    [Senate Hearing 115-606]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-606

                               NOMINATION HEARING

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                   HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

               NOMINATIONS OF RONALD D. VITIELLO, NOMINATED TO BE
                ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
             ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND
           RICHARD S. TISCHNER, JR., NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR, COURT
         SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 15, 2018

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov/

                           Printed for the use of the
            Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    	          U.S.GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    34-946 PDF             WASHINGTON : 2019

            COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                        RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
    RAND PAUL, Kentucky                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
    MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming             GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
    JON KYL, Arizona                     DOUG JONES, Alabama

                      Christopher R. Hixon, Staff Director
                    Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Chief Counsel
                        Daniel P. Lips, Policy Director
                   Margaret E. Daum, Minority Staff Director
                   J. Jackson Eaton, Minority Senior Counsel
                      Michael J. Broome, Minority Counsel
                         Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                         Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Johnson..............................................     1
        Senator Peters...............................................     2
        Senator Hassan...............................................    11
        Senator Harris...............................................    16
        Senator Jones................................................    20
        Senator Daines...............................................    23
        Senator Carper...............................................    27
    Prepared statements:
        Senator Johnson..............................................    31
        Senator Peters...............................................    32

                                   WITNESSES
                          Thursday, November 15, 2018

    Ronald D. Vitiello, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary for
      Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of
      Homeland Security
        Testimony....................................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................    34
        Biographical and financial information.......................    36
        Letter from the Office of Government Ethics..................    52
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................    55
        Responses to supplemental questions..........................   117
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   125
        Letters......................................................   130
    Richard S. Tischner, Jr., Nominated to be Director, Court
      Services and Offender Supervision Agency, District of Columbia
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................   162
        Biographical and financial information.......................   164
        Letter from the Office of Government Ethics..................   183
        Responses to pre-hearing questions...........................   186
        Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   200

                                    APPENDIX

    ICE Council Follow-up letter.....................................   153
    ICE Local Presidents.............................................   156
    Family Apprehensions chart submitted by Senator Johnson..........   201
    UAC Apprehensions chart submitted by Senator Johnson.............   202
    American Academy of Pediatrics Report............................   204

                               NOMINATION HEARING

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2018

                                         U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Homeland Security
                                      and Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room
    342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Johnson, Daines, Carper, Peters, Hassan,
    Harris and Jones.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON\1\

        Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
    order. I want to welcome our nominees. Thank you for your past
    service and your willingness to serve again in these important
    positions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the
    Appendix on page 31.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today we will consider President Trump's nominees to serve
    as Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
    The Director is responsible for leading an organization of
    approximately 19,000 employees with a budget of more than $7.5
    billion. ICE is the lead Federal agency responsible for
    enforcing Federal laws related to immigration, border control,
    customs, and trade.
        In addition to enforcing our immigration laws, ICE has vast
    law enforcement responsibilities including investigating
    financial and cyber crimes as well as intellectual property and
    commercial fraud, human rights violations, weapons, narcotics,
    and human smuggling, transnational gang activity, and enforcing
    our export laws. These missions are critical for our Nation's
    economic and national security.
        President Trump has nominated a qualified and capable
    candidate to lead the agency. Ronald Vitiello currently serves
    as Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deputy Director and
    senior official performing the duties of the Director. Prior to
    this role, Mr. Vitiello served as Chief of the U.S. Border
    Patrol and the Acting Deputy Commissioner of U.S. Customs and
    Border Protection (CBP). He has over 30 years of experience in
    the Federal Government, including serving at the locations on
    both the Southern and Northern Borders, and recently received
    the President's Distinguished Executive Rank Award for an
    exemplary career of Federal service.
        I want to thank Mr. Vitiello for his previous service to
    this country and for his willingness to lead ICE. It is
    extremely unfortunate that in this political climate the
    dedicated employees of ICE face constant criticism, threats of
    violence, and calls from some Members of Congress to abolish
    such an important agency.
        Today we will also consider a nominee to be the Director of
    D.C. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA).
    The Director is in charge of 490 staff members and a budget of
    $246 million. CSOSA is responsible for overseeing probationers
    and parolees as well as providing free trial services in D.C.
    CSOSA's mission is to enhance public safety, reduce recidivism,
    and promote accountability, inclusion, and success through the
    implementation of evidence-based practices in close
    collaboration with its criminal justice partners and the
    community. In fiscal year 2017 (FY), CSOSA's Community
    Supervision Program was responsible for working with 16,407
    pretrial offenders, probationers, and parolees.
        President Trump's nominee is dedicated to public service
    with a passion for public safety. Richard Tischner currently
    serves as Chief of the Superior Court Division in the United
    States Attorney's Office, a position he has held since 2011.
    Mr. Tischner has over 30 years of experience with the United
    States Attorney's Office, also serving as a Supervisory
    Assistant United States Attorney for approximately 20 years.
        I want to thank both nominees for being here today. I look
    forward to hearing your testimony.
        With that I will turn it over to our serving Ranking
    Member, Senator Peters.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\

        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want
    to start by thanking the nominees for their willingness to
    serve and for their lifetimes of public service as well. You
    have both spent over 30 years in service to your community and
    I want to thank you for that commitment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
    Appendix on page 32.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Vitiello, today we convene to consider your nomination
    to lead a critical team, responsible for enforcing our laws and
    promoting the safety and security of our homeland. As the
    Director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement you will
    lead thousands of public servants who put their lives on the
    line and dedicate their lives to protect us every day. If
    confirmed, you will not only lead ICE but you will have to make
    some very tough decisions every day that prioritize ICE
    resources. You will set and implement policies that determine
    who to arrest, who to detain, and which investigations to
    pursue. It will be up to you to make sure that the safety of
    Americans does not take a back seat to talking points.
        As Congress and Members of this Committee, we have the
    important role of conducting oversight. We have a
    responsibility to ask hard questions and to ensure that each
    Federal agency is acting in accordance with the law and, most
    importantly, the best interest of the American people.
        If confirmed I hope that you too will ask those hard
    questions about how ICE is using resources to ensure the safety
    of all Americans. Moreover, if confirmed, you will be in charge
    of advocating priorities for your department. You will be where
    the buck stops for ensuring that national security and public
    safety come first, and I look forward to your testimony here
    today.
        Mr. Tischner, I look forward to hearing from you. The
    position that you have been nominated to is certainly a very
    important one, critical to protecting public safety and
    reducing recidivism here in the District of Columbia. If
    confirmed, you will be tasked, or taking on tremendously
    difficult tasks in addition to maintaining effective
    partnerships amid both Federal and local bureaucracy.
        CSOSA must tackle barriers to successful re-entry, drug
    addiction, mental health, affordable housing and job training,
    just to name a few of the challenges. These are some of the
    most profound challenges facing communities across the country
    today and they are only one piece of fulfilling your mission. I
    look forward to hearing from you about your plans to improve
    the performance and increase accountability as well.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters. I would ask
    consent that we enter in the record six letters of support\1\
    for Mr. Vitiello as well as a letter from the head of the
    unions and signed by a number of other union heads,\2\ local
    union heads, with some questions about the nominee. And I will
    ask Mr. Vitiello to respond to that during the question period.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The letters of support referenced by Senator Johnson appears in
    the Appendix on page 130.
        \2\ The letters from the unions referenced by Senator Johnson
    appears in the Appendix on page 156.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in
    witnesses, so if you will both stand and raise your right hand.
        Do you swear the testimony that you will give before this
    Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you, God?
        Mr. Vitiello. I do.
        Mr. Tischner. I do.
        Chairman Johnson. Please be seated.
        I have introduced both nominees in my opening statement so
    we will just turn right to Mr. Vitiello for your testimony.

      TESTIMONY OF RONALD VITIELLO,\3\ NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT
        SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S.
                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

        Mr. Vitiello. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you
    for the opportunity to appear before you today. As a career law
    enforcement officer who has served the Nation for more than 30
    years, I am honored and humbled to be nominated by the
    President to be the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement. I also want to thank Secretary Nielsen for her
    support and confidence in me. I am blessed also to have the
    support of my wife, Nuri, and our children, Alexis and Ron Jr.,
    who have supported me and I am grateful for their appearance
    here today, as well as all the sacrifices that they have made
    over my long career.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello appears in the Appendix
    on page 34.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As the largest investigative branch within the Department
    of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE has a critically important
    mission, to protect public safety and national security by
    enforcing U.S. immigration and customs laws, whether it is
    combating the illegal drug trade, removing illegal aliens who
    are a threat to public safety, or protecting children from
    online predators.
        This is a mission I understand well after more than three
    decades of experience in the Border Patrol. In 1985, I started
    as an agent patrolling the front lines of our border, and I
    worked in the interior and on both the Northern and Southern
    Borders. Later, I took on greater leadership and policy roles
    as Chief of the Border Patrol, and most recently as acting
    Deputy Commissioner at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
    Because of these experiences, I have a deep understanding of
    the laws and policies governing our immigration system and I am
    well prepared to lead ICE.
        My experience includes working to maintain professional
    standards and sustain morale while the Border Patrol
    experienced rapid growth. I helped lead efforts to improve
    training and strengthen accountability for the use of force,
    which resulted in a significant decrease in the use of force.
    Working with Congress, the Office of Personnel Management
    (OPM), and fellow senior leaders at CBP, we implemented a new
    pay and compensation statute that saved taxpayers more than
    $110 million in the first year of implementation and added
    operational capacity to the agency.
        Throughout my career in the Border Patrol, I worked closely
    with partners at ICE, which has a complex, but crucial role in
    our immigration system. My appreciation and understanding of
    the men and women who serve at ICE has only deepened since I
    became the Acting Director in June.
        Despite adverse conditions that would cripple many other
    workplaces, ICE employees carry out their important mission
    with integrity, courage and excellence. Since my start at ICE,
    I have made it a top priority to meet with front line personnel
    in the field and ensure that their voices are heard and
    supported.
        The work ICE does to uphold public safety, national
    security and the rule of law, both in the United States and
    around the world, is undeniable. During fiscal year 2018, for
    example, arrests of illegal aliens with criminal histories
    increased by 50 percent, and removals increased over 13
    percent. ICE seized nearly 900,000 pounds of narcotics,
    including more than 2,300 pounds of fentanyl, which is fueling
    the deadly opioid crisis. We identified and rescued more than
    850 children who were victims of child exploitation and over
    300 victims of human trafficking. We made 11,000 arrests of
    known or suspected gang members, including more than 2,000
    linked to MS-13, and removed nearly 6,000 gang members from the
    country.
        These successes, and the dedicated men and women who
    achieved them, are all too often drowned out or wrongly
    maligned by misleading rhetoric and misinformation in the
    public sphere. This kind of rhetoric needlessly escalates the
    risk in our operational environment, making an already
    challenging job more difficult and dangerous. It also harms the
    morale of our workforce, which is composed of people just like
    you who go to work each day to make the country and the
    communities they serve in safer.
        Like you, our employees are public servants. They should
    not be threatened with violence or targeted in their homes.
    They should not face interruptions to their lawful operations.
    They should not have to bear the burden of attacks motivated
    largely by political and policy disagreements.
        If confirmed, one of my highest priorities will be to
    better demonstrate to the public, Congress, and the media the
    importance and criticality of the mission to protect the
    homeland and improve public safety, and why our agency's
    existence should not be up for debate.
        Part of that effort is simply remembering why ICE was
    created in the first place. Following the attacks on September
    11, 2001, the 9/11 Commission identified critical gaps in our
    national security, including the need for stronger interior
    immigration enforcement and border security. To address those
    needs and to prevent future attacks on our homeland, our
    government stood up ICE and the Department of Homeland
    Security. Eliminating these threats and vulnerabilities through
    cooperative, effective enforcement is as important today as it
    was when the Commission's report was published.
        I believe Congress shares the goal of a strong border and
    an immigration system that has integrity. I look forward to
    working closely with this Committee to address this and the
    many other challenges our agency faces as we seek to ensure the
    continued security of the American people. I also appreciate
    the Committee's important oversight role, and I am committed to
    ensuring the agency remains accountable to Congress and the
    taxpayers.
        The men and women of ICE are among our Nation's finest and
    most hard-working public servants and it is a privilege to
    serve alongside them. I am grateful for them, their loved ones
    and the sacrifices they make in service to America. Should I be
    confirmed, it would be a tremendous honor to support them and
    advocate for them as they carry out this vital mission.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Vitiello. Mr. Tischner.

       TESTIMONY OF RICHARD S. TISCHNER, JR.,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE
       DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY,
                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Mr. Tischner. I thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Serving
    Ranking Member Peters and Members of the Committee. I am
    grateful for your holding this hearing today to consider my
    nomination. I am truly honored by the nomination and, if
    confirmed, I stand ready to work alongside other leaders in the
    District of Columbia criminal justice system to continue
    enhancing public safety in the Nation's capital. I wish to
    acknowledge, also, that a number of the CSOSA leadership are
    behind me today, and I thank them for being here.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Tischner appears in the Appendix
    on page 162.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CSOSA plays a critical role in providing public safety, as
    you said, Senator Peters, for those who live, work, and visit
    the District of Columbia. It strives to reduce recidivism by
    promoting successful adjustment to supervision by probationers
    and those returning to the community after a period of
    incarceration. In those instances where individuals do
    reoffend, timely coordination, which includes communication,
    with criminal justice partners is key. If confirmed as
    Director, I look forward to working with the talented and
    dedicated professionals at CSOSA to achieve these goals.
        I would also be honored to continue my more than 30 years
    not only in public service but in the pursuit of public safety.
    As a career prosecutor, I have always done my best to fairly
    and effectively address violations of the law, to hold
    offenders accountable, and to attain justice for victims and
    the citizens of the District of Columbia.
        I am especially proud of my service as Chief of the DC
    Superior Court Division, where I am responsible for leading the
    U.S. Attorney's Office's largest division in the investigation
    and prosecution of most local crimes committed by adults in the
    District of Columbia. I am honored to work with hundreds of
    dedicated Assistant United States Attorneys, paralegals, and
    other staff members as we address a wide range of issues and
    offenses. These range from misdemeanor offenses that affect the
    quality of life in the District to complicated violent
    offenses, including sexual assaults and homicides.
        The Division handles between 17,000 and 20,000 cases on an
    annual basis and employs a problem-solving approach, rather
    than simply processing cases through the system. Under my
    leadership, it works closely with its law enforcement partners
    and the community to identify public safety issues and to craft
    pragmatic solutions.
        Having spent most of my career in the United States
    Attorney's Office working on strictly local criminal justice
    issues, I am keenly aware of the challenges faced by the
    entities obligated to provide public safety for this community.
    I have not only been a prosecutor in the traditional sense, but
    I have also worked as a community prosecutor where I was tasked
    with solving complicated, sometimes non-criminal problems and
    issues impacting residents and neighborhoods throughout the
    District of Columbia. Additionally, my service and
    participation in the DC Superior Court's drug court and mental
    health court has given me a broader perspective of the problems
    faced by those in the criminal justice system. Finally, my
    relationships with law enforcement, partner agencies, and the
    community will serve the citizens of the District of Columbia
    well if I am confirmed.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
    today and for your continued support of public safety efforts
    in the District of Columbia. I also want to express my
    gratitude to the staff of this Committee for their work in
    considering my nomination, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Tischner. I also want to
    welcome the family members here, and thank them for their
    support of the nominees. These are important positions, almost
    24/7, 365 days a year. These are serious responsibilities and
    there is a sacrifice on the part of family members as well,
    offering their support, so I want to thank them.
        There are three questions the Committee asks of every
    nominee for the record, so I will ask the questions and then
    just ask each of you to answer, give you me your response.
    First, is there anything you are aware of in your background
    that might present a conflict of interest with the duties of
    the office to which you have been nominated.
        Mr. Vitiello.
        Mr. Vitiello. No.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Tischner.
        Mr. Tischner. No.
        Chairman Johnson. Do you know of anything, personal or
    otherwise, that in any way would prevent you from fully and
    honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
    which you have been nominated?
        Mr. Vitiello.
        Mr. Vitiello. No.
        Chairman Johnson. Mr. Tischner.
        Mr. Tischner. No.
        Chairman Johnson. Do you agree, without reservation, to
    comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
    any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are
    confirmed?
        Mr. Vitiello.
        Mr. Vitiello. I do, Senator.
        Mr. Tischner. Yes.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Vitiello, let me first point out I really did
    appreciate, in your testimony, the fact that you highlighted
    that ICE identified and rescued more than 850 children, 300
    victims of human trafficking, you have made 11,000 arrests of
    known and suspected gang members, including 2,000 linked to MS-
    13, removing nearly 16,000 gang members. That is an incredibly
    important part of your testimony that I wanted to highlight.
        I think you are also aware, because the Committee let you
    know and I think you have a copy of the letter sent by a number
    of union officials for the National ICE Council. I just wanted
    to give you an opportunity to quickly respond to that letter.
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, I am aware of the letter, obviously. I
    have--as the Acting Director, and if confirmed as the Director,
    will have a contractual obligation to work with the ICE Council
    on all manners that affect employees. I have spent quite a bit
    of time, in the short time I have been at ICE, since June,
    meeting with employees. I have several town halls--San Antonio,
    Harlingen, Richmond, the Fairfax team at Washington field
    office. I am very interested in what is driving morale, how I
    can improve and articulate on their behalf, in this setting, in
    the media, in public, amongst themselves, and so it is very
    important for me to understand where the employees are coming
    from.
        The union has--we share that mission in protecting the
    employees. And so I met with the president of the union, Chris
    Crane, in August, I think the second. We had a substantive
    discussion on the things that I think we can most do
    beneficially together, and I look forward to continuing that
    relationship and do productive things on behalf of the
    workforce.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. And again, I appreciate that kind of
    general response. What about some of the specific charges about
    potential retaliation, not allowing union members to regain
    full-time employment within ICE? And can you just respond to
    some of those, the tweet?
        Mr. Vitiello. It is very technical, that most of what is
    outlined in that letter happened before I became the Acting
    Director. And so there are a number of things I want to look
    into. There are a number of conversations that I want to have
    around it. As it relates to union officials, their role is to
    represent the workforce. They are paid by the government, 100
    percent of their time, to represent the union. They do that.
    Again, I have responsibilities to meet and adjudicate their
    issues. And so we will continue to keep the dialogue open and I
    look forward to working with them on specific things.
        I think the pay issue, as you helped us with, in my
    previous career with Border Patrol, is the thing that is the
    most urgent as it relates to that workforce. And Chris Crane,
    the president, has specific suggestions on how to get to where
    we need to be on that, and I look forward to a productive
    conversation around that.
        Chairman Johnson. Can you speak directly to the incident
    within--or the prolonged problem in the Portland ICE office?
        Mr. Vitiello. The Portland is an example--and again, that
    happened before I started. But Portland is an example where
    local authorities refusing to help or assist law enforcement
    officers in ICE. Protestors essentially took over the block
    around the Federal Building, tried to prevent people from
    leaving the building, and then prevented, over the days, our
    employees getting to work.
        And we did not have the sufficient--if local do not act in
    a situation like that, when you call 911 and the local police
    do not show up, what do you do? So that thing got out of hand
    very quickly because of the lack of response locally, and it
    took us a number of days, a week or two, to get the correct
    Federal forces on the ground, the Federal Protective Service
    (FPS). They are great partners and they did a great job for us
    there. But we had to amass forces to get back into the
    building, and then several weeks on the protest continued.
        And so our employees were subject to the protests and
    having to walk by that on their way to work every day. It was
    not something that we predicted. Since then, we have put steps
    in place to monitor social media and get better at, sort of
    protective intelligence as it relates to our spaces. There is a
    regular reporting regime. I get a report every day that talks
    about what threats are out there on the Internet, on social
    media, what we get from informants and other agencies.
        And so we have gotten better about our response, but what
    was critical at the time when it was needed was the local
    response that did not come. So we were behind the curve. The
    whole community was behind the curve until we got the resources
    there.
        Chairman Johnson. So the charge is that ICE leadership did
    not respond adequately, but again, just to get the timeline
    right, this began before you were installed as Acting?
        Mr. Vitiello. We did what we could with the contingency and
    a situation that we had not predicted before. We did not expect
    that the locals would not clear the streets and allow people to
    get in and out of the building, so it took us a while to do
    that.
        The leadership at Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO),
    Nathalie Asher, went and visited the workforce twice. I
    contacted individual employees who were threatened physically
    and had damage done to their own home properties. I talked to
    them directly. The Secretary participated with me in a virtual
    teleconference on video with the entire Portland office.
        Chairman Johnson. You came in in the middle of this, right,
    and then you responded?
        Mr. Vitiello. Correct.
        Chairman Johnson. OK. That is all I have. Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Vitiello, according to the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI), hate crimes in America have risen 17
    percent just last year alone. I believe this is three
    consecutive years in a row we have seen hate crimes increase in
    this country. And I think that is why it is imperative that
    certainly our immigrant community but minority communities all
    across this country have confidence in the U.S. Government and
    in our leaders, particularly in key positions, like the one
    that you have been nominated for.
        So my question is, are you familiar with a group,
    Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)?
        Mr. Vitiello. Yes, I am aware of that group.
        Senator Peters. Are you also aware that the group is
    classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center?
        Mr. Vitiello. I did not know that.
        Senator Peters. As somebody in your position, should you
    know groups that are classified as hate groups?
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, ICE does not have specific
    responsibility to prosecute those Federal crimes. Obviously,
    agents and officers swear an oath to the Constitution and
    uphold law, public safety, homeland security. Obviously, if we
    are referred cases for hate crime we would work with local
    authorities, the FBI, etc., to get those cases prosecuted.
        Senator Peters. Well, I asked that question because my
    understanding is that you attended a Federation for American
    Immigration reform group media event that was held. Is that
    correct, that you were at an event that they held?
        Mr. Vitiello. Correct. At a local hotel they sponsored an
    opportunity for local radio stations to come to D.C. and
    broadcast from this area, and I did a number of interviews with
    local stations about ICE's mission, about the employees, about
    our critical support to homeland security and local
    communities. I think I did three separate interviews in that
    setting.
        Senator Peters. So you were at their event. So you attended
    their event, but in that situation do you think you should do
    some background checking as to the organization and whether or
    not they are classified as a hate group before you show up?
        Mr. Vitiello. The opportunity that we were trying to avail
    ourselves of, in the press sense, was to talk to these local
    communities. There are a couple on the Northern Border. I think
    there was one in Ohio. It is people that are not familiar as it
    relates to what happens in Washington, what happens as it
    relates to border enforcement, border security and immigration
    enforcement. So it was an opportunity to reach into those
    communities in that setting.
        Senator Peters. Although it was supported by a group that
    is classified as a hate group. So would you, in the future,
    avoid those kinds of situations, if confirmed?
        Mr. Vitiello. Obviously having more information in a
    scenario like that would be better.
        Senator Peters. And you would commit to seeking that out
    prior to making public appearances?
        Mr. Vitiello. That we can add that to our protocols, yes,
    sir.
        Senator Peters. It is significant, I think.
        Also, words have consequences, as you know. Just a few
    weeks ago an individual sent over a dozen pipe bombs to
    political figures across the country, and in this
    hyperpartisan-charged political environment I certainly am a
    strong believer that anyone holding positions of responsibility
    need to lead by example, and they need to behave with civility
    and understand we need to be bringing this country together,
    not dividing this country.
        So my question for you is in response to a tweet from Mark
    Levin on September 12, 2012, you suggested that the Democratic
    Party should be renamed the Liberalcratic party or the
    Neoclanist party. What did you mean by that tweet?
        Mr. Vitiello. It was a mistake. I was trying to make a
    joke. I thought it was a direct message. I was not familiar
    with how the platform worked as it related to that. I did not
    mean to suggest that the party is somehow against American
    values, and I deeply regret that I did it. It was a momentary
    lapse of judgment and I apologize.
        Senator Peters. So you do not believe that that is
    appropriate language for a government official charged with
    significant responsibilities?
        Mr. Vitiello. It is important and I understand the gravity
    of it, but it was meant as a joke, it was not trollery. I was
    not trying to do anything other than make a joke, and again, I
    regret it.
        Senator Peters. So why is that funny to you, those terms,
    Neoclanist party?
        Mr. Vitiello. I do not remember. There was some context
    about the content on the show. I was trying to respond in that
    context. I do not remember exactly what the premise was. But
    again, I realize that it caused offense and I am sorry.
        Senator Peters. So you will commit to this Committee that
    you are not going to use that type of language going forward?
        Mr. Vitiello. I absolutely commit to that.
        Senator Peters. Acting Director Vitiello, you acknowledge
    being, I think, quote, ``involved in discussions and
    operational protocols regarding the Administration's most
    controversial immigration policy that led to family
    separations.''
        My question for you is why did not you or anyone recognize
    that family separations that would occur could cause a massive
    outcry from the public?
        Mr. Vitiello. It was not perceived in the moment. What we
    were trying to do, at CBP and in the Department, was not
    separate families but apply consequences as the Department of
    Justice (DOJ) leaned forward and offered up additional
    prosecutorial resources, the so-called zero tolerance policy.
    We tried to take advantage of that capacity.
        Since 2011, the Border Patrol has been tracking very
    closely--CBP has been tracking very closely the arrests that
    they make, the consequences, or the post-arrest activity that
    the government involves in, after each and every arrest. And
    what we saw, over time, was that if you prosecuted people where
    those capacities were available, or if you sent people for
    removal hearings and they actually got removed, that you would
    see less activity at the border. The recidivism rate went down
    after we started tracking this in 2011. And so when the Justice
    Department stepped up and said that they would do more
    prosecutions, we put instructions in place to take advantage of
    that.
        Senator Peters. But it was clear that families would be
    separated at that point.
        Mr. Vitiello. That would have been a consequence. I just
    have to tell you that in most of the venues, when we refer
    people for the Federal crime of illegal entry, when they go to
    court locally a lot of them only go for the hearing long enough
    to be out of our custody at CBP, out of custody for less than a
    day, and then they are returned to us. And so the separation
    was contemplated but it was never meant to be permanent, and in
    most cases people got back together with their families on the
    same day.
        Senator Peters. But in many cases that did not happen, and
    it certainly appears that there was not any planning done on
    how to reunite families as we went through that. It was, as I
    looked into this and with locations in Michigan as well, there
    was a significant lack of planning. Why was that the case?
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, we never contemplated having the
    systems work backward, right. So the reunification piece is a
    function of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
    They have the care and custody of the children once they are
    out of CBP custody. And so there was a significant recognition
    that they were going to need more capacity. But nobody in the
    discussion that I was involved in were contemplating that these
    people would be separated forever.
        Senator Peters. So if not separated forever, this is a
    question that I have been trying to get answered by DHS
    officials, is that we know that children were separated. How
    long is too long for a child to be separated from their family?
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, we would like to be in a place where no
    one got separated, right, but separations occur when, in most
    cases, before zero tolerance, when the guardian or the parent
    is not suitable to be a parent. They have a violent history or
    they have other crimes that need to be addressed in Federal
    prosecution, and so that requires a separation.
        So, yes, we would like to be in a place where lots of
    people did not bring their kids to the border and try to cross
    illegally, but that is the situation we are faced with now.
        Senator Peters. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN

        Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
    Peters, and thank you to both of our nominees this morning. We
    are very grateful for your public service. We are grateful to
    your families for sharing that service with you, and we are
    grateful for your presence here today.
        Mr. Vitiello, I want to start by just thanking you for
    visiting with me in my office last month. We discussed many
    things, including New Hampshire's significant Indonesian
    community. As you know, many members of this community came to
    New Hampshire fleeing religious persecution against Christians
    in Indonesia. They have become members of the community. They
    have worked jobs and paid taxes. They have raised their
    families in the Seacoast area of New Hampshire.
        Now, after many years of them living in the country, ICE
    has prioritized them for deportation, a decision that could put
    their lives at risk if they return to a country where violence
    against religious minorities remains a really serious issue.
    During our meeting you committed to looking into this matter.
    Could you please tell me what the product of that review was,
    and whether, as Director of ICE, you would reconsider ICE's
    efforts to deport these members of the community?
        Mr. Vitiello. Thank you for that question. So we are in a
    situation where, in the past, people were made to believe that
    the immigration laws, or people that were subject to removal in
    the United States would not be arrested. I have done this job
    for a really long time.
        Senator Hassan. So let me just interrupt you because I have
    limited time. Did you do a review of that situation?
        Mr. Vitiello. Yes. We looked into it, and the situation
    involves people who had either final orders of removal, and
    have had their due process rights. They are not subject to
    relief under the asylum laws, as refugees from Indonesia, and
    so they are, in fact, removable. The direction that we got from
    the President early on in his tenure was that no classes of
    aliens would be exempt from immigration enforcement.
        Senator Hassan. So your answer to me is that even though
    these people have built lives in the United States, even though
    they sought asylum and they are in legitimate fear of religious
    persecution and violence should they return to their countries
    of origin, even though they are tax-paying, even though they
    have built businesses, even though their families are here, and
    even though there are many more people who are actually engaged
    in criminal behavior who ICE could be prosecuting, you all are
    going to continue to prioritize Granite Staters who have built
    lives in this country and sought justice from us?
        Mr. Vitiello. We are not going to prioritize people just
    because of where they are from or what scenario that we are
    having. We prioritize like we always have--threats to public
    safety----
        Senator Hassan. But you have not always, because these
    people relied on behavior and Statements from the U.S.
    Government that gave them the belief that they would be able to
    stay here and build families here and build lives here and
    become parts of the community. And they relied on those
    representations by the U.S. Government, whether they were
    technically correct under the law or not.
        The concept of justice does not lie just in technicalities.
    It lies in the way we treat people, and it lies in an
    observance of our core values. So I am trying to understand
    why, when there are people violating our core values in this
    country, without documentation or illegally, we are not
    prioritizing them and why we are prioritizing law-abiding
    Indonesians who have been living in our country as Americans
    for a long time.
        Mr. Vitiello. We are prioritizing threats to homeland
    security, threats to public safety, and those engaging in
    criminal activity, and are also in the country illegally.
        Senator Hassan. So you are telling me that you have done
    all that work and there is nobody else to go after who are more
    of a threat than these law-abiding people in my State?
        Mr. Vitiello. No. I can tell you that, as a country, as an
    agency, and as an individual, I recognize that sometimes the
    law does not do what we want it to do. We are a compassionate
    nation that is welcoming to immigrants. These people have gone
    through their constitutional due process rights and they are
    not subject to relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act
    (INA). And so when encountered by the immigration officer they
    are subject to arrest and removal.
        Senator Hassan. I am not going to stay on this subject
    because I have another one I want to cover, but I do want to
    say that I do not think that that is an accurate representation
    of what has happened in their case. It is not that people just
    happened upon them. They had been given reliances by the U.S.
    Government that they were in compliance and they could stay
    here. And they showed up for their regular check-in and all of
    a sudden the behavior at the U.S. Government changed toward
    them.
        So let us move on to another subject, because I want to
    follow up on something that Senator Peters was talking to you
    about, because also during our meeting we talked about
    indefinite detention of families and the policy of separating
    children from the families, and we specifically discussed the
    long-term mental health implications of both practices. At the
    end of that meeting I provided you with a copy of a report
    issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) from March
    2017, that stated that detention, and this is a quote, ``can
    cause psychological trauma and induce long-term mental health
    risks for children.''
        And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a copy of that
    report,\1\ which I have with me, be entered into the record.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The report referenced by Senator Hassan appears in the Appendix
    on page 204.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Johnson. Without objection.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you. So I asked, in our meeting, that
    you read the report, and you promised you would. So do you
    agree with the findings from our pediatricians that detention
    can cause long-term mental health problems for children?
        Mr. Vitiello. I thank you for providing the report. I did
    read it thoroughly and I understand the American Pediatrics
    Association's comments and direction and the import of the
    report. I understand what it means.
        I would like--like I said earlier--that we were not in a
    situation where large numbers of families with children are
    approaching the border. That is not the situation that we are
    in.
        Senator Hassan. You, then, are accepting the findings of
    the American Academy of Pediatrics, that detention results in
    long-term psychological harm to children. Is that correct?
        Mr. Vitiello. I think any time a parent breaks the law and
    their family suffers for it----
        Senator Hassan. That is not my question. Earlier, in
    response to Senator Peters, you referred to children as if they
    were tools to impose consequences on their parents. They are
    not. They are children.
        Mr. Vitiello. That is not the premise that I talked----
        Senator Hassan. Well then, you should----
        Mr. Vitiello [continuing]. I talked about consequences----
        Senator Hassan [continuing]. Clarify your remarks. What I
    am asking you now is will you accept the findings of
    pediatricians in the United States of America (USA) that
    detaining children provides long-term psychological harm to
    those children? Yes or no.
        Mr. Vitiello. I understand the report, yes.
        Senator Hassan. OK. So one of the most basic qualifications
    we ask of nominees is that they use their judgment to the best
    of their ability to protect our core American values. So could
    you please tell me how you are going to advocate so that
    children will not be detained and children will not be
    separated from their families?
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, luckily, the President stopped the
    zero-tolerance implementation as it related to families, so any
    family that comes into custody at ICE, referred from CBP or
    from other means, are either kept together or they are released
    on alternatives to detention.
        Senator Hassan. And what I would like to understand, as
    well, is what the alternatives to detention are. I would like a
    commitment that you all will stop pursuing permission to detain
    children and to change the Flores settlement, and that you will
    stand up for American values, which says we do not bully
    children.
        Mr. Vitiello. Again, I would like to be in a place where
    large numbers of people were not bringing their children to the
    border, or sending their children to the border----
        Senator Hassan. We are the United States of America. You
    did a very excellent job in your testimony of standing up for
    the men and women who work for ICE. And I have visited with
    them. I have visited with our Border Patrol officials who are
    wonderful public servants. And here is the thing. We have the
    capacity, in the United States of America, to control our
    borders without harming children. That is something that I am
    quite confident we can do.
        So what I would like to do is move from a situation where
    you and some of your colleagues are trying to defend what
    happened, or trying to talk about the difficulty of families on
    the border as an excuse, and I would like you to start moving
    forward for solutions that protect children while securing our
    borders. Both are possible. Because we are the United States.
    We do hard things.
        Mr. Vitiello. I agree----
        Senator Hassan. So do you commit to working with us to do
    that?
        Mr. Vitiello. I will work with this Committee on changes in
    the law that allow us to enforce the border and have an
    immigration system that has integrity, and I appreciate your
    advocacy for the ICE workforce.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you for letting me go over, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Before we move on, if you would put up
    the blue chart.\1\ I think we need a little history lesson
    here, because, again, what ICE does is they enforce the laws
    that we have allowed this reality to blossom. But back in 2012,
    11,116 individuals came to this country illegally, as a family
    unit, and in 2013, 15,056. And then kind of following the
    pattern with unaccompanied children (UAC), which, again, I put
    up the other chart\2\ and we are not going to do it, but
    followed after President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood
    Arrivals (DACA) declaration, you had 68,684 in 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 201.
        \2\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix
    on page 202.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Now the Obama Administration found that quite troubling and
    so they instituted a policy of detaining those family units,
    which led to a lawsuit, which led to the re-interpretation of
    the Flores settlement, which included the fact that--by the
    way, I agree with Secretary Jeh Johnson, that it was never
    contemplated that the Flores decision included children
    accompanied by their parents. But all of a sudden the re-
    interpretation said no, you cannot detain a child, even with a
    parent unit.
        So in order to enforce our law, and not engage in total
    catch-and-release, which is what ended up happening, you were
    really forced into a family separation. It is what we are
    trying to fix with the Families Act, OK, trying to work in good
    faith.
        I just wanted to continue to go on with what has happened
    since then. So detention with families intact, under the Obama
    Administration, actually had an effect. It went from 68,000
    down to 40,000. After the Flores interpretation--in 2016, the
    number of people coming here as family units--because they
    realized now we can get here, they catch us, they release us,
    and we get to stay--77,857. In 2017, it is 75,802. Last year it
    was 107,202 individuals. I mean, are you seeing a pattern here?
    Last month, in October, 23,121 individuals came to this country
    illegally--they were apprehended--coming as a family unit.
        Now I do not think anybody projects that the level is going
    to stay after 12 months, but if it were that would be 276,000
    people.
        So we have a problem on our hands, and ICE has a
    significant problem, but they are trying to enforce the laws as
    they are currently interpreted by the courts. That is what we
    have to fix.
        So again, I am just trying to lay out that reality, and
    this is about a nomination hearing of somebody who has served
    both the CBP and now with ICE, trying to enforce the law. But
    we need to change the law. As General John Kelly, in his
    nomination hearing said, or maybe potentially as Secretary, is
    we have to have the courage and skill to actually change the
    law.
        Senator Hassan. And, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that very
    much. However, my suggestion is we have heard a lot of
    testimony about ways we could change our practices and law that
    would tighten up our border, would have people appear for their
    hearings. We need more lawyers, we need more alternative to
    detention, and we need more judges.
        Chairman Johnson. And we are working on that.
        Senator Hassan. But we do not need to detain children or
    separate them from their families in order to be secure. And it
    concerns me greatly that the greatest country on Earth is not
    standing up for children wherever they are.
        Chairman Johnson. Again, nobody wants to separate families.
    I think we have kind of established that as one of our goals.
    But, Senator Harris.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS

        Senator Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like
    to emphasize, to your point, this is a hearing to determine who
    will be the next head of ICE, and so this is about reviewing
    the prospective, the qualifications, and the experience of the
    nominee.
        So that being said, I think, Mr. Vitiello would you agree,
    as a member of law enforcement, that law enforcement, generally
    speaking, and certainly would be the case with ICE officers and
    agents, that a great deal of your power is discretionary. You
    have limited resources and you make decisions about what you
    are going to do, but you exercise a great deal of discretion,
    in terms of how you are going to use the limited resources and
    how you are going to prioritize them.
        And then understanding that, I think you would also agree
    that one's perspective, and their bias, if they have bias, will
    influence their exercise of discretion, in terms of the power
    they have and how it will be used and implemented.
        So I want to return to the question that Senator Peters
    asked you, about the statement you made describing the
    Democratic Party as Liberalcratic or Neoclanist, which was--I
    think the assumption there was that you were comparing it to
    the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).
        So you said, in response to his question, you are sorry
    because the words caused offense. So would not be sorry if no
    one was offended by your words?
        Mr. Vitiello. No. It was wrong to do.
        Senator Harris. Why was it wrong?
        Mr. Vitiello. Because those are offensive words.
        Senator Harris. Why are they offensive?
        Mr. Vitiello. Because they have history in this country,
    and I honestly did not mean it that way.
        Senator Harris. But please talk about the history. What is
    the history that would then make those words wrong?
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, the Klan was what we would call today a
    domestic terrorist group.
        Senator Harris. Why? Why would we call them a domestic
    terrorist group?
        Mr. Vitiello. Because they tried to use fear and force to
    change the political environment.
        Senator Harris. And what was the motivation for the use of
    fear and force?
        Mr. Vitiello. It was based on race and ethnicity.
        Senator Harris. Right. Are you aware of the perception of
    many about how the power and the discretion at ICE is being
    used to enforce the laws, and do you see any parallels?
        Mr. Vitiello. I do not see any parallels between----
        Senator Harris. I am talking about perceptions----
        Mr. Vitiello [continuing]. Officers and agents.
        Senator Harris. I am talking about perception.
        Mr. Vitiello. I do not see a parallel between what is
    constitutionally mandated, as it relates to enforcing the law--
    --
        Senator Harris. Are you aware that there is a perception--
    --
        Mr. Vitiello. I see no perception----
        Senator Harris [continuing]. Are you aware that there is a
    perception----
        Mr. Vitiello [continuing]. That puts ICE in the same
    category as the KKK. Is that what you are asking me?
        Senator Harris. No. I am very specific about what I am
    asking you. Are you aware of a perception that the way that the
    discretion----
        Mr. Vitiello. I see no parallel.
        Senator Harris. I am not finished.
        Mr. Vitiello. I see none.
        Senator Harris. I am not finished. Are you aware that there
    is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way
    that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among
    immigrants, and specifically among immigrants coming from
    Mexico and Central America? Are you aware of that perception?
        Mr. Vitiello. I do not see a parallel between the power and
    the authority that ICE has to do its job, and the agents and
    officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of
    compassion.
        Senator Harris. Sir, how can you be the head of an agency
    and be unaware of how your agency is perceived by certain
    communities?
        Mr. Vitiello. There are a lot of perceptions in the media
    and in the public that are incorrect, about the agency----
        Senator Harris. But the perception----
        Mr. Vitiello [continuing]. And what it does.
        Senator Harris [continuing]. Exists. Would you agree,
    whether or not it is correct, and would you not agree then that
    if that perception exists there might need to be some work done
    to correct the perception?
        Mr. Vitiello. I do want to advocate for the workforce, the
    vital public safety mission that they have to protect the
    homeland. And I think more people need to know how valuable
    they are to the society. So I agree with you on that.
        Senator Harris. So I understand your point that you want to
    defend the honor of the good men and women who work in the
    agency, and I appreciate that point, and I know the vast
    majority of the men and women who work in the agency do a noble
    and good job. I am not talking about that. I am talking about
    the perception.
        And it seems to me that you would understand that when you
    use words such as the words you used only three short years
    ago, that that would contribute to that perception, and it is
    harmful then. It is harmful, in terms of the mission of the
    agency and the work of the individuals there, and it is harmful
    in terms of leading those who are innocent people, arriving at
    our border, fleeing harm. It is harmful to them if they feel
    they will not be treated by the U.S. Government with dignity
    and fairness. Do you see that?
        Mr. Vitiello. I agree that all of the people that we
    encounter deserve fairness, dignity, and respect in the
    encounters with our agents and our officers.
        Senator Harris. OK. In August there was a complaint filed
    with DHS, and the complaint alleges verbal and physical
    threats, insults, denial of food, and withholding of feminine
    hygiene products from parents, and these are the parents that
    were separated from their children, and also were about to be.
    And these parents were also falsely told that their children
    would be permanently taken from them.
        Following a hearing on September 18, before this Committee,
    I submitted questions for the record to your Associate
    Director, asking about these allegations. I have not received a
    response. So I am going to ask you, one, I am assuming you are
    aware of the allegations, and I want to know what action have
    you taken then to investigate the veracity of these
    allegations?
        Mr. Vitiello. I do not have the specifics on your request.
    I know that if you sent a letter to the office, on the deputy's
    testimony, that we are going to put that back for you on the
    record. I can commit to you that the oversight role that ICE
    has with our detention centers and what all happens when people
    are in custody is something that I watch very closely.
        Senator Harris. My question is very specific. Are you aware
    of these allegations and, if so, what action have you taken, as
    the Acting Director, to investigate the veracity of these
    complaints?
        Mr. Vitiello. In this specific case I do not have chapter
    and verse for you. What I can tell you is that there----
        Senator Harris. Do you have any information about what you
    have ordered to do in the agency to determine whether these
    allegations, which are serious on their face are, in fact,
    true?
        Mr. Vitiello. There is a specific protocol when allegations
    like this come to life through the DHS Office of Inspector
    General (OIG). We have Office of Professional Responsibility
    (OPR)----
        Senator Harris. So what did you do? What did you do, to
    follow up on these allegations? My question is about you.
        Mr. Vitiello. I can make sure that this allegation is
    followed up through the protocols----
        Senator Harris. So you have not done that yet.
        Mr. Vitiello. On this specific case I do not know the
    specifics of this case. I am happy to get more specifics with
    you and make sure that it is followed up in a way that is
    meaningful----
        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        Mr. Vitiello [continuing]. Using the resources that ICE
    has.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Jones, Senator Hassan has asked
    to ask one last question. Would you yield to her?
        Senator Jones. I would consider that.
        Chairman Johnson. I do not believe we will have a second
    round. That is why--OK.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you very much for yielding, Senator
    Jones, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for that courtesy.
        Mr. Vitiello, we also talked, in my office, about the role
    of the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) division of ICE.
    HSI is not part of ICE's detention and deportation force, and
    HSI actually has little to do with immigration. HSI is a
    Federal law enforcement branch that investigates and seeks to
    stop drug traffickers, arms traffickers, human smugglers,
    transnational gangs, and terrorist organizations. It is
    obviously a key counterterrorism and national security entity,
    and we have to ensure that HSI is well supported in order to
    keep all Americans safe.
        Last June, 19 special agents in charge of HSI field offices
    sent a letter to Secretary Nielsen asking that HSI be split out
    from ICE. They reason that their missions have been made more
    difficult by the public backlash against ICE's deportation
    force and because DHS and ICE have consistently taken money
    from HSI's budget to pay for the detention and deportation
    force at ICE.
        So I have two parts to this question. Have you, or will you
    take money from HSI and undermine their counterterrorism and
    national security capability in order to provide additional
    funding to ICE's deportation force?
        Mr. Vitiello. So I appreciate the question. We would never
    take money from one part of the organization to another if it
    meant an increased risk to national security.
        Senator Hassan. So is it acceptable or not acceptable to
    take money from HSI to the ICE deportation force?
        Mr. Vitiello. It is a big agency. It is a lot of taxpayer
    dollars. It is $7 billion. And when you run a big agency--when
    I was at CBP, the Border Patrol budget was like $3.4 billion.
    You have to fund what is necessary. You have to meet the
    obligations that we have. You do so in a risk-based way, and we
    would do the same at ICE going forward.
        I would love to be in a place where the appropriation was
    adequate to cover all the needs and the mandatory authorities
    that we have to exercise. In every enterprise, you have to make
    choices and you have to weigh the risks----
        Senator Hassan. I do understand that. Please understand
    that there are those of us that think that the agency is not
    making appropriate risk-based judgments when we look at the HSI
    concerns expressed in any number of ways. So I would look
    forward to continuing that conversation.
        The other part of this is going back to the letter that the
    19 senior members of HSI wrote. Will you consider moving HSI
    out of ICE and making it its own operational component,
    separate from the immigration missions of ICE?
        Mr. Vitiello. I have read the letter. I considered the idea
    and I do not think that we should take any steps in that
    direction. I think what HSI brings to the table, in money
    laundering, complex narcotics investigations, their work
    against MS-13, relies on the agency's complete resources and
    their authorities under Title 8 to prosecute MS-13 gang
    members, to clean up communities like we did in Long Island,
    and having those two complementary missions side by side is
    better for America than it is not.
        Senator Hassan. I thank you for the answer. I think there
    is a way of integrating those missions while still making sure
    that people understand HSI can be trusted within the community
    so that they can do their law enforcement.
        Mr. Vitiello. I agree with you and the Special Agents in
    Charge (SACs) that jurisdictions should not be reluctant to
    work with the law enforcement agency that is constituted to
    protect the homeland.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for
    your courtesy, and Senator Jones.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Jones.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JONES

        Senator Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of
    you.
        Mr. Tischner, you are kind of lost in this shuffle today.
        Mr. Tischner. I am here.
        Senator Jones. Yes. I wanted to make sure you were still
    awake.
        Chairman Johnson. Do not feel left out, though.
        Senator Jones. I really do not have a question, candidly,
    but I just want to congratulate you on a very distinguished
    career.
        Mr. Tischner. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Jones. Seriously, I am a former Assistant United
    States Attorney, a former U.S. Attorney. I have worked with a
    number of your former bosses, who I have great respect for, on
    both sides of the aisle, in various administrations. So I want
    to just congratulate you on that and thank you for your service
    and willingness to serve in this new capacity, and to make sure
    you were awake during this hearing.
        Mr. Tischner. Thank you, Senator. I am quite awake.
        Senator Jones. Thank you. I appreciate it very much.
        Mr. Vitiello, I have a couple of questions. I have heard a
    lot recently. You have done a lot of work in this field on the
    border, through various administrations, and now moving over to
    ICE. And I have heard a lot lately, and I have just got a kind
    of initially a simple question.
        I assume, in your various capacities, you have had
    discussions with Members of Congress over the years, on both
    sides of the aisle. Would that be fair?
        Mr. Vitiello. Yes, that is true.
        Senator Jones. Have you ever heard anyone, on either side
    of the aisle, Republican or Democrat, who has said, ``Well,
    sir, I want to let you know I am for open borders''? Has anyone
    ever said that to you?
        Mr. Vitiello. Not to me, no.
        Senator Jones. Did you ever get the sense, when you talked
    to somebody, that they are, in fact, for open borders?
        Mr. Vitiello. Not in this setting?
        Senator Jones. All right. So I guess one of the things I
    want to make sure we understand is that everyone is wanting
    secure borders. We may have different agreements, different
    views on how to get there. But there is no one, despite what we
    have heard in this political kind of world, that no one is for
    open borders. We want a secure border.
        Now I do want to go back a little bit to what Senator
    Harris was talking about, and it kind of plays into this, and
    that is, I come from a State in which words had serious
    consequences. And I think this is where Senator Harris was
    certainly going.
        Perceptions can become realities for so many people out
    there. When we hear certain words and we call certain people
    enemies, we create a culture of fear of people who are just
    seeking a better life, who are barefoot and poor and trying to
    get away from a very difficult situation.
        And I want to make sure that, as a member of ICE, that you
    are going to commit to help tone down the rhetoric that we see
    in our immigration debate, because I do not think it is
    healthy. In fact, I think it is incredibly destructive. And as
    we have seen, it can be very dangerous. We have seen things
    recently where 11 people were killed in a Jewish synagogue,
    where explosive devices were sent to prominent members who
    opposed the administration, that words have consequences.
        And I would just like to make sure, especially given
    comments that you acknowledge were inappropriate, and a
    mistake, I would like for you to just talk a little bit about
    that and a commitment from you that you will do what you can,
    if you are confirmed as the head of ICE, to help make sure that
    the rhetoric is toned down and that you, as an agency head, and
    your directives--all of those that work for you--understand
    that the perception can be reality sometimes. And I can attest
    to you there are four little girls that were murdered in
    Birmingham in a bomb blast, that were a direct result of a
    Governor and a police commissioner's words that empowered
    people to do bad things. So I really need that commitment from
    you.
        Mr. Vitiello. I am committed to working with this
    Committee, working with the larger legislative branch so that
    the people in the media understand how vital the workforce is,
    and I am absolutely committed to doing it in a professional and
    respectful way.
        Senator Jones. All right. So that really did not answer my
    question, sir. I really am troubled by the answer, because you
    do not need to work with this Committee. You do not hear any of
    this rhetoric coming out of this Committee. You hear it coming
    out of the administration, and it does it in a political
    context. I want you to make sure that you stand up and do the
    right thing, and say, ``Wait a minute. This is not who we
    are.'' That is the commitment I am asking from you, sir.
        You do not need to work with this Committee. This Committee
    is all on board with trying to make sure we keep things in a
    certain level. I want you to work with the folks above you. I
    want you to work with the Secretary or the President or the
    Vice President, whoever it might be. Can I get that commitment
    that you will, even if it is behind closed doors and not
    necessarily public, can I get a commitment to stand up to just
    simply do the right thing and to tell people that they need to
    be careful with what they say?
        Mr. Vitiello. I strive always to do the right thing and I
    am committed to do that as well.
        Senator Jones. All right. Thank you, sir. I think that is
    all I have.
        Chairman Johnson. I appreciate that. I also appreciate that
    Senator Peters was willing to stand in as Ranking Member. I
    know he has a hard stop at 11, but do you have another question
    real quick before you need to go?
        Senator Peters. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Vitiello, just a couple more questions for you. First off, the
    New York Times reported, on October 22, 2018, that the
    administration is weighing some new policies to deter migrant
    families from journeying north, including a new form of family
    separation. News reports have indicated that under a proposal--
    it is called a binary choice policy, is what I believe--parents
    would be forced to choose between voluntarily relinquishing
    their children to foster care or to remain imprisoned together
    as a family. The latter option would require parents to waive
    their child's right to be released from detention within 20
    days, related to court cases, as you know.
        So my question to you, are you involved in any way with the
    policy planning that would allow parents to choose between
    family separation or remaining detained together as a family?
        Mr. Vitiello. In early October, as a result of the
    litigation, the idea came out of the judge's order to the
    agencies and the plaintiffs, and so that option or that
    discussion is underway. It is a way for us to meet the
    requirement of the Flores settlement agreement while giving
    people a complete opportunity of due process in immigration
    proceedings.
        Senator Peters. So do you support the proposal for a binary
    choice policy? What are your thoughts on it?
        Mr. Vitiello. It is a way for people to have a due process
    opportunity and remain in custody, and what I have seen over my
    long career is that if people are allowed relief under the law
    then we should do that. That is an opportunity that ICE is
    responsible to give people in that process in front of the
    judge. But if they are not, and they are removed quickly after
    the due process and the safeguard back to their home, we will
    get less traffic. I think that is what is illustrated in the
    Chairman's chart. If we can close the loop on proceedings with
    due process we will get less recidivism at the border. We will
    get less people bringing their children.
        So it is an option. It right now would be in conflict with
    the President's direction to keep families together.
        Senator Peters. But the administration is discussing in.
        Mr. Vitiello. There have been discussions after the judge
    gave that information to both sides in the litigation.
        Senator Peters. Yes, and I think we all agree that we want
    to expedite any of the hearings that folks have. I think that
    is a universal agreement here, that people have the right for
    due process to expedite it. But I am not sure how the fact that
    you give folks a choice between being separated from their
    children or being detained, and then asking them to waive the
    20-day period where they children cannot stay in detention, how
    that is going to accelerate that. There are other issues that
    we would need to deal with, as a Committee, and resources that
    we will talk about, that have judges and others to be able to
    expedite. I am not sure how this policy actually does that.
        And I guess it leads to a question that I have been trying
    to get answered. In addition to how long folks could be
    separated, the other question is how long should a child be
    detained? You responded to Senator Harris's question that you
    had read the information related to how detrimental a child is,
    or the effect on a child when they are detained.
        So my question to you is, how long does ICE believe a child
    should be detained? What is the view of ICE?
        Mr. Vitiello. It is a matter before the court. In other
    contexts, when people are seeking relief or they are going in
    front of immigration proceedings--for instance, an adult male
    from Guatemala, they are out of our custody in less than 2
    months. And so they get their complete due process rights, and
    if they have relief under the law they are out of proceedings
    quickly. They are out of detention faster than that.
        And so when we hold people and remove them after their due
    process opportunity, it will abate the traffic, like we saw in
    2015.
        Senator Peters. The answer is pretty straightforward. You
    still have not answered it. It is just, is there an upper limit
    to how long a child should be detained, in your view?
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, the law gives us upper limits. In this
    discussion, what we are trying to seek is full opportunity in
    the due process, and that requirement, and then if they are not
    subject to relief then they are held only long enough to remove
    them.
        Chairman Johnson. Let me chime in, because this is where
    Congress bears responsibility to determine what this is, and
    this is why we are trying to do, and what I would hope would be
    a nonpartisan basis, look at the problem, address the problem,
    fix the problem, and we need to make those decisions, rather
    than having somebody who is looking to confirm a nomination on
    somebody who is going to have to follow the law that we write.
    And right now the law is broken. It is just broken because we
    have this kind of result.
        So again, I am really hoping that this Committee can work
    on a very nonpartisan basis, fix the law so we have something
    to enforce as opposed to having the administration and courts
    decide all these things for us.
        But with that, Senator Daines.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES

        Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    thank both the nominees for coming up here today.
        Mr. Vitiello, it is great to see you as well, again. For
    over three decades you have served our country. You enforced
    the rule of law. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your
    continued desire to protect our country in this incredibly
    important role. I believe you have the leadership and
    experience necessary to be most effective in this position.
        ICE is one of our country's most critical security measures
    and is essential in protecting its citizens. As you mentioned,
    ICE seized nearly 900,000 pounds of narcotics, rescued more
    than 850 children who were victims of sexual exploitation, and
    arrested 11,000 known or suspected gang members, and that was
    in fiscal year 18. The work that ICE does in protecting
    America's security and upholding the rule of law cannot be
    overstated. The fact that some Members of Congress have called
    for the abolishment of ICE is simply outrageous. It is long
    past due that we confirm you.
        Mr. Vitiello, our country is facing an opioid crisis. Let
    me tell you something. In Montana, we are facing a meth
    epidemic. I just literally came from a meeting with some
    individuals in Montana who deal with our foster care system.
    The numbers in our foster care system have tripled, according
    to this group, most recently, as a direct result of meth. The
    vast majority of this devastating drug comes from Mexico. The
    meth of old was home-grown, with meth labs. The meth today is
    coming via cartels, as you know, coming up through Mexico, and
    it is destroying--it is destroying our communities in Montana.
    It is destroying families. These effects are very personal
    While ICE Homeland Security investigations seized 80 pounds of
    meth in fiscal year 18, families and communities are suffering.
    They are being destroyed.
        My question is how will you ensure that rural States, like
    Montana, remain a top priority for ICE, and do you have the
    necessary resources to control the meth epidemic that we are
    seeing right now in Montana?
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, as an operator I will always tell you
    we need more resources, but I appreciate that. I appreciate
    your kind words as well. ICE seized about 60,000 pounds of
    methamphetamine last year with a value of about $475 million.
    In your environment, on the Northern Border, our best
    resources, in the HSI context, is the Border Enforcement
    Security Teams (BEST). So we have a number of those along the
    Northern Border, working directly with partners and colleagues
    in Canada, and then our State and local and tribal partners as
    well. So providing task force funding, overtime for State and
    locals, working complex pathways, identification. How are these
    things coming into the country from Mexico? How are they
    reaching markets in the United States.
        ICE has a wonderful capability, that I am very impressed
    with, on the dark web marketplace. A lot of these things now
    are being imported, either across the border or imported, but
    people start the search for these goods online in the dark web,
    and ICE and HSI has a great capability to combat the
    transactional nature of that, but then also to follow the money
    and the pathways of this illicit methamphetamine into the
    United States.
        Senator Daines. I would like to talk about sanctuary
    jurisdictions, places that violate the laws of our Nation,
    encourage illegal immigration, and compromise the security of
    law-abiding citizens. Recently news broke of an illegal
    immigrant who has been charged with triple murder after being
    released from a county jail in New Jersey. ICE had issued a
    detainer requesting notification prior to his release in order
    to place him in removal proceedings.
        Tragically, the detainer was not honored. This illegal
    immigrant made his way to Missouri, where he took three
    innocent lives. Sanctuary jurisdictions that protect illegal
    immigrants while blatantly refusing to cooperate with Federal
    law enforcement are a direct affront to this country's rule of
    law and puts innocent lives at risk.
        My question, Mr. Vitiello, is how can ICE improve
    cooperation with sanctuary jurisdictions so that the rule of
    law is enforced and more innocent lives are not lost?
        Mr. Vitiello. Yes, it is a very frustrating situation. I
    would like to be in a place where jurisdictions could
    understand the risk that they take when they cannot cooperate
    or cannot honor a detainer. What we can do is be responsive to
    the calls for detainers for those jurisdiction that do do that,
    and then working with State and locals in individual
    jurisdictions to get them to understand what risk they are
    placing on the homeland, and certainly in their individual
    communities.
        I think what you will hear from some jurisdictions, those
    that want to cooperate, some that do cooperate but they do not
    want people to know about it, is that there is some liability
    on their part that they would like to have addressed by
    legislation. And so we have specifics on that, we can get with
    you and your staff on. But I am old enough to remember--I mean,
    100 years ago, when I was an agent on the line, you could hand
    a detainer to a deputy at a road stop and that jurisdiction
    would then honor that detainer when they were finished with the
    pendency of that judicial process for that individual.
        That is where we need to be as a country. We need the
    Federal law to be enforced with the cooperation of State and
    local jurisdictions. It is a risk that the country should not
    have to take.
        Senator Daines. Mr. Vitiello, you talked about the Northern
    Border a bit. You have served over 30 years with Border Patrol,
    and part of that time was spent on the Northern Border. While
    the great majority of border security is focused on the
    Southern Border, and understandably, particularly if you look
    at the meth issue, Mexican meth coming into the United States.
    That is what is affecting Montana.
        Our border with Canada is the longest land boundary between
    any two countries in the world, 545 miles of which is Montana.
    The threats posed on the Northern Border pale in comparison to
    those on our southern, yet transnational criminal organizations
    (TCOs), drug smuggling, terror threats are still present. In
    fact, earlier this year DHS released its Northern Border
    Strategy.
        My question is, in light of these findings and your own
    personal experience, can you speak to how a Northern Border can
    best be secured and how ICE will assist in that mission?
        Mr. Vitiello. So it is our work with the State and locals,
    our partners in Canada, to understand the pathways. Criminal
    organizations, as powerful as they are, are vulnerable when
    they cross the border, when their financial instruments cross
    the border. So what we will continue to do, through HSI and the
    BEST teams, is integrate into those communities, understand
    what the discrete threats are in each of the communities, and
    continue to apply our resources to hold to account those that
    traffic across the border.
        Senator Daines. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Senator Harris, after significant but effective arms-
    twisting, Senator Carper has graciously agreed to let you ask a
    question for his round.
        Senator Harris. Senator Carper is indeed a gracious
    gentleman and I appreciate that.
        Senator Carper. OK. I will have to go to the physician's
    office after this to have my arm repaired, but I am happy to do
    it.
        Senator Harris. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        Mr. Vitiello, in December 2017, so last year, I issued a
    directive that reversed a policy that existed before, which
    presumed that pregnant women should not be detained. And my
    question, and I have asked this before of others of your
    colleagues, is since ICE issued--and I have not received a
    response--since ICE issued this directive, how many pregnant
    women have been detained in ICE custody, and have been in ICE
    custody?
        Mr. Vitiello. It is important to know that all females of
    age are tested as they come into our custody, so sometimes we
    are not aware until they are already in ICE custody. So the
    number is very small. I do not have it in front of me, but
    within 12 hours of them coming into our custody they are
    tested, and then once we are aware of the pregnancy then they
    are referred for medical care immediately, and that care is the
    same standard care----
        Senator Harris. Sir, my question is very specific. Since
    ICE issued the directive in December of last year, how many
    pregnant women, to your knowledge, have been detained in ICE
    custody?
        Mr. Vitiello. Let me take that back, and I can give you a
    precise answer. Very few.
        Senator Harris. When will I get that answer, because I have
    asked it before.
        Mr. Vitiello. We can get you that by the end of the day.
        Senator Harris. OK. I appreciate that. And so to follow up,
    I also would like to know how many pregnant women are currently
    detained.
        Mr. Vitiello. I will get that for you.
        Senator Harris. And also I would like a breakdown, which I
    have also asked for before, by trimester, so how many of those
    who are pregnant are in their first, second, or third
    trimester. And since ICE issued this policy there has also been
    a question about what is exactly the policy regarding women in
    their third trimester. Can you tell me what the current policy
    is on that?
        Mr. Vitiello. The very rare circumstance where someone
    would be in custody in their third trimester, it would only be
    for--to effectuate a removal. It would not be for----
        Senator Harris. Is that the policy? What is the policy?
        Mr. Vitiello. The policy recognizes that that is the
    highest risk to the individual----
        Senator Harris. Yes
        Mr. Vitiello [continuing]. And so all safeguards are taken,
    all medical advice rules the day. But if someone is removable
    and we have the opportunity to remove them then they will be
    removed.
        Senator Harris. I am still not clear. What exactly is the
    ICE policy on detaining women in their third trimester of
    pregnancy? Can you give me exactly what that is?
        Mr. Vitiello. The policy is that special care is taken in
    the third trimester, and it is presumed that we would not keep
    anyone in custody. But if they are in custody and we have the
    ability to remove them then we would do that.
        Senator Harris. So the presumption is women in their third
    trimester should not be in custody?
        Mr. Vitiello. It is the highest level of risk.
        Senator Harris. That I am clear about, in terms of the
    risk. But what is the policy?
        Mr. Vitiello. The policy is that you follow the doctor's
    orders and safeguard the lives that are at stake.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.
        Senator Harris. Sir, I am not finished. Thank you, but I am
    still on this line of questioning.
        Chairman Johnson. I think we let you do one question. There
    has been a series of them, and----
        Senator Harris. Mr. Chairman, other people have had more
    time than I have used right now to follow up on their questions
    and I would like to finish this line of questioning about
    pregnant women being detained in ICE custody.
        Chairman Johnson. You can do that in written, but Senator
    Carper.
        Senator Harris. Let the record please----
        Senator Carper. I will yield one more minute to the
    Senator.
        Senator Harris. I appreciate that. Thank you.
        And regarding Secretary Nielsen, when she was here before,
    she promised this Committee that there would be an assessment
    of medical treatment of pregnant women in detention. I have not
    received a response to that question so I am asking you today,
    has ICE conducted an assessment of the treatment of pregnant
    women in its detention facilities?
        Mr. Vitiello. A specific assessment I am not aware of.
    Obviously if the Secretary ordered that we will make sure you
    get that as well.
        Senator Harris. OK. And so when you follow up, I asked for
    that in May of this year. And then what outside medical
    experts, if any, have ICE engaged in conducting this
    assessment? And I would like documentation provided that shows
    who has been consulted and what they have recommended, and I
    would direct your attention to a letter that you have received,
    or your agency received, in March of this year, from the
    Academic of Pediatrics and the American College of
    Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of
    Family Physicians, that said, very specifically, quote, ``The
    conditions in DHS facilities are not appropriate for pregnant
    women.'' Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER

        Senator Carper. Welcome to both of our witnesses. Thank you
    for being here. Thank you for your service and your willingness
    to serve in these roles.
        Mr. Tischner, I understand you have not been asked a lot of
    questions. That is a good thing, and I will just not ask you a
    lot of questions today, but welcome.
        Mr. Vitiello, thank you so much for spending time with us
    yesterday and being here today. We may want to talk with you
    further after this hearing, if that is possible.
        I think I mentioned to you I am a former Governor, and I
    still think like a Governor. The idea that ICE has a person of
    interest somewhere in Delaware or some other State, that person
    is detained by State and local officials, from my State or
    another State, ICE is notified and my understanding is ICE asks
    the--there is an expectation for ICE to come and take custody
    of the person of interest within a relatively short period of
    time.
        We spend a lot of money in Delaware on corrections, and I
    know we do in other States as well. But give us some idea of
    the period of time after a jurisdiction lets you know at ICE,
    ``We have a person that is of interest to you,'' what period of
    time elapses before ICE picks that person up? Meanwhile,
    because the local jurisdiction has to pay for security. They
    have to pay for feeding this person, and that sort of thing,
    medical, meals and all. And so they generally want to get that
    person out of their custody, back to where they belong with
    ICE. How quickly does that happen?
        Mr. Vitiello. Yes, I definitely understand that. We talked
    a little bit earlier about detainers, and the detainers ask for
    us, in ICE, to get a 48-hour notice, presuming that the
    department or the jurisdiction is getting ready to release. And
    so within that timeframe we would mount a response. But in some
    places, given the adequate resources, distances, etc., we would
    do it as quickly as we could.
        Senator Carper. All right. What is ``as quickly as we
    could? ''
        Mr. Vitiello. As fast as we can get someone there. Again,
    it depends on the circumstances, how far things are apart,
    whether we have adequate detention space to take another
    individual into custody, etc.
        Senator Carper. Yes. Well, I am going to ask you to think
    about that, and when we talk again I will ask you to come back
    and revisit that. All right?
        Mr. Vitiello. Very good.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. We talked a bit yesterday about
    why, in Mexico, why are there more Mexicans going back into
    Mexico than there are Mexicans trying to get into the United
    States, undocumented or illegally? And I think we basically
    agreed that the reason why is because, in Mexico, there is more
    hope, more opportunity. There is crime but it is a more safe
    place, by far, than Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. And that
    has helped turn things around in terms of movement of Mexicans
    in and out of Mexico and our country.
        I said yesterday, where I live we are raising our families
    from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Given what they face
    in terms of danger and lack of opportunity and hope, we would
    be tempted to pull out and release their kids and their
    families to a safer place, and the United States is probably
    the closest, safest place.
        Give us just 1 minute on what we ought to be doing to
    improve the quality of life, to reduce the need for folks who
    live in those countries to abandon everything they have to make
    this long journey to face an uncertain future. Talk us to about
    that. What is going on there and what we can do better.
        Mr. Vitiello. Well, what we are doing in ICE and in the HSI
    context, internationally we have these Transnational Criminal
    Investigative Units and that is an opportunity for us to work
    with local authorities in those countries to train and vet
    their law enforcement officers and then help them guide and
    direct and use their law enforcement resources to improve the
    rule of law in those locations. That is an important facet of
    what we are doing.
        The Secretary, and Secretary Kelly before her, also is
    engaged in the security and prosperity plan, which allows for
    our government to understand the resources that we are putting
    downrange in the Northern Triangle to help improve investment
    opportunities and encourage foreign direct investment in those
    locations.
        Senator Carper. Is that part of the Alliance for
    Prosperity?
        Mr. Vitiello. Yes, sir.
        Senator Carper. OK. All right. How important do you think
    that Alliance for Prosperity is?
        Mr. Vitiello. I think you have to do it all. I think people
    have to have the expectations that their property and their
    safety is well cared for in those locations, and then you have
    to have economic opportunity and hope in those locations as
    well.
        Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Chairman, we have actually a
    lot of interest in that part of the world, and because of our
    leadership of this Committee at one time or the other. We are
    asked to spend a whole lot of money for a law on our border
    with Mexico and I think there are certainly places where a wall
    makes sense and a lot of places where it does not. But I think
    it really makes sense, if you look at what has happened in
    Colombia, 20 years, Colombia has actually turned the country
    around and got people not trying to get out of there to come up
    here, and I think the same thing could happen in the Northern
    Triangle if we are smart about it.
        The last question I have is I am concerned that you may not
    appear to think through the consequences of President Trump's
    family separation policy when you had a role in implementing
    it. President Trump appears determined to continue to implement
    what I think are ill-considered, maybe legally questionable
    immigration policies that use scarce Federal resources without
    making us any safer.
        If confirmed, how would you avoid repeating the errors in
    judgment in planning that allowed the family separation policy
    to occur, and if you would--we do not have a lot of time but
    just give us some specificity.
        Mr. Vitiello. So it was not a family separation policy. It
    was an increased level of prosecution, right? The Department of
    Justice said they would involve resources to give us a zero
    tolerance for people who crossed the border in between the
    ports illegally. And so the lesson learned there is we did
    spend a lot of time in this setting urging Congress to close
    these loopholes, to give us an opportunity to let people have
    their due process rights and then removed when they were not
    eligible for relief under the INA.
        So we would like to have that opportunity, but in the case
    of what did happen, we should have leaned forward more on
    explaining the whole process and being ready for the public
    outcry that occurred.
        Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Chairman, one thing I would
    say, I do not know. You and I have had conversations about
    this, but the idea that folks focused on the Northern
    Triangle--Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador--would like to get
    out of there and apply for asylum, there is legislation that
    has been introduced--I am co-sponsor and you may be as well--
    that would basically allow folks who are seeking asylum to do
    it in their native country at our consulates, our embassy, and
    not have to get on a 1,000-mile journey with an uncertain
    future. So that is something, I think, that has a lot of merit.
        All right. Thank you very much, and, Mr. Tischner, I
    thought you were excellent in your responses today. Thank you.
        Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper, and again, I
    think the goal we all share is to make that a legal process.
        Mr. Tischner, like Senator Carper said, do not feel bad
    about being left out. Feel relieved.
        Just real quick, I understand that your position is
    incredibly important. We have a project in Milwaukee called the
    Joseph Project where we have are working with an inner-city
    church. We have a pastor, Pastor Jerome Smith, a wonderful man,
    who identifies people formerly incarcerated, former drug and
    alcohol abusers, that have reached the stage in life where they
    want to turn it around. And so they are able to transform their
    life through work.
        And all we do--it is a 4-day, 3-hour-a-day training program
    that just instills the necessity to commit themselves to turn
    their lives around, commit themselves to succeed, as well as
    have the right kind of attitude, on the job, in the application
    process, in the interview process, and every day on the job.
        So I am just going to throw it out there to you. If you
    want to see that in action, I think it would be valuable for
    you, and you are always welcome to come take a look at one of
    our sessions at the Joseph Project and talk to people in terms
    of how it has worked. But give you an opportunity to kind of
    respond to that or say something in this hearing.
        Mr. Tischner. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. I would
    appreciate the opportunity to do that. I know that locally
    there are faith-based organizations that are also very helpful
    in giving opportunities to individuals who have been
    incarcerated in the past--and who have had tough lives. Also, I
    do think that removing the impediment of unemployment is one of
    many that does make individuals succeed and come back to be
    productive and contributing members to the local community.
    Chairman Johnson I appreciate the offer.
        Chairman Johnson. The dignity of work is kind of hard to
    replace, in terms of people transforming their lives.
        So again, I want to thank the nominees for your past
    service, for your willingness to serve, your families for their
    support of you.
        The nominees have made financial disclosures and provided
    responses to biographical and pre-hearing questions submitted
    by the Committee.\1\ Without objection, this information will
    be made part of the hearing record,\2\ with the exception of
    the financial data, which are on file and available for public
    inspection in the Committee office.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The information of Mr. Vitiello appears in the Appendix on page
    36.
        \2\ The information of Mr. Tischner appears in the Appendix on page
    164.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow,
    November 16, for the submission of statements and questions for
    the record.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]