved, and the landowner.
Mrs. Demings. Looking at the area on the border where the
President seems determined to build a wall, regardless of the
necessity to do that, how many land owners would be affected?
Secretary Nielsen. I don't have a particular number, ma'am.
As you know and as you described, some of the parcels, it is
very difficult to determine who owns them. We have, actually,
people looking through microfiche to ensure that we do our very
best to identify owners of particular parcels of land.
Mrs. Demings. Secretary Nielsen, I am out of time, but we
certainly have a lot more to discuss on this issue. I will
yield back. Thank you and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
I thank the witness for her testimony and the Members for
their questions. I ask unanimous consent to enter statements
into the record from organizations regarding asylum seekers,
families and children in DHS's custody, and other border
security issues. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Amnesty International
March 5, 2019
On behalf of Amnesty International \1\ and our more than 2 million
members and supporters in the United States, we hereby submit this
statement for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in
1977.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty International is an international human rights organization
with national and regional offices in more than 70 countries, including
in the United States and Mexico. One of Amnesty International's top
global priorities for the past several years has been protecting the
human rights of refugees and asylum seekers around the world, including
those who arrive to the U.S. border in search of safety. Amnesty
welcomes this oversight effort by the Committee on Homeland Security of
the policies and practices of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
related to the U.S. border.
Through extensive research and documentation, Amnesty International
has concluded that the Department of Homeland Security, under the
leadership of Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, has engaged in an all-out
assault on the right to seek asylum at the U.S. border. DHS has
undermined the the right to asylum by: (1) Turning back asylum seekers
who attempt to seek asylum at ports of entry (as they are authorized to
do under domestic and international law); (2) separating parents and
children to deter families who attempt to come to the United States in
search of safety; and (3) detaining record numbers of asylum seekers,
including children, who face abuse and ill treatment at the hands of
DHS officials.
who is seeking asylum at the u.s. border?
Though members of the current administration, including Secretary
Nielsen, have portrayed individuals seeking protection at the border in
alienating terms, the vast majority of these individuals are fleeing
record levels of insecurity, instability, and repression in their home
countries. They are survivors of violence, not perpetrators of it.
Amnesty International has documented that this violence, which
occurs against a backdrop of generalized impunity and lack of
government protection, drives people to leave Honduras, Guatemala, and
El Salvador--collectively, the most common countries of origin of
asylum seekers at the U.S. Southern Border.\2\ In this environment of
violence and insecurity, nationals of these countries face numerous
particularized risks, including forced recruitment of children and
adolescents, extortion, death threats, and even murder at the hands of
the maras, or powerful criminal groups acting as quasi-state
authorities, exercising territorial control in various parts of these
countries.\3\ Sexual violence, especially against women and members of
the LGBTI community, is endemic.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Amnesty International, ``Americas: Stuck at the Door,'' Nov.
2018, available at: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/
AMR0194472018ENGLISH.PDF, at 4.
\3\ Id.
\4\ Amnesty International, ``No Safe Place: Salvadorans,
Guatemalans, and Hondurans Seeking Asylum Based on their Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity,'' Nov. 2017, available at: https://
www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/No-Safe-Place-Briefing-
ENG-1.pdf; Kids in Need of Defense, Latin America Working Group, and
the Women's Refugee Commission, ``Sexual and Gender Based Violence &
Migration,'' May 2018, https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/
05/SGBV-Fact-sheet.-April-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 5 years, in response to these risks, the number of
asylum claims from these 3 countries of origin around the world have
increased. As Customs and Border Protection (CBP)'s own apprehension
data shows, in January 2019 alone, over 60 percent of individuals
apprehended at the border, and nearly half of all individuals seeking
admission at ports of entry, were family units and unaccompanied
children.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Customs and Border Protection, ``FY19 Southwest Border
Statistics,'' available at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-
border-migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Secretary Nielsen has dismissed the human right to seek
asylum as an inconvenient ``loophole,''\6\ it is in fact a bedrock
principle of international and domestic law. Under the 1951 Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (the latter of
which the United States has signed and incorporated into domestic law
through the 1980 Refugee Act),\7\ governments have the obligation not
to forcibly return individuals to a place where they would fear harm--
not just their countries of origin, but any other place where a person
would have reason to fear for their lives.\8\ To ensure this obligation
is met, Congress has codified the right to seek asylum both at and
between ports of entry in domestic law,\9\ and it has specifically
mandated that U.S. authorities refer individuals who express a fear of
return at the border to a ``credible fear'' process to assess their
asylum claims.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Transcript: Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's
Full Interview With NPR,'' May 11, 2018, available at: http://
www.wlrn.org/post/transcript-homeland-security-secretary-kirstjen-
nielsens-full-interview-npr.
\7\ Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees,
available at: https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.
\8\ Amnesty International, ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here:
Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention & Ill-Treatment of Asylum-
Seekers in the United States,'' Oct. 2018, available at: https://
www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/AMR5191012018ENGLISH.PDF
[hereinafter ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here''].
\9\ 8 U.S.C. sec. 1158(a).
\10\ 8 U.S.C. sec. 1225(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pushbacks, metering, and ``remain in mexico'': how dhs is illegally
turning back asylum seekers at the u.s.-mexico border
Though the number of border crossers are at historic lows, DHS has
institutionalized a practice of restricting access to territory for
asylum seekers, forcing them to wait in Mexico at grave personal risk,
with the goal that they will be dissuaded from seeking protection.
These measures range from the informal practice of artificially
lowering, or ``metering,'' the number of asylum applicants allowed to
access U.S. territory per day to the formally-announced Migrant
Protection Protocols, popularly known as the ``Remain in Mexico''
policy. They collectively reflect how DHS has illegally restricted the
right to seek asylum at the U.S. border, circumventing Congressional
intent in the process.
In May 2018, Secretary Nielsen confirmed that DHS was ``metering,''
or limiting, the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter U.S.
territory,\11\ stationing CBP officials at bridges leading to ports of
entry to turn back asylum seekers.\12\ Before 2017, when the practice
intensified, asylum seekers who approached U.S. officials at ports of
entry to express a fear of return and need for protection could
typically access U.S. territory and an asylum procedure, as Congress
has required. Now, CBP officials are instead pushing them back to
Mexico, where their names are placed on a series of ad hoc waiting
lists at ports of entry managed variously by Mexican authorities, NGO
groups, and even fellow asylum seekers; at some ports of entry, there
are two, competing lists, creating an environment ripe for abuse.\13\
Depending on the number of people on the list, asylum seekers are
forced to wait for weeks to months in this state of limbo.\14\ While no
official statistics on the number of people CBP officials have
illegally pushed back in this manner are available, Amnesty
International has documented that this practice has affected thousands
of asylum seekers, including families with children.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 11 (quoting DHS Secretary interview on Fox News, 15 May
2018).
\12\ DHS Office of the Inspector General, ``Initial Observations
Regarding Family Separation Issues Under the Zero Tolerance Policy,''
Sept. 27, 2018, available at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/assets/2018-10/OIG-18-84-Sep18.pdf, at 5-7.
\13\ Strauss Center, ``Asylum Processing and Waitlists at the U.S.-
Mexico Border,'' https://www.strausscenter.org/images/MSI/
AsylumReport_MSI.pdf, at 5.
\14\ Id. at 6.
\15\ ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2018, DHS announced that it would be implementing a
policy popularly known as ``Remain in Mexico,'' which it has
misleadingly labeled as the ``Migrant Protection Protocols.''\16\ Under
the program, certain individuals seeking asylum at the border are
forced to stay in Mexico at great risk to their personal safety for the
duration of their proceedings, which can take months or even years. In
the early days of its implementation in January and February 2019, the
``Remain in Mexico'' policy has already implicated vulnerable
individuals in its sweep, including families with children and LGBTI-
identifying individuals,\17\ and DHS has announced plans to expand the
program, including to individuals who are apprehended between ports of
entry.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Migrant Protection Protocols,'' Jan. 24, 2019, available at:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/01/24/migrant-protection-protocols.
\17\ See Human Rights First, ``A Sordid Scheme: The Trump
Administration's Illegal Return of Asylum-Seekers to Mexico,'' 13 Feb.
2019, https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/sordid-scheme-trump-
administration-s-illegal-return-asylum-seekers-mexico.
\18\ Dara Lind, `` `Remain in Mexico': Trump's quietly expanding
crackdown on asylum seekers, explained,'' VOX, March 5, 2019, https://
www.vox.com/2019/3/5/18244995/migrant-protection-protocols-border-
asylum-trump-mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The practice of pushing back asylum seekers through metering or the
``Remain in Mexico'' policy, either to await their ability to
articulate a fear of return in a credible or reasonable fear interview
or the outcome of their asylum case, violates international and
domestic law, is practically unjustified, and comes at significant
human cost.
As explained above, the U.S. Government--in this case, DHS--has a
statutory obligation to receive asylum seekers' claims, thereby
ensuring the U.S. Government does not run afoul of its obligation to
refrain from forcibly returning individuals to harm.\19\ Even the
statutory provision supposedly authorizing the ``Remain in Mexico''
initiative explicitly excepts individuals in expedited removal
proceedings, a category which covers most individuals who apply for
asylum at the border.\20\ Even at the outermost perimeter of the
border, the turning away of asylum seekers clearly violates the
Government's obligations under international law.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See 8 U.S.C. sec. 1158(a); 8 U.S.C. sec. 1225(b).
\20\ See Hillel R. Smith, ``Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal
Framemwork,'' CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Sept. 19, 2018, https://
fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45314.pdf.
\21\ See ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Nielsen's attempts to justify these practices by citing
``capacity constraints'' are belied by reality. Border crossings are at
all-time historic lows,\22\ while the number of CBP officials is now at
a historic high of nearly 60,000 agents,\23\ with funding for an
additional 600 CBP officials appropriated just last month.\24\ This
represents more than double the CBP personnel since DHS's creation in
2003, when border crossings were 3 times as high as they are now.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Linda Qiu, ``Border Crossings Have Been Declining for Years,
Despite Claims of a `Crisis of Illegal Immigration,' '' N.Y. TIMES,
June 20, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-
check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html.
\23\ See ``CBP Snapshot: A Summary of Facts and Figures,'' March
2018, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-
Mar/cbp-snapshot-20180320.pdf.
\24\ See Dept. of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2019, Title
II, available at: https://www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-
joint-resolution/31/text.
\25\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, though ports of entry along the border have vastly
differing capacities to detain and process individuals, metering and
pushbacks have been universally implemented at all of them. Senior CBP
and ICE officials at the San Ysidro port of entry, which is the busiest
land border in the Western hemisphere, informed Amnesty International
in 2018 that CBP has only reached its detention capacity a couple of
times per year.\26\ Yet in 2017 and 2018, CBP personnel frequently
turned away even small numbers of asylum seekers at San Ysidro and
other ports of entry, without explaining why.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 17.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, and most importantly, though terms like ``metering'' place
a clinical, anodyne gloss on the practice, make no mistake: This is a
dangerous policy that places asylum seekers directly in harm's way. In
April and May 2018, Amnesty International documented first-hand the
negative consequences of CBP's refusal to receive asylum seekers'
requests for protection after interviewing asylum seekers who had been
pushed back. In one shelter in Tijuana, a transgender Guatemalan woman
named Maritza recounted being turned away from San Ysidro when
attempting to seek asylum; upon return to Tijuana, she was detained and
beaten by local police.\28\ Shortly afterward, a group of 6 armed men
attacked a Tijuana shelter where 11 LGBTI asylum seekers had been
staying, yelling homophobic slurs and threatening to kill them if they
did not leave the neighborhood. Though the group approached CBP
officials to request asylum and convey the threats they'd suffered, the
officials maintained that they still had no ``capacity'' to process the
asylum seekers.\29\ In February 2019, 2 Honduran teenagers--both still
children--were killed near the youth migrant shelter where they were
staying while they waited to apply for asylum.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 23.
\29\ Id.
\30\ Julia Gavarrette & Heather Gies, ``Honduran Teen Fled Gangs
Only to be Murdered While at U.S.-Mexico Border,'' THE INTERCEPT, Feb.
23, 2019, https://theintercept.com/2019/02/23/unaccompanied-minor-
migrants-us-border-policy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty International has previously documented the many risks
asylum seekers face in Mexico: Following a comprehensive survey, we
concluded that nearly 40 percent of individuals surveyed who were
detained by Mexican immigration authorities had been unlawfully
returned to harm's way, and 75 percent of those surveyed were never
even informed of their right to seek asylum in Mexico.\31\ One
individual who Amnesty had spoken with after he was wrongfully deported
from Mexico was killed by the very individuals he feared just days
later.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Amnesty International, ``Overlooked and Under-protected:
Mexico's Deadly Refoulement of Central Americans Seeking Asylum,'' Jan.
2018, https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/
AMR4176022018-ENGLISH-05.pdf, at 5.
\32\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
family separations: how dhs weaponized an illegal practice to deter and
punish asylum seekers
In April 2018, DHS implemented a campaign of forcible separation of
thousands of asylum-seeking families under a so-called ``zero
tolerance'' policy, by which it criminally prosecuted adults crossing
between ports of entry (the same adults who, had they tried to approach
at ports of entry, would likely have been pushed back thanks to the
``metering'' policy in place at those ports). Though the administration
was ordered to cease separating children from their families in June
2018, months later, DHS continues to regularly separate children from
their parents, as well as from other relatives and caretakers.\33\ The
full scope and scale of family separation is still unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Dara Lind, ``Hundreds of Families Are Still Being Separated at
the Border,'' VOX, Feb. 21, 2019, https://www.vox.com/2019/2/21/
18234767/parents-separated-children-families-border-trump-jails.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on public statements and internal memoranda by U.S.
Government officials, there is overwhelming evidence that family
separations were intended to deter asylum seekers from requesting
protection in the United States as well as to punish and compel those
who did seek protection to give up their asylum claims. Numerous media
reports document the leveraging of family separations to coerce asylum
seekers to give up their claims in exchange for reunification;\34\ on
one occasion, Amnesty International witnessed first-hand an immigration
judge tell a Brazilian grandmother who had been separated from her
developmentally disabled grandchild that she could give up her asylum
claim and be reunited with him or be deported without him, presumably
after the denial of her claim.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 30 & note 102-103.
\35\ ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An internal DHS memo dating from December 2017, which was made
available in January 2019, revealed that the agency conceived of the
family separations policy as a means of deterring children and their
families from coming to the United States.\36\ Contrary to U.S. and
international legal obligations, DHS never considered the children's
best interests in its cruel and unlawful family separation policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The memo is available here: https://www.documentcloud.org/
documents/5688664-Merkleydocs2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, there still has not been a full reckoning of the scale
of family separations. Amnesty International's October 2018 report was
the first to document how the number of family separations was far
greater than DHS initially disclosed, and could be as high as 8,000
family units, if not more.\37\ In January 2019, a report by the Office
of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services
revealed that the total number of separated families and children is
``unknown.''\38\ Though family separations are the subject of an on-
going class action lawsuit, many of the affected families do not fall
within the definition of the class, and thus DHS has not publicly
counted the families not falling within class definition toward the
total, though it has suggested that thousands more have been separated
than it previously revealed.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 42; Amnesty
International, ``USA: Facts and figures on illegal pushbacks, arbitrary
detention and ill treatment of asylum-seekers in the United States,''
22 Oct. 2019, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/usa-facts-
and-fugures-of-illegal-pushbacks-arbitrary-detention-and-ill-
treatment/. Part of the ambiguity stems from the fact that the various
agencies ``count'' family units differently--while DHS and the Dep't of
Health and Human Services appear to count a family as a single ``family
unit,'' CBP's Southwest Border Migration Statistics appear to count
``family units'' as the total number of individuals in the unit.
Compare ``Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors
and Unaccompanied Alien Children'' (7 Sept. 2018), available at:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-09-07/pdf/2018-19052.pdf
(defining ``family units'' as a group of two or more aliens consisting
of a minor or minors accompanied by his/her/their adult parent(s) or
legal guardian(s)'') with ``Southwest Border Migration Fiscal Year
2019,'' available at: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-
migration (defining ``family units'' as the total number of individuals
in the units).
\38\ Dep't of Health & Human Services Office of the Inspector
General, ``Separated Children Placed in Office of Refugee Resettlement
Care,'' Jan. 2019, available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-
BL-18-00511.pdf.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its research in 2018, Amnesty International found that the
administration's deliberate and punitive practice of forced family
separations in some cases constituted torture under both U.S. and
international law. To meet the definition of torture, an act must be:
(1) Intentional; (2) carried out or condoned by a Government official;
(3) inflicting severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental;
and (4) carried out for a specific purpose such as punishment,
coercion, intimidation, or for a discriminatory reason.\40\ The Trump
administration's deliberate policy and practice of forcible family
separations satisfies all of these criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading, or
Inhuman Treatment or Punishment, art. 1, available at: https://
www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cat.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, Amnesty International interviewed 15 adults whom DHS
agencies separated from their children both before and after the
introduction of the so-called zero-tolerance policy.\41\ The
separations happened in all 4 U.S. States along the U.S.-Mexico border
(California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas), at the hands of both CBP
and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. In all of
those cases, prior to being separated, the families had requested
asylum and expressed their fear of return to their countries of origin.
According to the adults, in none of these cases did DHS personnel
explain to the families the reasons for the separations at the time
that they happened or allow them to defend their custodial right to
family unity. DHS personnel simply separated the families--in some
cases through the use or threat of physical force.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty International interviewed a Brazilian mother, Valquiria,
who was separated from her 8-year-old son, Abel, with no explanation
given, after the two approached CBP officials at a port of entry to
seek asylum. Nearly a year later, Valquiria remains in detention at the
El Paso Processing Center; on March 17, it will be 1 year since
Valquiria was separated from her son. Abel has stared blankly for
months at the door in the house where he lives, waiting for his mother
to return.
``They told me, `You don't have any rights here, and you don't have
any rights to stay with your son,'' Valquiria recalled. ``For me, I
died at that moment. They ripped my heart out of me. It would have been
better if I had dropped dead. For me, the world ended at that point.
How can a mother not have the right to be with her son?''
detention and ill-treatment in custody as punitive measures for seeking
asylum
Even for those asylum seekers who manage to access U.S. asylum
proceedings, in recent years, an increasing number of them have been
relegated to mandatory and indefinite detention as they fight for the
right to be protected. As of January 2019, ICE was detaining close to
50,000 people per day.\42\ Many of those detained are asylum seekers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Heidi Altman & Mary Small, ``Immigration Detention and the DHS
Negotiations: An Explainer,'' National Immigrant Justice Center, Feb.
11, 2019, https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/blog/immigration-
detention-and-dhs-spending-negotiations-explainer; Detention Watch
Network, ``ICE's Fiscal Mismanagement: Fraud, Deceit, and Abuse,''
available at: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/
files/ICE%E2%80%99s%20Fiscal%20Mismanage-
ment%20Deceit%20and%20Abuse.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2017, the administration adopted a policy requiring all
asylum seekers to remain in detention for the duration of their
proceedings, without parole, effectively punishing them for exercising
the right to seek asylum. Although a court in June 2018 declared that
individuals who had been found to have a ``credible fear'' of return to
their home countries--and were thus authorized to proceed with their
asylum claims--had to receive individualized determinations for parole
from detention, the ruling applies only in certain jurisdictions, and a
significant number of asylum seekers continue to languish in detention
for the duration of their proceedings.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ ``You Don't Have Any Rights Here,'' at 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amnesty International has documented how particularly vulnerable
individuals, including transgender asylum seekers, remain in detention
for months at a time, where they are unable to access adequate health
care and are vulnerable to abuse and ill-treatment while in custody,
often after having suffered death threats, exploitation, and sexual
violence in their home countries.\44\ For example, since May 2018,
Amnesty has advocated for the release of Alejandra, a trans woman and
transgender rights activist from El Salvador who has been detained
since December 2017 in the Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan,
New Mexico, where she has been denied parole on three separate
occasions despite her rapidly deteriorating health.\45\ In each of the
three denials she has received, no reason is given for Alejandra's
continued detention other than a checked box stating that Alejandra--
who fled to the United States in 2017 after facing death threats and
sexual assaults at the hands of both the Salvadoran military and the
maras--is a ``flight risk.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id. at 54-55.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, detention creates an environment that is ripe for
abuse and ill-treatment: Recent reports reveal troubling allegations of
abuse at the hands of ICE officials responsible for the care of asylum
seekers in their custody. A 2018 study of sexual abuse allegations made
by individuals in ICE custody found that nearly 60 percent of the
complaints reviewed involved perpetrators who were ICE officials.\46\
In CBP custody, meanwhile, 2 children died over the course of a single
month in December 2018, and reports document the verbal, physical, and
sexual abuse children have faced at the hands of CBP agents over the
past several years.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Alice Speri, ``Detained, then Violated,'' THE INTERCEPT, APR.
11, 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-
sexual-abuse-ice-dhs/.
\47\ Ashley Hackett, ``Thousands of Children Have Suffered Abuse at
the Hands of U.S. Border Protection Agents,'' PACIFIC STANDARD, 25 May
2018, https://psmag.com/social-justice/thousands-of-children-have-
suffered-abuse-at-the-hands-of-us-border-protection-agents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amnesty international's recommendations
On illegal pushbacks of asylum seekers:
Exercise greater oversight of DHS to halt the illegal
pushback of asylum seekers and to understand the extent of the
practice.
Request regular information about the processing capacities
and numbers of individuals turned back at all ports of entry.
Implement measures clarifying that the purported
justification for the ``Remain in Mexico'' program, Section
235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, is not
meant to apply to asylum seekers.
Demand all information from the Government regarding cross-
border negotiations undertaken in conjunction with metering and
pushbacks, both practices which appear to require cooperation
of Mexican government officials.
Participate in delegations to ports of entry at the
Southwest Border, including to migrant shelters adjacent to the
ports of entry, to understand first-hand the impact of
metering, pushbacks, and ``Remain in Mexico.''
Decline to continue funding CBP operations absent rigorous
external oversight of CBP field operations and U.S. Border
Patrol and increase funding specifically for the processing of
asylum claims at the Southern Border.
On family separation:
Pass legislation outlawing the separation of children and
families unless clear and specific evidence exists that family
unity is not in the child's best interests.
Continue to exercise oversight of DHS's role in the family
separation policy to understand the scope and extent of the
policy.
On indefinite detention of asylum seekers:
Pass legislation to provide for a presumption against
detention of asylum seekers and to ensure the right to judicial
review and due process in cases of detention.
Support and fund community-based alternatives to detention,
such as the former Family Case Management Program.
For more information, please contact Charanya Krishnaswami[.]
______
Statement of the Center for Victims of Torture
March 6, 2019
The Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) commends the House Homeland
Security Committee for holding an oversight hearing on the Trump
administration's border policies, which have contributed to the
creation of an actual crisis at the U.S. Southern Border. We appreciate
the opportunity to submit this statement for the record.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For questions or for more information about CVT's work in this
area and on related issues, please contact Andrea Carcamo, Senior
Policy Counsel at the Center for Victims of Torture[.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Founded in 1985 as an independent non-governmental organization,
the Center for Victims of Torture is the oldest and largest torture
survivor rehabilitation center in the United States and one of the two
largest in the world. Through programs operating in the United States,
the Middle East, and Africa--involving psychologists, social workers,
physical therapists, physicians, psychiatrists, and nurses--CVT
annually rebuilds the lives of nearly 25,000 primary and secondary
survivors, including children. CVT also conducts research, training,
and advocacy, with each of those programs rooted in CVT's healing
services. The organization's policy advocacy leverages the expertise of
five stakeholder groups: Survivors, clinicians, human rights lawyers,
operational/humanitarian aid providers, and foreign policy experts. The
vast majority of CVT's clients in the United States are asylum seekers.
Indeed, according to the Department of Health and Human Services Office
of Refugee Resettlement, research indicates that 44 percent of asylum
seekers, asylees, and refugees now living in the United States are
torture survivors.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Office of Refugee Resettlement. Survivors of Torture Program.
Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/survivors-of-
torture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVT's extensive experience providing mental health services to
asylum seekers and refugees in the United States and around the globe
uniquely positions us to speak to the adverse effects certain border
practices have on the mental health of children and adults fleeing
persecution, as well as the United States' dwindling reputation as a
global leader in human rights. We focus here on two such practices: The
migrant protection protocols and family separation.
the migrant protection protocols are putting asylum seekers at risk of
further traumatization
Forcing people seeking safe haven in the United States to remain in
Mexico during the pendency of the their asylum cases is unnecessary,
unsafe, and will exacerbate the pain and suffering the torture and
trauma survivors already are experiencing.
According to the head of Mexico's National Migration Institute,
Tonatiuh Guillen, Mexico is not prepared to host thousands of asylum
seekers for years, or even months.\3\ Its government simply is not
equipped for the task the United States has imposed on it, especially
when it comes to hosting torture and trauma survivors. Border cities
are not safe for residents, much less for vulnerable populations, such
as survivors of torture fleeing persecution.\4\ Many asylum seekers
will be at high risk of re-victimization by becoming targets for human
trafficking, labor exploitation, rape, and kidnapping. A significant
number of survivors of torture from Central America suffer violence at
the hands of gangs that have powerful networks extending to Mexico,\5\
making the country especially unsafe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ McDonnell, Patrick (Dec. 21, 2018). Los Angeles Times. Mexico
is Unprepared for the Deal it Made with the U.S. on asylum seekers,
immigration chief says. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/world/
mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-remain-20181221-story.html
\4\ Human Rights First (February, 2019). A Sordid Scheme: The Trump
Administration's Illegal Return of Asylum Seekers to Mexico. Retrieved
from https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/
A_Sordid_Scheme.pdf.
\5\ Squires, Scott (March 8, 2018). In Sight Crime. MS 13 Feud
Spreads to Mexico, but Gang's Presence Remains Limited. Retrieved from
https://www.insightcrime.org/news/brief/ms13-feud-spreads-mexico-gangs-
presence-remains-limited/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even putting aside the host of serious dangers to which asylum
seekers are exposed and additionally susceptible as a result of having
to remain in Mexico, the policy is damaging. One of the most valuable
resources survivors of torture have to help their recovery is the
support of friends, family, and fellow countrymen. Many of the
individuals who choose to flee to the United States do so because they
have connections through friends or family. These contacts can prove
invaluable for asylum-seeking survivors of torture or other trauma, as
their contacts help them navigate within a new culture and language.
CVT sees this with our clients; for example, Ethiopians who come to
Minnesota because they have connections to family or to fellow
Ethiopians there. Lack of access to these networks, and the support
they provide, adds stress, and exacerbates trauma.
family separation exacerbates the trauma faced by families fleeing
persecution
A significant number of the Central American families who come to
the United States are survivors of torture,\6\ and many more are
fleeing persecution. Because of the nature of trauma, oftentimes
children who accompany traumatized parents experience symptoms as
secondary survivors (even if they have not been directly harmed
previously). These highly traumatized populations are particularly
vulnerable to the adverse effects of detention and separation from
their loved ones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Meyer and Pachico (Feb 1, 2018). Washington Office on Latin
America. Fact Sheet: U.S. Immigration and Central American Asylum
Seekers. Retrieved from https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-
united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Susan Jasko MSW, LICSW, a CVT therapist with over 20
years of clinical experience working with children and families:
``When children are young, they are bonding with their parents, and
good bonding leads to positive relationships with other people in
adolescence and adulthood. Breaking that bond can have consequences in
the child's ability to socialize with others. When children come from
an area where they experienced violence, it teaches them that the world
is not safe. Then, when they are separated from their parent, this idea
is solidified, which can have a profound effect on the development of
the child. If a child lives in a state of trauma, as children fleeing
conflict areas that are separated from their families do, it can affect
their brain development at a biological level as well.''
Many of the children Ms. Jasko has treated over the years were
struggling with separation from or loss of parents, and all presented
severe symptoms, including nightmares, fears, anxiety, and depression.
Ms. Jasko's experience is far from unique. Indeed, over 20,000
medical and mental health professionals and researchers working in the
United States (including Andrea Northwood, CVT director of client
services), have previously made clear--directly to the DHS--that
``[t]he relationship of parents and children is the strongest social
tie most people experience, and a threat to that tie is among the most
traumatic events people can experience.''\7\ They further explained
that separating a child from a parent causes an effect known as adverse
childhood experience (ACE), which can lead to multiple forms of
impairment and increased risk of serious mental health conditions
including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Physicians for Human Rights (June 14, 2018). Letter to
Secretary Nielsen and Attorney General Sessions. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHR_other/Separation_Letter_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disturbingly, this information was not new to officials from the
Trump administration: On July 31, 2018, Commander Jonathan White,
formerly of the Department of Health and Human Services, testified that
he raised the very real concern that separating families could cause
long-term emotional and psychological effects on children when the
policy was presented to him before its implementation.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ C-Span (July 13, 2018). Public Health Service Commander Warned
Against Family Separation. Retrieved from https://www.c-span.org/video
/?c4742969/public-health-service-commander-warned-family-separations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the damage to children must be central, we urge Members also
to appreciate the harm family separation has caused, and continues to
cause, to affected parents. At CVT, 67 percent of U.S.-based clients--
refugees and asylum seekers from around the world--have been separated
from their families, sometimes by force and other times by necessity
when clients must flee without warning to escape imminent danger.
During her time at CVT, in addition to her work with children, Ms.
Jasko has also treated adult clients seeking asylum who had no option
but to leave their country without their children. ``The uncertainty of
not knowing when they will next see their children makes me worry about
my clients,'' she says, ``as they express feelings of hopelessness and
suicidal thoughts.''
family separation is a technique utilized by tyrants and other
oppressors that the united states has long condemned
CVT has served hundreds of children, some of whom were subjected to
separation as a tool to coerce their parents. For example, Jana, a 10-
year-old Syrian girl, endured forced separation from her family and
imprisonment before crossing the Syrian-Jordanian border seeking
safety. She had been detained--along with other children--for nearly a
month in an attempt to force her father to turn himself in. He did, and
he was murdered. Saad's little brother, a young boy, was held for 2
weeks in prison and tortured. The militia sent pictures of his abuse to
Saad's family with a message warning them to leave Iraq. When his
little brother was returned to them, Saad and his family fled to
Jordan.
This is what tyrants, dictators, and other oppressors do. It is not
how democracies are supposed to behave. And yet, the Trump
administration embraced the practice of separating children from their
parents admittedly as a deterrent: To dissuade vulnerable people from
seeking safe haven in the United States at all, and for those it did
not entirely deter then to coerce them into forgoing their right to
seek asylum and to sign a deportation order, which for many would
return them to countries and circumstances where they face significant
risk of further persecution, violence, or even death.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Van Schaak, Beth (Nov 27, 2018). Just Security. New Proof
Surfaces that Family Separation was About Deterrence and Punishment.
Retrieved from https://www.justsecurity.org/61621/proof-surfaces-
family-separation-deterrence-punishment/; Bernal, Rafael (June 19,
2018). The Hill. HHS Official Says Family Separation Policy will ``have
Deterrence Effect.'' Retrieved from https://thehill.com/latino/393000-
hhs-official-says-family-separation-policy-will-have-deterrence-effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family separation of this kind is not only immoral, it is also
unlawful. Most directly, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits
contracting States from ``impos[ing] penalties'' on the basis of how a
refugee arrived to the United States--whether through illegal entry,
presence, or without authorization. Indeed, the international community
has recognized the importance of a child's bond with a parent, for
example through Article 9 of the United Nations Conventions on the
Rights of the Child (CRC), 196 countries have agreed that they ``shall
ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents
against their will, except when competent authorities subject to
judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and
procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of
the child.''\10\ Although the United States has not ratified this
treaty (the only country in the world not to have done so), as a
signatory the United States is bound to not engage in actions that
``defeat'' the CRC's ``object and purpose.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner
(Sept 2, 1990). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from
https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.
\11\ United Nations Treaty Collection, Chapter XXIII (May 23,
1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18. Retrieved
from https://treaties.un.org/pages/
ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXIII1&chapter=23&Temp=mtdsg3&cl
ang=_en. Although the United States is not a party to the Vienna
Convention, ``many commentators claim that Article 18 reflects
customary international law that is binding on nations that have not
joined the Convention, a claim that the United States has not denied.''
Curtis A. Bradley, Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S.
Constitution, 48 Harv. Int'l L. J. 307, 307-308 & n.1 (2007); see also
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (acknowledging ``the overwhelming
weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty,''
including the direct prohibition in Article 37 of the CRC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States must not underestimate how its actions
reverberate globally; in particular the implicit permission that U.S.
practice might give other nations to act the same. The United States
cannot maintain a credible global leadership role in the human rights
sphere if separating families to deter asylum seekers is the kind of
example the Executive branch is going to set.
conclusion and recommendations
Custom and Border Patrol's actions at the border are the actual
crisis at our Southern Border, which have a profound impact on the
lives of some of the world's most vulnerable people, torture survivors
among them. The practices of family separation and returning asylum
seekers to Mexico must be stopped, those responsible should be held
accountable, victims deserve redress, and preventive mechanisms need to
be adopted. More specifically, we urge the Executive branch and
Congress to take the following actions, respectively:
Executive Branch
Stop the expansion and implementation of the Migration
Protection Protocols.
Immediately reunify all families.
End the practice of separating families to deter individuals
from coming to the United States and seeking refuge.
Ensure family separation determinations are not arbitrary,
but instead made by child welfare professionals where the
child's safety is the primary consideration.
Whenever there is an appropriate determination to separate a
child from a parent for the child's safety, ensure there is an
adequate system to track the family and their relationship to
each other.
ICE and CBP must facilitate communications between a child
and a parent who have been separated.
Congress
Conduct rigorous, on-going oversight of family separation
and its consequences, with an immediate focus on ensuring the
Executive branch reunifies families and discontinues the
practice of arbitrary family separation.
Support the REUNITE Act.
______
Statement of CWS
March 6, 2019
As a 73-year-old humanitarian organization representing 37
Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox denominations and 23 refugee
resettlement offices across the United States, Church World Service
urges the committee to exercise its oversight responsibility by holding
DHS accountable to humanitarian principles stipulated in U.S. \1\ and
international \2\ law. CWS urges the committee to do everything in its
power to end family incarceration and separation, protect immigrant
children, terminate the administration's ``zero tolerance'' policy, and
uphold U.S. asylum law. CWS affirms the right of individuals to seek
safety and calls on Congress to recognize the importance of access to
protection. In addition, the committee should ensure that DHS is
operating the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in good faith, in
accordance with Congressional intent and The 1980 Refugee Act.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Immigration and Nationality Act 208, 8 U.S.C. 1157.
\2\ The Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 2, 3, 6,
and 22. www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx; The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14. www.un.org/en/
documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14; United Nations General Assembly,
Declaration on Territorial Asylum, 14 December 1967, A/RES/2312(XXII).
www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f05a2c.html; United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, A Framework for the Protection of Children
www.unhcr.org/50f6cf0b9.html; United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html.
\3\ Immigration and Nationality Act 207, 8 U.S. Code 1157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CWS condemns the administration's policies that have caused family
separation at ports of entry and between ports of entry, including of
asylum seekers, as well as ``zero tolerance'' policies that detain and
prosecute parents for migration-related offenses. Reports have surfaced
that despite court intervention, family separations persist. Border
agents have used vague allegations, such as illegal re-entry, to
justify separating parents from their children. Reports have documented
guards using the threat of separation as a method of discipline, as
well as children experiencing signs of psychological and physical
trauma due to such separation. Similar policies of detaining asylum-
seeking families to deter migration have already been found to violate
the law by a U.S. court. Allowing front-line agents to threaten family
separation and refuse asylum claims undermines due process and results
in deporting families back to harm. These policies also result in more
unaccompanied children being placed in detention. CWS urges Congress to
hold the administration accountable to terminating all ``zero
tolerance'' policies.
Equally troubling is the expansion of family incarceration, which
is plagued with systemic abuse and inadequate access to medical care.
These conditions are unacceptable, especially for children, pregnant
and nursing mothers, and individuals with serious medical conditions.
The American Association of Pediatrics has found that family detention
facilities do not meet basic standards for the care of children and
``no child should be in detention centers or separated from parents.''
CWS urges Members of Congress to reject any proposal that would expand
family incarceration or violate the long-standing child welfare
consensus that children should not be detained for longer than 20 days.
CWS is strongly opposed to any proposal that would weaken or
eliminate provisions in the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which provides important procedural
protections for unaccompanied children in order to accurately determine
if they are eligible for relief as victims of trafficking or
persecution. All people have the legal right to seek protection from
persecution and violence.\4\ Weakening existing legal protections for
children would undermine the U.S. Government's moral authority as a
leader in combating human trafficking, and would increase
vulnerabilities for trafficking victims by curtailing access to due
process, legal representation, and child-appropriate services. CWS
urges the administration and Congress to affirm the right of all people
to seek protection and ensure that individuals seeking safety are not
returned to their traffickers and others who seek to exploit them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Article 14, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14; U.S. Code Title 8: Aliens
and Nationality, Chapter 12: Immigration and Nationality, Section 1158:
Asylum. http://uscode.house.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration has also imposed multiple bans and a series of
changes to the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) that have
prolonged family separation and left tens of thousands of vulnerable
refugees in limbo. It has decreased the number of refugees that can be
resettled in the United States to a record low 30,000 in fiscal year
2019, after resettling less than half of last year's then-historic low
of 45,000. Resettlement is the last resort for men, women, and children
who cannot return to their home countries and cannot rebuild their
lives in the country where they first fled. Resettlement is the already
the most difficult way to enter the United States, but these bans,
alongside many policy changes, have denied safety to tens of thousands
of bona fide refugees and have reversed decades of U.S. leadership on
refugee protection. We urge Congress to hold the administration
accountable to meeting its fiscal year refugee admissions goal and
rebuilding the resettlement program, returning the program to historic
norms.
We implore DHS to actively protect refugees, asylum seekers, and
other vulnerable populations, and we urge Congress to hold them
accountable to that end. And we remind our elected leaders of Leviticus
19:33-34, which reads: ``Any immigrant who lives with you must be
treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as
yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt; I am the
LORD your God.''
______
Letter From the Electronic Privacy Information Center
March 5, 2019.
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman,
The Honorable Mike Rogers, Ranking Member,
U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, H2-176 Ford House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Rogers: We write to you
regarding the hearing ``The Way Forward on Border Security.''\1\ The
Electronic Privacy Information Center (``EPIC'') is a public interest
research center established in 1994 to focus public attention on
emerging privacy and civil liberties issues.\2\ EPIC is focused on the
protection of individual privacy rights, and we are particularly
interested in the privacy problems associated with surveillance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Way Forward on Border Security, U.S. House Comm. on
Oversight and Gov't Reform (Mar. 6, 2019), https://homeland.house.gov/
hearings-and-markups/hearings/way-forward-border-security.
\2\ See About EPIC, EPIC.org, https://epic.org/epic/about.html.
\3\ EPIC, EPIC Domestic Surveillance Project, https://epic.org/
privacy/surveillance/, Statement of EPIC, ``Unmanned Aircraft Systems:
Innovation, Successes, and Challenges,'' Hearing Before S. Comm. on
Commerce, Sci., and Trans., United States Senate, Mar. 13, 2017,
https://epic.org/testimony/congress/EPICSCOM-Drones-Mar2017.pdf; The
Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy
Considerations: Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 113th Cong.
(2013) (Statement of Amie Stepanovich, Director, EPIC Domestic
Surveillance Project), https://epic.org/privacy/testimony/EPIC-Drone-
Testimony-3-13-Stepanovich.pdf; Comments of EPIC to DHS, Docket No.
DHS-2007-0076 CCTV: Developing Privacy Best Practices (2008), https://
epic.org/privacy/surveillance/epic_cctv_011508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several border security proposals now before Congress
that implicate the privacy rights of Americans. These practices include
cell phone searches, scanning social media, and aerial drones.
EPIC writes to warn that enhanced surveillance at the border will
almost certainly sweep up the personal data of U.S. citizens. Before
there is any increased deployment of surveillance systems at the U.S.
border, an assessment of the privacy implications should be conducted.
Additionally, deployment of surveillance technology should be
accompanied by new policy and procedures and independent oversight to
protect citizens' rights. And any law enforcement agency that uses
surveillance tools should comply with all applicable laws, including
open government obligations. The privacy assessments, policies and
procedures, and oversight mechanisms should all be made public.
The American Bar Association recently adopted a new policy on
privacy rights and border searches.\4\ The policy ``urges the Federal
judiciary, Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security to enact
legislation and adopt policies to protect the privacy interests of
those crossing the border by imposing standards for searches and
seizures of electronic devices, protection of attorney-client
privilege, the work product doctrine, and lawyer-client
confidentiality.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A.B.A., Resolution 107A (2019), https://www.americanbar.org/
content/dam/aba/images/news/2019mymhodres/107a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
searches of mobile devices at the border
Searches of cell phones and other electronic devices by border
agencies have skyrocketed in recent years. In 2017, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) searched 30,200 electronic devices--almost a 60
percent increase from 2016.\5\ Searches of mobile devices are ``basic''
or ``forensic.'' Under current policy, the Government may conduct a
``basic'' search--where an agent manually searches the device for
information--with no suspicion of wrongdoing of the person whose device
is subject to search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Press Release, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Releases
Updated Border Search of Electronic Device Directive and Fiscal Year
2017 Statistics (Jan. 5, 2018), https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-
media-release/cbp-releases-updated-border-search-electronic-device-
directive-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government must have
reasonable suspicion to conduct a ``forensic'' search, where an agent
connects another device to conduct a search.\6\ Following that
decision, CBP updated its policy to require the reasonable suspicion
Nation-wide.\7\ Despite this change, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) has failed to issue new guidance on mobile device
searches at the border. This is troubling since it is often ICE agents
who conduct searches of mobile devices. EPIC has sued ICE to gain
access to information on warrantless searches at the border.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ United States v. Cotterman, 673 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2012) (en
banc).
\7\ Press Release, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Releases
Updated Border Search of Electronic Device Directive and Fiscal Year
2017 Statistics (Jan. 5, 2018), https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-
media-release/cbp-releases-updated-border-search-electronic-device-
directive-and.
\8\ EPIC, EPIC Sues ICE Over Technology Used to Conduct Warrantless
Searches of Mobile Devices (Apr. 9, 2018), https://epic.org/2018/04/
epic-sues-ice-over-technology-.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE should adhere to minimum Fourth Amendment standards of
suspicion when conducting searches, particularly followed the Supreme
Court's recent decisions in Carpenter v. U.S. and Riley v.
California.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (cell phone
location records are protected under Fourth Amendment); Riley v.
California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (a warrantless search of a cell
phone during an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
use of social media profiling
DHS has repeatedly expressed interest in monitoring social media
profiles to collect information on immigrants.\10\ The department hired
an outside contractor to ``monitor public social communications on the
Internet,'' including the public comments sections of the New York
Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, Drudge, Wired's techblogs,
and ABC News.\11\ DHS further sought to establish ``extreme vetting''
programs that would use secret algorithms to determine visa
eligibility.\12\ EPIC warned that ``the use of information technology
to identify individuals that may pose a specific threat to the United
States'' implicates a ``complex problem [that] necessarily involves
subjective judgments.''\13\ Though that program was abandoned,\14\ ICE
left the door open to develop and implement similar or more intrusive
programs, and has continued to contract with surveillance firms to mine
social media information.\15\ This is especially troubling given the
agency's insistence that social media profiles should be exempted from
Privacy Act protections.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Comments of the Electronic Privacy Information Center to the
Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Act of 1974; System of
Records, EPIC (Oct. 18, 2017), https://epic.org/apa/comments/EPIC-DHS-
SocialMedia-Info-Collection.pdf.
\11\ DHS Social Media Monitoring Documents at 127, 135, 148, 193,
https://epic.org/foia/epic-v-dhs-media-monitoring/EPICFOIA-DHS-Media-
Monitoring-12-2012.pdf; see also Charlie Savage, Federal Contractor
Monitored Social Network Sites, N.Y. Times (Jan. 13, 2012), http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/federal-security-program-monitored-
public-opinion.html.
\12\ EPIC, EPIC, Coalition Oppose Government's ``Extreme Vetting''
Proposal (Nov. 16, 2017), https://epic.org/2017/11/epic-coalition-
oppose-governme.html.
\13\ Security and Liberty: Protecting Privacy, Preventing Terrorism
Before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States (Dec. 8, 2003) (statement of Marc Rotenberg, President,
Electronic Privacy Information Center), https://epic.org/privacy/
terrorism/911commtest.pdf.
\14\ EPIC, ICE Abandons ``Extreme Vetting'' Software to Screen Visa
Applicants (May 18, 2018), https://epic.org/2018/05/ice-abandons-
extreme-vetting-s.html.
\15\ See Chantal Da Silva, ICE Just Launched a $2.4M Contract with
a Secretive Data Surveillance Company that Tracks You in Real Time,
Newsweek (June 7, 2018), https://www.newsweek.com/ice-just-signed-
24mcontract-secretive-data-surveillance-company-can-track-you-962493.
\16\ EPIC, CBP Plans to Exempt Social Media Data from Legal
Protections (Sept. 22, 2017), https://epic.org/2017/09/cbp-plans-to-
exempt-social-med.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This committee must ensure that surveillance programs do not
encroach the civil liberties and Constitutional rights of Americans.
Specifically, the committee should ask:
How does ICE intend to use social media data acquired?
Who will obtain the data and under what circumstances?
How will ICE prevent at-risk communities from being
scrutinized more harshly for exercising their First Amendment
rights?
Will ICE obtain additional personal data from social media
companies?
Does the agency plan to conduct Privacy Impact Assessments
prior to undertaking new data-collection efforts?
drones at the border
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is already deploying aerial
drones with facial recognition technology at the border.\17\ In 2013,
records obtained by EPIC under the Freedom of Information Act also
showed that the CBP is operating drones in the United States capable of
intercepting electronic communications.\18\ The records obtained by
EPIC also indicate that the 10 Predator B drones operated by the agency
have the capacity to recognize and identify a person on the ground.\19\
The documents were provided in response to a request from EPIC for
information about the Bureau's use of drones across the country. The
agency has made the Predator drones available to other Federal, State,
and local agencies. The records obtained by EPIC raise questions about
the agency's compliance with Federal privacy laws and the scope of
domestic surveillance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Russel Brandom, The US Border Patrol is trying to build face-
reading drones, The Verge, Apr. 6, 2017, http://www.theverge.com/2017/
4/6/15208820/customs-border-patrol-drone-facial-recognition-silicon-
valley-dhs; Dept. of Homeland Security, Other Transaction Solicitation
(OTS) HSHQDC-16-R-00114 Project: Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS)
Capabilities, Jul. 15, 2016, https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/OCPO/DHS-OCPO/
HSHQDC-16-R-00114/listing.html.
\18\ EPIC, EPIC FOIA--US Drones Intercept Electronic Communications
and Identify Human Targets, Feb. 28, 2013, https://epic.org/2013/02/
epic-foia---us-drones-intercep.html (record received available at
https://epic.org/privacy/drones/EPIC-2010-Performance-Specs-1.pdf.)
\19\ Performance Spec for CBP UAV System, Bureau of Customs and
Border Patrol, https://epic.org/privacy/drones/EPIC-2005-Performance-
Specs-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the revelations about drone surveillance at the border,
EPIC, joined by 30 organizations and more than 1,000 individuals,
petitioned CBP to suspend the domestic drone surveillance program,
pending the establishment of concrete privacy regulations.\20\ The
petition stated that ``the use of drones for border surveillance
presents substantial privacy and civil liberties concerns for millions
of Americans across the country.'' Any authorization granted to CBP to
conduct surveillance at the border must require compliance with Federal
privacy laws and regulations for surveillance tools, including drones.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ EPIC, Domestic Drones Petition, https://epic.org/
drones_petition/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of this surveillance technology could, in theory, be deployed
on manned vehicles. However, drones present a unique threat to privacy.
Drones are designed to maintain a constant, persistent eye on the
public to a degree that former methods of surveillance were unable to
achieve. The technical and economic limitations to aerial surveillance
change dramatically with the advancement of drone technology. Small,
unmanned drones are already inexpensive; the surveillance capabilities
of drones are rapidly advancing; and cheap storage is readily available
to maintain repositories of surveillance data.\21\ Drones ``represent
an efficient and cost-effective alternative to helicopters and
airplanes,'' but their use implicates significant privacy
interests.\22\ As the price of drones ``continues to drop and their
capabilities increase, they will become a very powerful surveillance
tool.''\23\ The use of drones in border security will place U.S.
citizens living on the border under ceaseless surveillance by the
government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See generally EPIC, Drones: Eyes in the Sky, Spotlight on
Surveillance (2014), https://www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/
spotlight/1014/drones.html.
\22\ M. Ryan Calo, The Drone as Privacy Catalyst, 64 Stan. L. Rev.
Online 29, 30 (Dec. 12, 2011); See also Jeffrey Rosen, Symposium
Keynote Address, 65 Rutgers L. Rev. 965, 966 (2013) (``[A]s police
departments increasingly begin to use drone technologies to track
individual suspects 24/7, or to put areas of the country under
permanent surveillance, this possibility of 24/7 tracking will become
increasingly real.'').
\23\ Bruce Schneier, Surveillance And the Internet of Things,
Schneier on Security (May 21, 2013), https://www.schneier.com/blog/
archives/2013/05/the_eyes_and_ea.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court has not yet considered the limits of drone
surveillance under the Fourth Amendment, though the Court held 20 years
ago that law enforcement may conduct manned aerial surveillance
operations from as low as 400 feet without a warrant.\24\ No Federal
statute currently provides adequate safeguards to protect privacy
against increased drone use in the United States. However, some border
States do limit warrantless aerial surveillance. In 2015, the Supreme
Court of New Mexico held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the
warrantless aerial surveillance of, and interference with, a person's
private property.\25\ Accordingly, there are substantial legal and
Constitutional issues involved in the deployment of aerial drones by
law enforcement agencies that need to be addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (holding that a
police helicopter flying more than 400 feet above private property is
not a search).
\25\ State v. Davis, 360 P.3d 1161 (N.M. 2015); see Brief of Amicus
Curiae EPIC, id., available at https://epic.org/amicus/drones/new-
mexico/davis/State-v-Davis-Opinion.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2015 Presidential Memorandum on drones and privacy required that
all Federal agencies to establish and publish drone privacy procedures
by February 2016.\26\ Emphasizing the ``privacy, civil rights, and
civil liberties concerns'' raised by the technology,\27\ President
Obama ordered agencies to ensure that any use of drones by the Federal
Government in U.S. airspace comply with ``the Constitution, Federal
law, and other applicable regulations and policies.''\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ President Barack Obama, Presidential Memorandum: Promoting
Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Feb. 15,
2015), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/
15/Presidential-memorandum-promoting-economic-competitiveness-while-
safegua.
\27\ Id. at 1(e).
\28\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the DHS has failed to produce reports required by the 2015
Presidential Memorandum. EPIC has submitted a FOIA request for DHS's
policies and reports required under the Presidential Memorandum, but
the DHS has failed to respond.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ EPIC, EPIC v. DHS (Drone Policies), https://epic.org/foia/
dhs_2/epic_v_- dhs_drone_policies.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As surveillance technology becomes increasingly invasive, it is
critical that the Homeland Security Committee ensure that individuals'
rights are protected. We ask that this letter be entered in the hearing
record. EPIC looks forward to working with the committee on these
issues of vital importance to the American public.
Sincerely,
Marc Rotenberg,
EPIC President.
Caitriona Fitzgerald,
EPIC Policy Director.
Jeramie Scott,
EPIC National Security Counsel.
______
Statement of First Focus
March 6, 2019
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members of the House
Committee on Homeland Security, we thank you for the opportunity to
submit this statement for the record. First Focus is a bipartisan
children's advocacy organization dedicated to making children and
families a priority in Federal policy and budget decisions. As an
organization that advocates for the health and well-being of all
children in the United States, we are deeply concerned with the Trump
administration's enforcement only approach to border security and the
broader immigration enforcement attacks on immigrant children and
families.
Immigration policies that guide enforcement procedures including
the arrest, detention, and removal of non-U.S. citizens have a
significant impact on the lives of the children involved in these
circumstances. Despite being directly affected, children are often an
afterthought in policy efforts to curb legal and illegal immigration.
Recent changes to immigration and asylum policies are already having a
significant impact on the lives of children and families.
The administration's 2018 ``zero-tolerance'' policy resulted in
thousands of children being separated from their parents, and families
continue to be subjected to separation in some areas of the border due
to the increased criminalization of asylum seekers.\1\ Alarmingly, in
October of last year, the Trump administration considered a renewed
effort of forcing family separation by intimidating parents with the
idea of keeping them detained indefinitely with their children in
prison-like settings.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://time.com/5534255/texas-civil-rights-project-report-2019/
\2\ https://firstfocus.org/news/press-release/statement-new-family-
separation-efforts-will-lead-to-imprisonment-of-children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the recent series of House oversight hearings, on the
``zero-tolerance'' policy, it was evident that Federal agencies are
content to pass the buck on the responsibility for reunifying children
and families who were subjected to this cruel and unnecessary
separation. Chief Provost of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stated
that in the eyes of her department the ``zero-tolerance'' policy was a
``prosecution initiative'' and reunification was not in their
wheelhouse. Federal agencies must be held accountable for their roles
in implementing this outrageous policy. It was the collective effort of
multiple Federal agencies, and each agency must be involved in efforts
to repair the damages.
Additionally, in January, the administration increased their
efforts to deter families with children from seeking asylum in the
United States via the ``Migrant Protection Protocols.'' This so-called
``humanitarian approach''\3\ forces asylum seekers who have traveled
thousands of miles to remain in Mexico for prolonged periods of time
while their application for asylum is processed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/01/24/migrant-protection-
protocols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This program further exposes already vulnerable populations to
violence, trafficking, and dangerous situations which is in direct
contradiction to the administration's stated purpose of the policy.
According to a report by Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), ``Children are
languishing in dangerous and unsanitary makeshift camps. There is no
running water and in some cases, irregular access to food.''\4\ This
program has caused a humanitarian crisis at our very border and once
again, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has prioritized
deterrence over the health and well-being of children and families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://supportkind.org/resources/the-protection-gauntlet-how-
the-united-states-is-blocking-access-to-asylum-seekers-and-endangering-
the-lives-of-children-at-the-u-s-border/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we are alarmed at the increasing use of the term
``loophole'' when discussing protections for vulnerable children. We
are concerned with the administration's attempts to undermine
protections including but not limited to, the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the Flores Settlement
Agreement (FSA). Rather than weakening protections for children,
Congress and the administration should be strengthening such
guidelines. We have seen the need for strengthening these important
protections in the deaths of 7-year-old Jakelin Caal \5\ and 8-year-old
Felipe Alonzo \6\ while in the custody of CBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.npr.org/2018/12/13/676622047/7-year-old-migrant-
girl-dies-of-dehydration-and-shock-in-border-patrol-custody.
\6\ https://www.npr.org/2018/12/25/680066848/8-year-old-migrant-
boy-dies-in-government-custody-in-new-mexico-hospital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the conversations continues with regards to the way forward on
border security, we ask that Congress uphold current protections for
migrant children and build on that foundation by instituting a ``best
interest of the child'' standard for all immigration policies. Children
are often invisible during the process of asylum, and children and
parents are often seen as separate units. We ask that you consider the
role of children in the family and understand it is in the best
interest of the child to be free from fear, free from detention, and
together with his/her loved ones.
We thank you again for the opportunity to submit this written
testimony. We look forward to working with you to implement policies
that will help shape this conversation and ensure that all children
thrive in the United States. Should you have any further questions
please contact Kristen Torres, Policy Director for Child Welfare and
Immigration[.]
recommendations
The United States must implement a ``Best Interest of the Child''
standard for all border security measures and immigration enforcement
efforts.\7\ This standard must ensure that a child's safety is a
priority in all decisions, the child has a voice in his/her
proceedings, the child remains together with family members in the
least restrictive setting, and all decisions must promote the health
and well-being of the child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://campaignforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/
2018/12/Proactive-Kids-Agenda-FFCC-1.22.19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Guarantee Children Facing Immigration Court Proceedings Have Legal
Representation
Children must have a voice in the decisions that will affect the
rest of their lives. In order to pursue this standard, we must ensure
that all children in immigration proceedings, both accompanied and
unaccompanied, have legal representation. Additionally, the needs of
both the children and parents must be considered during proceedings.
Children must be appointed an advocate who acts on the wishes and in
the best interest of the child when determining the care and custody of
immigrant children.
2. Ensure Children are Free from Detention and Placed in the Least
Restrictive Setting as Quickly as Possible
The U.S. Government must seek out alternatives to detention (ATDs)
for children and families. The detention of a child even if he/she is
with family, is traumatic and has significant effects on a child's
mental health and physical development. Decades of litigation over the
horrific conditions in which migrant children were being held in
detention resulted in the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA). This
agreement set National standards for the detention, release, and
treatment of children in the custody of DHS and declares that children
should be in the least restrictive setting. This agreement must not be
undermined or modified to meet the needs of an enforcement-only
approach to immigration reform. If the FSA is modified to allow for
indefinite family detention, children will suffer negative life-long
consequences and impediments to their childhood development.
3. Prioritize Keeping Families Together in Immigration Policy Decisions
When It Is in the Best Interest of the Child
Family unity must be a priority in both the claims of the parent
and the child involved in removal proceedings. Congress must prohibit
the removal of children from their parents by DHS or the Department of
Justice (DOJ) within 100 miles of the U.S. border unless it is in the
child's best interest. Congress must also ensure that the best interest
of the child is considered when determining repatriation or referral
for prosecution of parents and legal guardians of children. Parents
must be allowed to make arrangements for their child's care and for
children to visit their parents while they are detained. U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must consider the best
interests of the children in all detention, release, and transfer
decisions affecting their parents. Family unity should be a priority
both at the border and during interior enforcement activities such as
workplace raids. Other steps to promote family unity include
reinstating judicial discretion in cases involving the caregivers of
minor children and allowing parents in removal proceedings to argue the
hardship on behalf of their children.
4. Ensure All Decisions Account for Child Well-Being and Healthy
Development
Finally, border security and immigration enforcement decisions
involving children must incorporate child welfare professionals and
consultation with experts on the healthy development needs of children.
Qualified child welfare professionals and language interpreters must be
available at ports of entry as well as Border Patrol stations.
Additionally, more must be done to ensure children are guaranteed a
safe and sanitary living environment, access to legal services, and
access to food and climate appropriate clothing. Immigration
enforcement decisions should never impede a child's healthy development
or a child's right to education.
______
Statement of HIAS
March 6, 2019
HIAS--the American Jewish community's global refugee organization,
has been assisting refugees and immigrants for nearly 140 years. HIAS
was founded to assist Jewish refugees arriving at Ellis Island. In
1904, we expanded our work and began providing legal assistance to
immigrants facing deportation. Today, we provide comprehensive legal
services to those of all backgrounds seeking safety in the United
States.
Guided by our Jewish value of welcoming the stranger, and by the
Jewish tradition of B'tzelem Elohim, the idea that all people deserve
to have their human rights and dignity respected, HIAS remains on the
front lines of refugee protection. At the U.S.-Mexico border, through
our Border Fellows program, we have placed pro bono attorneys with
legal service organizations in San Diego, California and El Paso,
Texas. Our fellows provide legal representation to asylum seekers,
including those in detention. For example, in San Diego, HIAS' Border
Fellow is working on the case of a child who was born HIV positive. His
mother passed away when he was very young, and his father left the
family. The child, now 15 years old, is in a detention center while our
Border Fellow works to have him reunited with his brother.
In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
implemented Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the
``Remain in Mexico'' program, at the San Ysidro port of entry. MPP
requires that asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their case moves
through U.S. immigration courts.\1\ As justification for this protocol,
DHS asserted that this system will help secure our borders by ensuring
that asylum seekers do not disappear into the country or use fraudulent
claims to gain access to the United States.\2\ In actuality, this
unprecedented program makes it nearly impossible for asylum seekers to
access the protections they are entitled to under both U.S. and
international law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Policy Guidance for
Implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, https://
www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0129_OPA_- migrant-
protection-protocols-policy-guidance.pdf.
\2\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kirstjen M.
Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration,
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/20/secretary-nielsen-announces-
historic-action-confront-illegal-immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under American immigration law, people who arrive at the U.S.
border have the right to seek asylum, and are permitted to remain in
the United States while their claim is processed.\3\ The Remain in
Mexico program raises serious concerns about access to legal
representation, due process rights of asylum seekers, and the ability
of attorneys to represent their clients effectively and fairly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1158), http://
uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-
section1158&num=0&edition=prelim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIAS' Border Fellows report that the Remain in Mexico program is
making it extremely challenging for them to find and contact their
clients, and nearly impossible to find confidential and secure places
to meet and speak with them. The Remain in Mexico program also has
created challenges for attorneys who have to make the trip to Mexico--a
process that can take hours--and raises questions about the ability of
legal counsel to represent clients and practice law while not in the
United States.
HIAS also has concerns about the impact this program will have on
the arrivals at other ports of entry. For example, in El Paso, TX,
reported to be one of the next ports of entry where Remain in Mexico
will soon also be implemented, the asylum approval rate is already at
around 3 percent, and access to counsel can mean the difference between
life and death.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ TRAC Immigration, El Paso Immigration Court Processing, https:/
/trac.syr.edu/phptools/immigration/court_backlog/
court_proctime_outcome.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, prior to implementation of the Remain in Mexico program,
HIAS staff met with humanitarian aid workers in Mexico's northern
border region. It was clear that they were under-resourced and
overwhelmed, and that many asylum seekers were going without access to
safe housing or the support or resources they needed. These problems
have only grown since Remain in Mexico was put in place.
At HIAS, we know that a border wall or Remain in Mexico will not
deter families seeking safety from coming to the United States.
Instead, it will impede life-saving access to safety, most immediately
for those asylum seekers waiting in Mexico, but also for those who are
forced to choose longer and more dangerous routes to reach El Paso and
other ports of entry.
We ask that Members of the Homeland Security committee demand that
the administration put an immediate end to programs and policies that
violate U.S. and international law and put people who are pursuing
their legal right to seek asylum at risk.
______
Statement of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND)
March 6, 2019
Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) was founded by the Microsoft
Corporation and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Special Envoy
Angelina Jolie, and is the leading National organization that works to
ensure that no refugee or immigrant child faces immigration court
alone. We do this in partnership with 585 law firms, corporate legal
departments, law schools, and bar associations, which provide pro bono
representation to unaccompanied children referred to KIND for
assistance in their deportation proceedings. KIND has served more than
18,000 children since 2009, and leveraged approximately $250 million in
pro bono support. KIND also helps children who are returning to their
countries of origin through deportation or voluntary departure to do so
safely and to reintegrate into their home communities. Through our
reintegration pilot project in Guatemala and Honduras, we place
children with local nongovernmental organization partners, which
provide vital social services, including family reunification, school
enrollment, skills training, and counseling. KIND also engages in
broader work in the region to address root causes of child migration,
such as sexual- and gender-based violence. Additionally, KIND advocates
to change law, policy, and practices to improve the protection of
unaccompanied children in the United States, and is working to build a
stronger regional protection framework throughout Central America and
Mexico.
summary
Since its first days, the Trump administration has established
border security as a key policy priority. As part of such efforts, the
administration has pursued a host of policies aimed at deterring
migration and restricting access to asylum and humanitarian protection
by unaccompanied children and families in particular. These policies
not only fail to make the United States safer but also place children
fleeing grave violence in their countries of origin at even greater
risk of danger, harm, or death. In addition to being inconsistent with
the best interests of children, these policies defy our country's
obligations under U.S. and international law.
This statement will chronicle the challenges that children
encounter at each stage of the U.S. asylum process. First, it will
discuss what happens when children reach the U.S.-Mexico border.
Specifically, it will address how President Trump's ``Remain in
Mexico'' policy and other practices are preventing unaccompanied
children and families from accessing protection in the United States.
Second, it will discuss the administration's ``Zero Tolerance'' policy
and the on-going separation of families in the absence of clear
standards and means of tracking family relationships and the reasons
for such separations. Third, it will highlight the need for better
conditions and standards of care in U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) facilities. Finally, it will address the Trump administration's
efforts to deter sponsors from coming forward to care for unaccompanied
children, which have resulted in the prolonged detention and
traumatization of thousands of children.
KIND rejects border security policies intended to deter children
from seeking protection in the United States. We urge the committee to
ensure that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) complies with U.S
asylum laws and international commitments and allows unaccompanied
children to present themselves at all ports of entry along the U.S.
border. Further, we condemn separation policies that harm children's
health and well-being, and their legal cases.
KIND recommends the following: (i) The Trump administration should
end the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy; (ii) family separations should
occur only when it is in the best interest of children; (iii) the
Government should record the reason for separations, track separated
families to allow for swift reunification, and allow parents to
challenge separation decisions; (iv) immigration officers should
efficiently transfer children's information between CBP, the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR), and attorneys; (v) the Government should
improve the conditions of detention facilities in which children are
held; (vi) DHS should release unaccompanied children to appropriate
sponsors as soon as possible; and (vii) DHS should never use sponsors'
information for enforcement purposes without considering the best
interest of children.
We urge the committee to consider our recommendations and to hold
the Trump administration accountable to do what Congress has mandated:
Allow asylum seekers to apply for protection in the United States.
Border security policies should protect the integrity of our
immigration system and our Nation's commitment to extending protection
to those in need of safety--particularly children.
the ``remain in mexico'' policy should be eliminated
In December 2018, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced the
Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)\1\--or the ``Remain in Mexico''
policy--under which certain asylum seekers are forced to stay in Mexico
pending their immigration proceedings in the United States.\2\
Relatedly, in November 2018, DHS and the U.S. Department of Justice
issued an interim final rule that, coupled with a Presidential
Proclamation issued shortly after, would bar migrants from seeking
asylum if they cross the border between official ports of entry.\3\
Both policies disregard Congress' express intent to allow asylum
seekers to apply for protection, regardless of where they enter the
country.\4\ They further violate international norms and treaties by
which the United States is bound, including the 1951 Refugee
Convention, which prohibits nations from expelling or returning
refugees to a country where their lives would be threatened.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to
Confront Illegal Immigration, Dep't of Homeland Security (Dec. 20,
2018), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/20/secretary-nielsen-announces-
historic-action-confront-illegal-immigration; see also Memorandum on
MPP Guiding Principles (Jan. 28, 2019) (hereinafter MPP Memorandum),
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Jan/
MPP%20Guiding%20Principles%201-28-19.pdf.
\2\ MPP Memorandum, supra note 1 at 1-2.
\3\ 83 Fed. Reg. 55934 (Nov. 9, 2018). The United States District
Court of the Northern District of California issued an injunction
against the measure. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, No. 3:18-cv-
06810-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) (Order Granting Temporary
Restraining Order).
\4\ See INA 208, 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(1) (2008).
\5\ Nations are prohibited from expelling or returning a refugee to
a country where ``his or her life or freedom would be threatened on
account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a
particular social group or political opinion.'' UNHCR, Advisory Opinion
on the Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations
under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its
1967 Protocol (Jan. 26, 2007), https://www.unhcr.org/4d9486929.pdf. The
United States is bound to the 1951 Convention as a signatory to the
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19
U.S.T. 6223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the administration has asserted that the ``Remain in Mexico''
policy would not apply to unaccompanied children,\6\ U.S. and Mexican
officials are nonetheless preventing unaccompanied children from
entering the United States to seek asylum. During a research mission to
Mexico, KIND learned that CBP agents have turned back unaccompanied
children to Mexico after telling them that they can no longer seek
asylum in the United States.\7\ Mexican officials are similarly
blocking unaccompanied children from presenting themselves at U.S.
ports of entry, and frequently transfer unaccompanied children seeking
asylum in the United States to the custody of Mexico's child welfare
agency (DIF).\8\ Once in DIF custody, these children are informed that
they may seek asylum in Mexico or be deported to their countries of
origin.\9\ They are not informed of their right to seek protection in
the United States.\10\ Fearful of deportation by Mexican officials,
some unaccompanied children have chosen to hide from Mexican officials
or to cross the border between ports of entry--circumstances that
increase the dangers facing vulnerable youth.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ MPP Memorandum, supra note 1 at 1.
\7\ See KIND, The Protection Gauntlet: How the United States is
Blocking Access to Asylum Seekers and Endangering the Lives of Children
at the U.S. Border (Dec. 21, 2018) (hereinafter The Protection
Gauntlet), https://supportkind.org/resources/the-protection-gauntlet-
how-the-united-States-is-blocking-access-to-asylum-seekers-and-
endangering-the-lives-of-children-at-the-u-s-border/.
\8\ Id. at 2-3.
\9\ Id.
\10\ Id. at 3.
\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unaccompanied children face grave danger in Mexican border towns,
where they may be preyed upon by smugglers and human traffickers.\12\
Last December, 2 unaccompanied youth were tricked, abducted, tortured,
and killed in Tijuana.\13\ A third child escaped with wounds on his
neck. He reported that he and his friends were kidnapped, tied to
chairs, undressed, and tortured with scissors in an attempt to extort
their relatives for money. Despite horrendous incidences like this,
Mexican officials continue to block unaccompanied children from
accessing U.S. ports of entry.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Jack Herrera, Five Takeaways from the Lawsuit Over Trump's
Plan to Keep Asylum Seekers in Mexico, Pacific Standard (Feb. 14,
2019), https://psmag.com/news/five-takeaways-from-the-lawsuit-over-
trumps-plan-to-keep-asylum-seekers-in-mexico.
\13\ Ed Vulliamy, Tricked, abducted and killed: the last day of two
child migrants in Mexico, The Guardian (Feb. 16, 2019), https://
www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/16/tijuana-migrant-child-murders-
mexico-us-asylum.
\14\ Herrera, supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, the United States has returned several asylum-seeking
families to Mexico under the Remain in Mexico policy\15\--exposing
additional children to harm, danger, or death in Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Rafael Carranza, Tijuana struggles to accommodate migrant
families as U.S. begins sending them back, Arizona Republic (Feb. 20,
2019); Rafael Bernal, DHS to Make Migrants Wait in Mexico While Asylum
Claims Processed, The Hill (Dec. 20, 2018), https://thehill.com/latino/
422267-dhs-to-make-migrants-wait-in-mexico-while-asylum-claims-
processed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation.--KIND urges the administration's swift withdrawal
of the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy and its renewed commitment to
ensuring that all unaccompanied children are provided unfettered access
to U.S. ports of entry to request protection. KIND recommends Congress'
continued oversight to ensure the administration's compliance with
asylum protections and procedures provided for by U.S. law and
international treaty obligations, as well as laws providing for the
appropriate care and treatment of unaccompanied children.
family separations should only occur when a child's safety or welfare
is at risk
Announced in April 2018 and implemented in June 2018, the Trump
administration's ``Zero Tolerance'' policy resulted in the forced
separation and traumatization of thousands of children.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This policy directed CBP agents to refer every individual
apprehended near the border who did not present at an official port of
entry to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution, even
when individuals exercised their lawful right to seek asylum. Adults
were taken to Federal detention facilities while children were
transferred into the care of ORR, which operates within the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS). Once separated from their parents,
DHS classified the kids as ``unaccompanied.'' Press Release, KIND &
Women's Refugee Comm'n, Family Separation at the Border (May 30, 2018),
https://supportkind.org/media/family-separation-at-the-border/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to this crisis, KIND formed a dedicated Family
Separation Response Team to provide direct legal representation to
affected families. KIND witnessed first-hand the harmful effects that
family separations have on children. Family separations harm children's
well-being and legal cases. Medical experts agree that the forced
separation of migrant children who have fled violence has devastating
consequences for their development, even if the separation is
brief.\17\ Children's immigration cases are also affected because
children are not likely to have information or documentation of their
asylum claims. KIND has worked with children like Luisa, a 7-year-old
who was separated from her father after they entered the United States
last summer.\18\ When KIND spoke to her, it was impossible to conduct
even an initial legal assessment because Luisa could not stop crying.
She was so distraught by the separation that she sobbed throughout the
meeting.\19\ Even if she had been able to communicate with her KIND
attorney, she could not have made a case for asylum on her own because
she did not know why her family fled.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See KIND, Women's Refugee Comm'n & Lutheran Immigration Serv.,
Betraying Family Values: How Immigration Policy at the United States
Border is Separating Families 12 (2017) (hereinafter Betraying Family
Values), https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/rights/gbv/resources/
1450-betraying-family-values.
\18\ KIND, How You Can Help Separated Families and Ensure
Protection for Children (June 28, 2018), https://supportkind.org/
resources/how-you-can-help-end-family-separation-and-ensure-protection-
for-children/.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration's ``Zero Tolerance''
policy sparked a global outcry. The United Nations Human Rights Office
called for the United States to ``immediately halt'' the policy.\21\ In
Ms. L v. Sessions, a class action case challenging family separations
that had occurred prior to the start of the Zero Tolerance policy, the
presiding judge ordered the Government to stop the policy and to
reunify separated children with their parents.\22\ At the time, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that 2,737
children needed to be reunified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ U.N. Human Rights Office to U.S.: Halt Trump Policy Separating
Kids From Parents at Border, USA Today (June 5, 2018), https://
www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/05/united-nations-tells-u-s-
stop-separating-children-parents/673090002/.
\22\ Ms. L v. ICE, No. 18-0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (Order
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Classwide Preliminary Injunction),
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-order-granting-
plaintiffs-motion-classwide-preliminary-injunction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government is still separating families. The HHS Inspector
General confirmed that at least 118 children were separated between
July 1 and November 7, 2018 \23\ after the court order was issued. The
total number and current status of children separated from their
families are unknown.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ U.S. Dep't of Health & Hum. Serv., Office of Inspector
General, OEI-BL18-00511, Separated Children Placed in Office of Refugee
Resettlement Care (2019), 1 (hereinafter Inspector General Report),
https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-BL-18-00511.asp; Miriam Jordan,
Family Separation May Have Hit Thousands More Migrant Children Than
Reported, N.Y. Times (Jan. 17, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/
17/us/family-separation-trump-administration-migrants.html.
\24\ Inspector General Report, supra note 23, at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Importantly, there are no established standards for family
separation determinations. Under prior administrations, DHS separated
children from parents who posed a danger to them. However, the sweeping
``Zero Tolerance'' policy raised the urgent need for clear standards
restricting the use of family separation for deterrence and permitting
it only when it is in the best interests of a child. Currently, CBP
officials, who lack specialized training in child development or
welfare, are making these determinations;\25\ family separation
determinations do not involve the participation of or oversight by a
child welfare expert.\26\ Additionally, CBP officials are not required
to provide any justification or written documentation to parents or
guardians outlining the reasons for the separation. Because they have
no vehicle to challenge assertions made against them, parents and
guardians risk losing custody of their children without any judicial
oversight.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Katie Tandy, Family Separations Continue in Homeland Security
``Gray Area'' Despite Ban, The California Report (Feb. 9, 2019),
https://www.kqed.org/news/11724799/family-separations-flourish-in-
homeland-security-grey-area-despite-ban.
\26\ Betraying Family Values, supra note 17, at 7.
\27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation.--First, KIND recommends that DHS enlist child
welfare professionals to screen children. This way, separations are
only conducted when professionals with expertise in child development
and welfare have determined it is in the best interest of the child. At
the very least, agents should receive training on how to apply the
``best interests of the child'' framework when they believe a child's
separation from his or her family is warranted.\28\ Second, family
separation determinations and their rationale should always be recorded
and shared with both parents and their legal counsel. Finally, DHS
should implement an appeals process for challenging family separation
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
if separations occur, dhs should have adequate tracking mechanisms to
record children's information
DHS has no consistent or comprehensive means to properly document
family separations. There is no database or hotline that can help
identify a separated family member's location or assist with
reunification.\29\ Separated families are left with little, if any,
knowledge of their family members' locations. Even worse, many parents
are deported without the knowledge of the child or the attorney.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracking mechanisms are failing. KIND continues to encounter cases
in which neither ORR nor attorneys are notified when DHS separates a
child from his or her family. In one case, a father was separated from
his teenage daughter, and no information was given to justify the
separation.
KIND only found out this child had been separated through
interviews with the child. The separation was not recorded anywhere in
the child's files.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Trump Administration's Inhumane Family Separation Policy
Before the H. Comm. on Energy & Com., 116th Cong. (Feb. 7, 2019)
(Statement of Jennifer Podkul, Esq. KIND Senior Dir. for Policy and
Advocacy), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20190207/108846/
HHRG-116-IF02-WState-PodkulJ-20190207-U1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation.--All family relationships and the reasons for
separations should be recorded in writing. This information should be
accessible to parents, guardians, ORR, and attorneys. Furthermore, DHS
should implement mechanisms that allow continued communication between
parents and children, particularly when the parent is soon to be
deported.
detention facilities holding children must implement better standards
of care
This past year, two migrant children died in CBP custody. Jakelin
Caal Maquin and Felipe Gomez Alonzo were only 7 and 8 years old,
respectively, when they died. Both were actively seeking asylum after
they crossed the U.S.-Mexico border.\31\ Under the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), CBP must generally transfer
migrant children to ORR within 72 hours of determining that the child
is unaccompanied.\32\ However, children may be held in CBP custody for
over 2 weeks.\33\ According to CBP's own recordkeeping, 16 percent of
migrants were held for over 72 hours, including children.\34\ The
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has explained that detention
impedes child development and causes severe psychological trauma.\35\
Dr. Julie Linton, who co-chairs the AAP's Special Interest Group on
Immigrant Health, has stated, ``No amount of time in detention is safe
for a child.''\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Mariana Atencio, et al. Border Facilities Still Need Fixing
After Second Migrant Child's Death, Say Democrats, NBC News (Jan. 7,
2019), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/border-facilities-still-
need-fixing-after-second-migrant-child-s-n955876.
\32\ See generally William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, H.R. 7311, 110th Cong. (2008).
\33\ Women's Refugee Comm'n, Forced From Home: The Lost Boys and
Girls of Central America, (Nov. 9, 2015), https://
www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/forced_from-
_home_ex_sum.pdf.
\34\ Human Rights Watch, News Release, In the Freezer, Abusive
Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells (Feb.
28, 2018), https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/02/28/freezer/abusive-
conditions-women-and-children-us-immigration-holding-cells.
\35\ Julie M. Linton et al., Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, Detention of
Immigrant Children 6 (2017), https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/
content/pediatrics/early/2017/03/09/peds.2017-0483.- full.pdf.
\36\ Tara Law, Children in Border Patrol Custody Are Still at Risk
Despite New Guidelines, Pediatricians Say, TIME (Dec. 17, 2018), http:/
/time.com/5489204/migrant-children-guidelines-health/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CBP facilities do not meet minimum standards of care for children.
Neither CBP agents nor CBP medical care providers are trained to care
for children.\37\ Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, the Government
must provide children in custody with basic necessities like food,
water, bathrooms, and emergency health services.\38\ However, CBP
facilities that hold children are greatly lacking. Reports about these
facilities reveal they lack even basic provisions. Children sit around
for days in facilities called ``ice-boxes'' (``hieleras''), which are
freezing rooms that have no beds, no private bathroom, and lack any
form of entertainment or distraction for the children.\39\ Migrants
sleep either on bare cement floors or on toilets. These rooms are not
appropriate to house children for long periods of time.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id.
\38\ ``The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement was the result of over
a decade of litigation responding to the U.S. Government's detention
policy of children. The Agreement set National standards regarding the
detention, release, and treatment of all children in immigration
detention and underscores the principle of family unity. It requires
that: Juveniles be released from custody without unnecessary delay, and
in order of preference to the following: A parent, legal guardian,
adult relative, individual specifically designated by the parent, a
child welfare licensed program, or, alternatively when family
reunification is not possible, an adult seeking custody deemed
appropriate by the responsible Government agency. Where they cannot be
released because of significant public safety or flight risk concerns,
juveniles must be held in the least restrictive setting appropriate to
age and special needs, generally, in a non-secure facility licensed by
a child welfare entity and separated from unrelated adults and
delinquent offenders.'' KIND, Flores Settlement: Myth v. Fact (June 15,
2018), https://supportkind.org/resources/flores-settlement-myth-v-
fact/.
\39\ Laura Gomez, Deaths of migrant kids underscore risks of
hieleras, AZ Mirror (Dec. 18, 2018), https://www.azmirror.com/2018/12/
28/deaths-of-migrant-kids-underscore-risks-of-hieleras/.
\40\ Id.; see also Human Rights Watch, In the Freezer: Abusive
Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells (Feb.
28, 2018), https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/02/28/freezer/abusive-
conditions-women-and-children-us-immigration-holding-cells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation.--The living conditions in DHS facilities are
especially dangerous for unaccompanied children. These conditions must
be improved for the welfare and safety of detained children. It is
vital that Congress uphold the detention limits and other protections
embodied in the Flores Settlement Agreement and the TVPRA.
Additionally, Congress should direct the development of enforceable
standards related to the transport and detention of children to ensure
a minimum standard of care is provided.
dhs should not use sponsors' information for enforcement purposes
In April 2018, DHS and HHS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) pledging to share information openly between their organizations.
DHS later issued a notice of a modified system of records to carry out
this agreement.\41\ Under the MOA, HHS has shared sponsors' information
with DHS, including for immigration enforcement. As a result, potential
sponsors have had to choose between taking in a child in need or
risking deportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 83 Fed. Reg. 20846 (May 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The MOA has caused children to remain in Federal custody for longer
periods of time. The use of sponsors' information for enforcement
purposes frustrates ORR's ability to place children in the ``least
restrictive setting'' in their best interest as required by the TVPRA
and the Flores Settlement Agreement. Children have spent an average of
over 70 days in custody, more than double the time under the Obama
administration. This is a result of sponsors' fear to come forward.\42\
Under the MOA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested
170 potential sponsors of unaccompanied children.\43\ Nearly 64 percent
of the sponsors, 109 in total, had no criminal record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Jonathan Blitzer, To Free Detained Children, Immigrant
Families Are Forced to Risk Everything, The New Yorker (Oct. 16, 2018),
https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/to-free-detained-children-
immigrant-Families-are-forced-to-risk-everything. (``Officially, the
H.H.S. claims that the average time is 59 days, but according to one of
the Department's own officials, who agreed to speak with me on the
condition of anonymity, detained children now spend an average of 74
days in Federal custody.'').
\43\ Geneva Sands, ICE arrested 170 potential sponsors of
unaccompanied migrant children, CNN (Dec. 10, 2018), https://
www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics/ice-potential-sponsors-arrests/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This policy deters individuals from sponsoring children. KIND has
heard of cases where even those who are lawfully present may choose not
to sponsor children to either avoid interacting with ICE or for fear of
exposing others living with them.\44\ For example, after Nicolas, a
U.S. lawful permanent resident, received a call from his nephew
requesting sponsorship, ICE aggressively questioned him and accused him
of smuggling.\45\ This was a baseless accusation, but Nicolas was so
fearful of the interaction with ICE that he ultimately decided not to
sponsor his nephew.\46\ Similarly, KIND represented a child who had
been separated from his father under the administration's ``Zero
Tolerance'' policy. The father had been removed from the country and,
due to the MOA, reunification with the child's uncle was delayed. The
combined trauma of having been forcibly separated from his father and
having been detained for a prolonged period resulted in the child's
asking to be repatriated to his country of origin, even though he had a
credible fear of harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See KIND, Targeting Families (Dec. 2017) (hereinafter
``Targeting Families''), https://supportkind.org/resources/targeting-
families/.
\45\ Real name was changed to protect the identity of the person.
\46\ Targeting Families, supra note 44, at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent language in the 2019 appropriations bill limits DHS's use of
information obtained from HHS for immigration-related enforcement
against sponsors.\47\ This language is an important first step in
curtailing the negative impacts of the MOA. However, it is not a
complete prohibition on information sharing. For example, information
may be used for enforcement purposes if someone is charged with a
crime--even if there has been no conviction. Moreover, because this
provision was part of an annual appropriations bill, it will only last
through September 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Conf. R., Continuing Appropriations for the Department of
Homeland Security for Fiscal Year 2019, and For Other Purposes, Sec.
224, at 24-25 (2019), https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20190211/
CRPT-116hrpt9.pdf (``None of the funds provided by this Act or any
other Act, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United
States derived by the collection of fees available to the components
funded by this Act, may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security
to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate
removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor,
potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential
sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child . . . based on information
shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation.--Children endure psychological and emotional trauma
when their detention is prolonged due to threats of immigration
enforcement against their potential sponsors. DHS must carry out
Congress' intent and formally and permanently cease using sponsors'
information for enforcement purposes. Simultaneously, Congress should
exercise its oversight authority to guarantee that the administration
complies with Section 224 of the new appropriations bill.
conclusion
Children and families seeking asylum in the United States are often
escaping dangerous and violent conditions in their countries of origin.
The opportunity of asylum seekers to pursue protection from harm is the
very foundation of our country's asylum laws, and efforts to restrict
access to humanitarian protection do nothing to make our country safer.
Instead of restricting access to protection for unaccompanied children
and families, the administration should ensure that all are provided
due process and an opportunity to have their claims fully and fairly
considered. We look forward to working with Members to ensure our
country's continued commitment to justice and to the protection of the
most vulnerable.
______
Statement of Physicians for Human Rights*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The document has been retained in committee files and is also
available at https://phr.org/resources/zero-protection-how-u-s-border-
enforcement-harms-migrant-safety-and-health/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
zero protection: how u.s. border enforcement harms migrant safety and
health
January 2019
______
Letters From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
June 1, 2018.
The Honorable Kristjen Nielsen,
Secretary of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Nebraska Avenue Complex, 3801 Nebraska Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20528.
Dear Secretary Nielsen: I am writing to you with concerns following
news reports about the separation of children from parents at the
southern border. I fear is being done not for their well-being, but to
visit distress on them and their parents.
The Administration's policy is resulting in increased separation of
families. As parents remain in criminal proceedings or detention,
children will be removed and placed in the care of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services. Recent news reports of unaccounted
children suggest, however, that the Administration lacks policies to
ensure that such children are eventually reunified with their families.
We also remain concerned about the negative health and social impacts
of family separation. In fact, in response to DHS's new policy, the
American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement urging the Agency
to reverse course stating, ``In fact, highly stressful experiences,
like family separation, can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a
child's brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and long-
term health.'' This separation is even more alarming when considered in
the context of comments made by Trump Administration officials that
suggested that the separation of families will deter individuals from
migrating to the United States.
The actions by the Trump Administration are very alarming and if
left unabated, could visit serious harm on the immigrant population
within our borders, and could invite international criticism as a
departure from the humane treatment of asylum seekers. Any
justification that this policy is done under color of law is plainly
wrong. Existing policies applicable for unaccompanied minors is not
applicable for parents who come to the border seeking asylum with their
children. If children appear at the border with their parents, there is
no need to separate them. The Trump Administration's current tact is at
best a perversion of the law, and at worse a misinterpretation.
Please contact me [] if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Very truly yours,
Sheila Jackson Lee,
MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
______
June 13, 2018.
The Honorable Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528.
Dear Secretary Nielsen: As a senior member of the House Committees
on Homeland Security, and the Judiciary, the former Ranking Member of
the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, the
current Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee
on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the
Member of Congress for the 18th Congressional District of Texas, I am
writing to express my strong opposition to the proposal reported in the
media of DHS's plans to build tent cities at military posts around
Texas to shelter the increasing number of unaccompanied migrant
children, separated from their parents at a port of entry being held in
detention.
At the outset, it should be emphasized that children who have been
removed from their parents or accompanying adults, without cause,
should not be categorized as ``unaccompanied.'' Unaccompanied children
are foreign nationals or stateless persons below the age of 18, who
enter the territory of the United States unaccompanied by a responsible
adult, and so long as they are not effectively taken into care of such
a person. The number of unaccompanied children should be accurately
reported and the number of children forcibly removed from their parents
or a responsible adults should not be categorized as unaccompanied.
Reports indicate that since October 2017, DHS has taken as many as 700
children from adults claiming to be their parents, including more than
100 chilren under the age of four. It is the DHS's actions which turns
accompanied children into unaccompanied children.
I object in the strongest terms to the Administration's plan to
construct tent cities at military installations around the state of
Texas to warehouse immigrant children. The current practice of the
Trump Administration the taking children from their parents is
unconscionable and should end immediately. The safety and well-being of
those children in U.S. custody must be at the utmost concern. Military
bases are not child care facilities and it is impossible to conceive
how someone could confuse the two. These children are wards of the
United States government and should receive the care and support they
need to suvive the trauma of traveling to the border over hundreds or
thousands of miles in a desperate attempt to escape violence, poverty,
or natural disasters.
These children should not be placed in camps in the Texas summer
heat, which woud be life-threatening. Further, the areas of Texas where
military bases are located are known to be overpopulated with snakes,
insects, and plants that are harmful or fatal if they come in contact
with humans. Poisonous spiders like the black widow (Latrodectus
mactans) and the brown recluse (Loxosceles reclusa) spiders pose a
significant risk to children. Both of these species of spiders can be
found indoors and outdoors throughout the State of Texas.
A more thoughtful and humane policy is needed, not the proposal
under consideration that would embarrassment our nation and cause
irrepreable harm.
Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any
questions or need additional information. I can be reached to speak
with you about this matter at my Washington DC office [.]
Very truly yours,
Sheila Jackson Lee,
MEMBER OF CONGRESS.
Chairman Thompson. The Members of the committee may have
additional questions for the witness, and we ask that you
respond expeditiously in writing to those questions. Pursuant
to the Committee Rule VII(D), the hearing record will be held
open for 10 days. Hearing no further business, the committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson for Honorable Kirstjen M.
Nielsen
national emergency declaration
Question 1. President Trump declared a National emergency 25 days
after first threatening to do so. What information was provided to the
President that prompted him to declare a National emergency? Please
provide any and all memos and related information, dated on or before
February 15, 2019, that were provided to the White House and may have
been used to justify the need for a National emergency declaration.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 2. On March 5, 2019, your Department released updated
Southwest Border migration statistics that estimated a little more than
76,000 individuals were apprehended or inadmissible in February 2019.
On March 6, you testified that you believed DHS was on track to
apprehend over 900,000 in fiscal year 2019. Please provide the data and
models that informed DHS estimates for apprehensions for the current
fiscal year.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
border wall
Question 3a. In February 2017, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) found that CBP had not developed any metrics to assess the
effectiveness of physical infrastructure along the Southwest Border.
GAO recommended that CBP develop metrics and CBP concluded and stated
the metrics would be completed by September 2019.
What is the status of CBP's development of border wall metrics?
What metrics has CBP used to measure the effectiveness of border
barriers?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 3b. Will these metrics allow for a comparison of the cost-
effectiveness of barriers, additional CBP officers and agents, and
technology at the border?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 4. How does DHS determine ``just compensation'' for
property owners as required under the Fifth amendment in eminent domain
proceedings?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 5. How many miles of the 654 miles of border fencing along
the Southern Border were built before fiscal year 2017 without the use
of the use of DHS's waiver authority? How many miles of the 33 miles
appropriated in fiscal year 2018 will be built without the use of the
waiver authority? Does DHS have any plans to use the waiver authority
for the 55 miles Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2019?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 6. GAO found that when CBP prioritized locations for new
barriers in 2017, CBP did not analyze the cost of the barrier in that
location (GAO-18-614). Given topography, land ownership, remoteness of
the area, and other factors, costs can vary greatly and affect the
cost-effectiveness of the barrier. How is CBP selecting future
locations for border barrier construction? Will the estimated cost of
construction be a component of this analysis?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 7. The same GAO report found that locations for
construction where barriers were categorized as low priority by a CBP
model were recategorized as a high priority by an Operational Review
Board. For example, El Centro dropped from first priority to fifth,
Yuma dropped from second to sixth, and Laredo dropped from third to
seventh. Instead, segments of the Rio Grande Valley became DHS's
highest priorities. Did this change in prioritization based on land
ownership, as identified in the GAO report? What other criteria were
taken into consideration? Please explain the process and criteria used
to reorder the segments.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
metering/migrant protection protocols
Question 8. The DHS Inspector General found that ``metering'' may
have the effect of pushing people toward areas between ports of entry
to seek out Border Patrol agents to claim asylum. Given the numbers of
asylum applicants waiting entry at land ports, what has DHS done to
specifically improve its capacity to processes?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 9a. As of January 28, 277 people have been found amenable
to the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), which requires Central
American asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle to remain in Mexico
as they await the adjudication of their case.
How is CBP determining which individuals are subject to MPP and
which are not?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 9b. What exact criteria is being used?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 9c. What will the U.S. Government do if the Mexican
government refuses to allow a migrant to return to Mexico after being
processed?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 10. The Department of Justice's Executive Office for
Immigration Review's (EOIR) current notice procedure relies entirely on
the individual maintaining up-to-date addresses which EOIR uses to mail
notice of hearings. How will DHS ensure that these individuals receive
notice of their hearings if the individual has no permanent address in
Mexico and the 1-800 number provided is unavailable? How is DHS
ensuring that people have adequate and timely notice of their hearings,
especially in cases when the initial hearing date is subsequently
canceled or changed?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 11. How will the DHS regional compact with Central
American countries address the root causes pushing people to leave the
Northern Triangle and seek protection?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
custody management
Question 12. In the past, Border Patrol agents apprehended
primarily single Mexican adults who could communicate effectively in
Spanish. But in recent years, a growing percentage of people
apprehended by Border Patrol agents are from the Northern Triangle
countries of Central America, and increasingly from Guatemala. Many of
these individuals speak one of many indigenous languages. What steps
does Border Patrol take to properly assess each migrant's language
needs upon apprehension?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 13. According to reports, Jakelin Caal's father speaks
Q'eqchi' and Felipe Gomez's father speaks Chuj. From public reports, it
appears that both families were presented only with English-language
documents that were explained to them in Spanish. Were any steps taken
to secure interpretation services for either of these families prior to
the time that their children died in Border Patrol custody?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 14a. On March 5, CBP notified the committee of their new
Interim Enhanced Medical Efforts Directive issued on January 28, over a
month after the death of Jakelin and a month after the death of Felipe.
What is the status of the permanent, CBP-wide medical directive
that once issued will supersede this interim guidance?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 14b. Has the CBP executive director for the Privacy and
Diversity Office completed review of their five objectives and issued
their recommendations? If not, when do you expect to receive their
recommendations?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 14c. What improvements have been made to CBP's health
interview questionnaire since the deaths of Jakelin Caal and Felipe
Alonzo-Gomez?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 15. Recent media reports show an increase in ICE's
detention of infants without providing adequate care, an issue cited in
a recent complaint to the DHS civil liberties office, and sexual abuse
of migrant children in U.S. custody. How does your Department intend to
investigate and address these incidents?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Questions From Honorable Xochitl Torres Small for Honorable Kirstjen M.
Nielsen
border security
Question 1. Secretary Nielsen, the mountainous and backcountry
terrain in remote areas along the Southern Border presents Border
Patrol a challenging environment to effectively secure the border. In
these areas, advanced detection and surveillance technology can serve
as a force multiplier by helping agents surveil hard-to-access areas.
The recently-passed fiscal year 2019 spending package allocates $100
million in funding for border security technology, along with the $200
million in carryover from fiscal year 2018.
Given the new challenges that Border Patrol agents are facing in
between ports of entries, particularly in rural areas, do you believe
DHS should ensure that a portion of these funds are used to deploy
technology in rural and remote areas, such as the bootheel of New
Mexico?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 2. In recent years, has there been any border security
technology deployed in New Mexico, and if not, does DHS plan to deploy
technology projects in New Mexico?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 3. Do you believe that border security investments in low-
traffic, rural, and remote areas along the border should prioritize
surveillance technology over barrier construction?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 4. How is DHS ensuring that newly-appropriated funds are
targeting the most up-to-date technologies and approaches to securing
the border?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
santa teresa port of entry/construction of wall
Question 5. Secretary Nielsen, the Santa Teresa Port of Entry (POE)
is one of the fastest-growing land ports of entry in the Nation and it
is now in the top 10 southern land ports of entry in total trade. Last
year, 20 miles of barriers were built along the Santa Teresa POE, which
cost nearly $80 million.
Why did DHS opt to spend nearly $80 million on 20 miles of barriers
instead of investing those funds to modernize the port and build on its
economic growth?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 6. Do you believe that investments in the Santa Teresa
POE, such as extending its hours of operation or modernizing sectors of
the port, could result in increased trade with Mexico and increased
economic growth to the surrounding communities?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
transportation of migrants within cbp facilities
Question 7. Secretary Nielsen, on December 8, Jakelin Caal Maquin
died after waiting over 8 hours for transportation to travel 90 minutes
from Antelope Wells to Lordsburg. It is my understanding that a great
deal of this delay was due to the wait for transportation from a
contracted bus service.
What efforts is CBP undertaking to increase its internal capacity
to drive commercial vehicles for the transportation of migrants?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Questions From Honorable Lauren Underwood for Honorable Kirstjen M.
Nielsen
Question 1. Please provide an exact figure for the number of minors
currently being held: (1) At any facility owned by, operated by, or in
relationship with HHS and (2) at any facility owned by, operated by, or
in relationship with DHS.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 2. Please provide an exact figure for the volume of
illegal drugs seized by DHS in the process of entering the United
States through our border with Mexico, including those intercepted by
the U.S. Coast Guard.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 3. Please provide a detailed time line for the conclusion
of investigations into the deaths of Felipe Gomez Alonzo and Jakelin
Caal.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 4. When you officially began family separation in spring
2018, were you aware that the effects of toxic stress and trauma are
cumulative--that they get worse the longer the trauma and stress go on?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 5. When the family separation policy officially began in
spring 2018, were you aware that family separation can lead to
behavioral changes and learning delays for children?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 6. When the family separation policy officially began in
spring 2018, were you aware that family separation can increase a
child's risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 7. When the family separation policy officially began in
spring 2018, were you aware that it increases a child's recent risk of
anxiety, depression, and substance abuse?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 8. The American Psychological Association reports that
family separation is on par with beating and torture in terms of its
relationship to mental health. When the family separation policy
officially began in spring 2018, were you aware of that research?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 9. Did DHS consult with any pediatric health experts
before reportedly beginning the El Paso pilot program for family
separation in 2017?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 10. As you promised in the hearing, please provide a copy
of all data that DHS collected or analyzed from the pilot program to
evaluate how family separation affects a child's physical and mental
health.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 11. As you promised in the hearing, please provide a copy
of the report produced by your ``bipartisan advisory council'' that
addresses how family separation affects children's mental and physical
health.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 12. As you promised in the hearing, please provide a copy
of any DHS communication with pediatric experts prior to May 1, 2018,
regarding the effects of family separation on children's mental and
physical health.
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers for Honorable Kirstjen M.
Nielsen
Question 1a. A significant number of State and local governments
are considering or have passed legislation that would blacklist or
otherwise discriminate against any company involved in the design or
construction of any extension of the wall along the Southwest Border.
In addition, several cities are considering blacklisting contractors
that provide database services that support Federal immigration
priorities. I'm concerned that unless checked, this legislation will
embolden State and local officials to obstruct the Federal Government's
lawful functions whenever it may serve their narrow political
interests. Threatened by discrimination and without assurance that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will take a stand on such
legislation, private companies are, understandably, hesitating to
deliver on the goods and services necessary to protect our homeland
security interests.
How does DHS plan to respond to these State and local governments
on this issue?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 1b. Will DHS be working with other agencies to react to
these State and local governments on this issue?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 1c. Can you provide a time line of any actions DHS plans
to take?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 1d. How do we prevent these harmful acts from affecting
efforts to secure our homeland?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 2a. Secretary Nielsen, can you provide a breakdown of how
CBP plans to use the fiscal year 2019 appropriated funds for border
security technology, including the leftover fiscal year 2018 funds?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 2b. How are you ensuring that the newly-appropriated funds
are targeting the most up-to-date technologies and approaches to
securing the border especially in the high-traffic areas such as the
Rio Grande Valley and the San Diego and El Paso sectors?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 3. Madame Secretary, was there anything asked of you or
said over the course of the hearing that you would like to correct the
record on?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Questions From Honorable Clay Higgins for Honorable Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question 1a. Secretary Nielsen, there are ``dead spots'' along both
the Southwest and Northern Borders that have been a persistent officer
safety issue due to the lack of ability for communication devices to
work in those spots. I've also heard from agents and officers in the
field that their devices need to be encrypted or their location
information and communications could be intercepted by cartels.
Coupling this with the increase in CBP agent assaults that you
mentioned in your testimony and responses to member questions, this is
a very troubling problem. CBP agents are deployed in isolated areas
across the borders, where off-grid communications may be necessary.
How will the new ATAK secure communication devices address current
communication problems along our borders? Are there gaps left after
ATAK implementation such as with ``dead spots''?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 1b. How is DHS responding to the ``dead spot'' issue in
terms of procurement?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 1c. Is DHS considering low-cost commercial products to
remedy some of these issues?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 2a. Secretary Nielsen, there are a lot of numbers we keep
track of when assessing operational control of our borders. The ones I
most frequently hear about are ``apprehensions'' between the ports of
entry and ``inadmissibles'' at the ports of entry. However, it is safe
to say that we do not catch a lot of what or who crosses our border
illegally.
What percent of people who enter illegally are we not apprehending?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 2b. What percent of drugs that enter illegally are we not
seizing?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 2c. How accurate would you say your ``got away''
statistics are?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 3a. We understand that AMO currently leases satellite
communication (SATCOM) downlink functionality from the Defense
Information Systems Agency for both its manned and unmanned operations.
AMO has already committed considerable resources to this capability,
yet it is our understanding that given the technological limitations of
its currently leased satellite threads, AMO cannot utilize this
functionality in more than one manned aircraft simultaneously without
sacrificing unmanned operations.
What limitations exist that prevent full utilization of direct
downlink capabilities across the entire manned aircraft fleet?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 3b. What is the Department's strategy to address these
limitations?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 3c. Has the Department considered what technologies are
needed to address these limitations?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question 3d. If so, are there any procurement plans moving forward?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
Question From Honorable Michael Guest for Honorable Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Question. On March 4, 2019, a bi-partisan coalition of Members of
the House and Senate sent a letter asking you to release supplemental
H-2B visas per the authority granted by H.J. Resolution 31. Would you
be able to provide more details on the number of H-2B visas DHS plans
to release and the time line for this action?
Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is
retained in committee files.
[all]