[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ACTING SECRETARY
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-49
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: http://www.govinfo.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov
http://www.docs.house.gov
___________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
37-933 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Chairman
Carolyn B. Maloney, New York Jim Jordan, Ohio, Ranking Minority
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Member
Columbia Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Mark Meadows, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland James Comer, Kentucky
Harley Rouda, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Katie Hill, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Ralph Norman, South Carolina
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Peter Welch, Vermont Chip Roy, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Mark DeSaulnier, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Frank Keller, Pennsylvania
Ro Khanna, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Russ Anello, Chief Oversight Counsel
Amy Stratton, Clerk
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 18, 2019.................................... 1
Witness
The Honorable Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security
Oral Statement............................................... 5
Written opening statements and the witness' written statement are
available at the U.S. House of Representatives Repository:
https://docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents listed below are available at: https://
docs.house.gov.
* Letter to McAleenan from Reps. Garcia and Krishnamoorthi;
submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Questions for the Record: from Chairman Cummings, Rep.
Wasserman Schultz, Rep. Khanna, and Rep. DeSaulnier.
* Questions for the Record: response from the U.S. Department
of Homeland Security.
* Rep. Gerry Connolly's Statement for the Record.
ACTING SECRETARY
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN
----------
Thursday, July 18, 2019
House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Elijah Cummings
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Cooper,
Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Rouda, Hill, Wasserman
Schultz, Sarbanes, Welch, Speier, Kelly, DeSaulnier, Plaskett,
Khanna, Gomez, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Jordan, Gosar, Massie,
Meadows, Hice, Grothman, Comer, Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Norman,
Roy, Miller, Green, Armstrong, Steube, and Keller.
Also present: Representative Escobar.
Chairman Cummings. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time. We are convening to hear
the testimony of Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Kevin
McAleenan.
I want to briefly address the spectators. I already saw two
signs being held up, so I want to address you. We welcome you,
and we respect your right to be here. We also ask in turn that
you respect--we ask for your respect as we proceed with the
business of this committee today. It is the intention of this
committee to proceed with this hearing without disruptions. If
a disruption occurs, listen up, a Capitol Police officer will
go up to the individual, instruct that they cease
demonstrations. If the individual does cease, no action will be
taken. However, if the person does not cease, you will be asked
to leave. We are grateful for your presence here today and your
cooperation, and we want to move this hearing along quickly.
Every time I have to stop and the police have to address issues
like that, that just slows us up.
I would also remind all Members to avoid engaging in any
adverse personal references. I now recognize myself for five
minutes.
Today, the committee is examining the Trump
administration's inhumane policy of separating children from
their parents at the border and the dangerous conditions in
which they are being held. Last Friday, we issued a staff
report summarizing data on children who were separated from
their families by the Trump administration. This report was
based on information that we forced the Trump administration to
produce to the committee pursuant to bipartisan subpoenas after
they refused to provide it voluntarily for months.
The report found that the administration's child separation
policy was more harmful, more traumatic, and more chaotic than
previously known. The report also describes specific case
studies of 10 children who were separated by the Trump
administration, including several who were under the age of
two. We sent our report to the Department last week, and we
will be asking our witness about these children this morning.
Today, we will hear from Acting Secretary of Homeland
Security Kevin McAleenan. He was originally invited to testify
at our hearing last week, but he asked for that appearance to
be postponed until today. We accommodated his request, and we
thank you for being here today.
Mr. McAleenan is one of the key architects of the Trump
administration's child separation policy. Last April, he sent a
memo to Secretary Nielsen explaining how they could, and I
quote, direct the separation of parents or legal guardians and
minors held in immigration detention, end of quote. He also
recommended going forward with this policy, and she agreed.
They separated thousands and thousands of children from their
parents under this policy until public outrage and a Federal
court forced them to stop.
Mr. McAleenan and other senior administration officials
admitted that one of their purposes of separating children from
their families was to deter immigrants and asylum seekers.
General Kelly said this--and Attorney General Sessions said
this, and Mr. McAleenan admitted as much in an interview last
June when he said, and I quote, the intent, unquote, of the
policy to, and I quote, the policy to dissuade crossing between
ports of entry, end of quote.
Tragically, under Mr. McAleenan's leadership, the Trump
administration failed to track separated children and families
so they could be reunited. Mr. McAleenan has claimed that the
administration, and I quote, kept very careful records when the
relationships between parents and children. But that is not
accurate. Our committee has now obtained data, under subpoena,
showing a chaotic system in which children and parents were
repeatedly moved to multiple facilities and which parents were
repeatedly deported without any idea of where their children
were.
Our findings are corroborated by multiple reports from the
independent inspector general and the Government Accountability
Office, which concluded that the Trump administration made no
serious effort to track separated children and had no plan to
reunify them.
Finally, while Mr. McAleenan has acknowledged overcrowding
at the detention centers, he has claimed publicly that the
reports of filthy and dangerous conditions are, quote,
unsubstantiated, end of quote. This is simply not accurate.
Last week, we heard testimony from the IGs that substantiated
these reports in a graphic way, and they provided photographic
evidence as well.
The administration wants to blame Democrats for this
crisis, but it is the Trump administration's own policies that
are causing these problems. It was the Trump administration
that implemented the, quote, zero tolerance policy, end of
quote, separated thousands of children, and increased the
number of people in detention. It was the Trump administration
that canceled effective policies from the last administration
that reduced unnecessary detentions. It was the Trump
administration that shut down the family case management
program in which social workers helped migrant families find
attorneys and navigate the court system with a 99-percent
success rate for attending court appearances and check-ins with
ICE. It was the Trump administration that ended the Central
American Minors Program, which allowed children fleeing Central
American countries with a relative in the United States to
apply for asylum from their home countries.
These were all policy decisions made by the Trump
administration. They all increased the number of people being
held and unnecessarily detained, and they all contributed to
the conditions we are now witnessing. The damage the Trump
administration has inflicted and is continuing to inflict will
impact these children for the rest of their lives. As I've
said, when we're dealing with children, it's not the deed; it's
the memory. It is the memory that will haunt them until they
die. Today's hearing is one more step in our committee's effort
to determine the scope of this damage and begin to address it.
With that, I yield to the distinguished ranking member, Mr.
Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. The President says there's a crisis, asks for
$4.5 billion. The Democrats said it's fake, it's contrived,
it's manufactured, it's not a real crisis. Then the real crisis
gets even worse, and what do the Democrats do? They blame the
President of the United States, and they blame the hard-working
people who work for Mr. McAleenan on the border, when everyone
knows what has to be done. Everyone knows this. You've got to
fix the asylum law. You've got to fix the Flores decision.
You've got to build a border security wall.
Frankly, what would also help is if folks on the left would
quit saying some of the crazy things they're saying that I
think incentivize more people to come and create this crisis
that everyone acknowledged a long, long time ago, except
Democrats in Congress.
I want to welcome our witness today, Secretary McAleenan,
and thank him for his service to our Nation at DHS both during
the Obama Administration and the Trump administration. There's
been a lot of talk from Democrats on this committee about the
border crisis, and I hope that Secretary McAleenan will offer
some facts--facts--and real perspective learned from his years
of serving our country and helping secure our border.
Last week, this committee held a hearing entitled ``Kids in
Cages.'' The next day, Judiciary Committee Chairman Nadler
accused Customs and Border Patrol of committing, quote,
negligent homicide. The chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, the storied history of that committee, told the
people who work for this individual, who work for Secretary
McAleenan, quote, negligent homicide. And just yesterday, he
said another thing. He said CBP was engaged in torture.
This rhetoric is wrong. It's despicable and does nothing to
fix the problem. After months of calling this a fake crisis,
Democrats have now changed their tune. Make no mistake. The
Democrats have only changed their tune because the facts simply
cannot be ignored any more. In Fiscal Year 2019, more than
688,000 illegal aliens, including nearly 133,000 in May 2019
alone, were apprehended between ports of entry along the
southwest border, an increase of approximately 80,000 just
since October 2018. And while historically most immigrants were
single adult males, 72 percent of all border enforcement
actions in the last month were related to unaccompanied alien
children and family units.
So what do Democrats do when they have to acknowledge a
problem that doesn't align with their politics? They look to
someone. They look for someone to blame. Who else but the
President of the United States and the hard-working men and
women who work tirelessly every day trying to secure our
border.
The comments from Democrats in Congress I think only serve
to demean the public service of our brave Border Patrol
employees and frankly--and this is important--to spark
unnecessary outrage. Think about what we've heard from them:
Abolish ICE. Abolish DHS, the entire Department. Walls are
immoral, the Speaker of the House said, even though there's a
wall in her state. Non-citizens should be able to vote.
Taxpayers should finance healthcare for all illegals.
Concentration camps. They call detention facilities
concentration camps.
Earlier this week, a self-proclaimed member of Antifa
showed up at an ICE detention center outside of Seattle, set
cars on fire, and attempted to burn down the building. In his
written manifesto, this Antifa member wrote that he felt it was
necessary to take action against these, quote, concentration
camps. Not one single so-called cage has been constructed by
the Trump administration. Not one.
During the Presidency of Barack Obama, we didn't see
outrage from the Democrats then. We didn't see prominent
Democrat Members of Congress condemning the, quote,
concentration camps and, quote, torture then.
Again, President Trump has not built a single cage. The
cages you see in the news and on Twitter were constructed by
President Obama's administration. In fact, the only thing the
Trump administration has used chain-link fence for is one
temporary facility through which immigrants pass when they
initially come and they're getting screened. The detention
facilities that the Trump administration built are all air-
conditioned, have fresh water and supplies, and folks trained
to administer healthcare and those supplies. You would never
know that from listening to the Democrats.
After months of the administration highlighting the crisis
at the border and making urgent calls for more funding, it
wasn't until just before July 4 that House Democrats finally
agreed to pass the $4.6 billion emergency border funding bill
to provide some resources needed at the border. And despite the
size and scope of the crisis, some Democrats still choose not
to support this bill, choosing instead to play politics with
the border rather than work on the solutions that we all know
need to happen.
Fabricating stories of cruelty and besmirching the hard-
working civil servants protecting the border and providing
humanitarian assistance does nothing to help solve the problem,
and putting a Band-Aid over the border crisis does not fix the
root causes.
If Democrats are serious, if they're serious about solving
the border crisis, they must address, as I said before, the
Flores settlement agreement, asylum loopholes, and the other
laws and court decisions that incentivize aliens to make the
dangerous journey to the United States. Most of all, they must
stop obstructing the border security wall. This is one of the
greatest challenges of our time, and, frankly, it's getting
worse by the day. I look forward to hearing from Secretary
McAleenan. As always, we stand ready to work with our Democrat
colleagues to address the root causes, the real causes of this
crisis at the southern Border.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Before we can move forward, let me say to the committee I
want to, first of all, thank Mr. Meadows for working hard with
us to make this hearing happen. I really appreciate that very
much.
The other thing is that we will go all the way up until the
call of the vote, which is going to be at approximately 10:45,
and then we will come back. We will come back as soon after--I
think we have three votes--as soon after that as we possibly
can, but look at your iPhones to see exactly what--I'll let the
staff know exactly the time. But I guarantee you, it will be as
soon after that as we can possibly make it.
With that, now I would like to welcome our witness, the
Honorable Kevin McAleenan, Acting Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security. If you would please rise and raise your
right hand. I will begin to swear you in. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Let the record show that the witness answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you. You may be seated.
Secretary, the microphones are very sensitive, so please
speak directly into them.
Without objection, your written statement will be made a
part of the record.
With that, Mr. Secretary, you are now recognized to give an
oral presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, ACTING SECRETARY
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary McAleenan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Jordan, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the border
security and humanitarian crisis, our efforts to mitigate it,
and the continued support we need from Congress to address the
underlying causes. I also intend to provide a much-needed
account of the extraordinary humanitarian actions the men and
women of the Department of Homeland Security and especially
U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the United States Border
Patrol have taken this year to protect migrants in our custody
while securing our border and enforcing our Nation's
immigration laws.
As I have testified and warned publicly, dozens of time
this year and last, we are facing an unprecedented crisis at
the border. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has apprehended
or encountered, as we sit here today, over 800,000 migrants
crossing our border from Mexico since October 1, over 90
percent of whom crossed illegally between ports of entry. Over
450,000 of these apprehensions and encounters were members of
family units, and over 80,000 were unaccompanied children.
Combined, that means over 300,000 children have entered our
custody since October 1. That's almost as many as the total
apprehensions in Fiscal Year 2017. These numbers are
staggering, unprecedented, and challenged and overwhelmed every
aspect of our border and immigration enforcement system, and
we've been warning about and asking for congressional action to
address this crisis for well over a year.
I first publicly referred to the southwest border in a
state of crisis a year ago yesterday. Since that time, I and
CPB leaders have warned of the border security and humanitarian
challenges in more than 100 briefings and meetings on The Hill,
more than 15 official congressional hearings, more than 55
congressional delegations to the southwest border, three major
press conferences, and more than 50 television appearances.
On March 27 of this year, I went to El Paso sector and
declared that the breaking point in our immigration system had
arrived and that CBP was facing unprecedented humanitarian
challenges. On June 10, nearly 40 days after we asked Congress
for emergency funding in the same week that the DHS inspector
general was inspecting border facilities, I was explicit about
the seriousness of the situation at the border on CNN, and I
went well beyond the inspector general's statements. I said our
facilities are overcrowded. No American should be comfortable
with children in a police station for days on end. It is not an
appropriate setting for kids. It took another two and a half
weeks for Congress to vote on the emergency supplemental.
Despite the scale of the challenge we face and the failure
to enact legislation that would have prevented and could still
end this crisis, DHS has made significant strides in its
efforts to secure the border and to better protect the health
and safety of migrants in our custody. Since January 2019, the
DHS team has delivered over 6 million meals, conducted 400,000
medical health interviews, and completed more than 80,000
medical assessments for individuals in CBP custody. We've taken
more than 21,000 sick or injured migrants to hospitals and
conducted medical transportation or stood hospital watch for
over a quarter of a million hours.
With support from the U.S. Coast Guard, Public Health
Service Commission Corps, and expanded contracts, we now have
over 200 medical professionals embedded in border facilities,
screening migrants upon arrival and providing critical triage
capabilities, a tenfold increase from January 1. Combined with
our 2,300 agents and officers who are trained emergency medical
technicians and paramedics, I am confident that no law
enforcement agency in the world is providing more critical
life-saving care or medical support than U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.
On the facilities front, with humanitarian funding we
requested in the Fiscal Year 2019 budget and received finally
in the supplemental, CBP professionals have constructed,
outfitted, and staffed four new facilities to enhance the
conditions in which individuals are held while in custody with
two more anticipated by the end of July. These facilities are
targeted at reducing overcrowding and improving conditions at
the border.
More recently, two critical efforts are starting to make an
impact, and we are seeing progress in reducing border flows and
lowering in-custody numbers for the first time this fiscal
year, thanks to President Trump's direct engagement when he
entered into an agreement with Mexico in early June to address
the migration flows that is making a dramatic impact, a 28
percent reduction in border crossings in June.
The other key factor allowing us to make progress in the
care and custody of migrants at the border is the receipt three
weeks ago of the emergency supplemental requested by the
administration on May 1. These funds are being directly and
immediately applied to create temporary facilities to reduce
overcrowding and improve conditions for all demographics at the
border, expand medical care, provide more hot meals, improve
transportation, and ensure adequate supplies at all border
stations and ports of entry. These efforts have reduced in-
custody numbers at the border from a high of almost 20,000 in
June to under 10,000 yesterday afternoon.
For unaccompanied children, Health and Human Services now
has adequate bed space. We've reduced from 2,700 kids at the
border to under 350 yesterday afternoon, with an average of
fewer than 35 hours in CBP custody. And throughout this period,
the men and women of DHS have served with vigilance and
compassion.
But make no mistake. The border flows and the custody
situation remain beyond crisis levels. We are still seeing
2,500 crossings a day, mostly families. To continue to mitigate
this, we're pursuing a multifaceted strategy that addresses the
regional flows of migration at their source by expanding our
partnership efforts with Central American governments to attack
criminal organizations and improve security while fostering
economic development and growth.
Fundamentally, however, a durable solution to this crisis
lies with Congress. With targeted changes to our immigration
laws that we need to enhance the integrity of our immigration
system and eliminate the gaps in our legal framework that
incentivize families and children to take this dangerous
journey.
I will work with any Member willing to discuss the problem
and solutions and invite you to see the situation for yourself
at the border. If I could indulge one more minute, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. You may. Please.
Secretary McAleenan. Part of the stated purpose for this
hearing is for the committee to receive testimony regarding
increased immigration prosecutions last year under the so-
called zero tolerance problem and how the prosecution of adults
crossing the border in violation of our immigration laws
impacted families and children. This initiative resulted in an
increase in prosecutions for violations of section 1325 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act from 20 percent to 50 percent
and included all amenable adults, even those crossing our
border unlawfully with children. These prosecutions, as all
criminal prosecutions do, resulted in temporary separations of
parents and children.
This practice lasted six weeks, ended 13 months ago, and
has been the subject of ongoing litigation, multiple
congressional hearings, committee and inspector general
reports, and hundreds of media stories. I have personally
testified in a number of these hearings and in several media
appearances and answered questions about it. I have
acknowledged that this initiative, while well intended, lost
the public trust and that President Trump was right to end it.
Under current practice, covered by both executive and court
orders along with operational guidance, separations of parents
and guardians and the children they cross with are rare and are
undertaken in the best interest and safety of and welfare of
the child.
In closing, I feel compelled to address current public
rhetoric surrounding the ongoing border security and
humanitarian crisis. The incendiary and overwrought attacks on
the men and women securing our border and enforcing immigration
laws on the interior are unwarranted and damaging. The
demonization of law enforcement professionals, U.S. Border
Patrol agents, CBP and ICE officers from all racial and ethnic
backgrounds, from all faiths and callings who have chosen a
career about protecting others must stop. These false and
overheated attacks are not helping to resolve the crisis.
Indeed, they diminish the public's understanding and cloud its
perception of what is happening.
We need, Mr. Chairman, to regain our balance. We need to
understand what is incentivizing and driving migrants to put
themselves in the hands of dangerous smugglers and embark on
this perilous journey to our border in order to have a real
discussion on how to solve the problem. I hope that this
hearing today can be a step in the right direction. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Before we go to Mr. Raskin, can we move those signs,
please? Thank you. The audience is trying to see. Thank you
very much. All the members, by the way, have what the signs
say, so that's the most important thing.
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, the policy of separating children from their
parents has shocked the conscience of our Nation, so I want to
go to the point that you closed with. You testified in the
Senate that child separations are now, quote, extraordinarily
rare and, quote, for the safety of the child. You told the
Senate Judiciary Committee, quote, we're talking about examples
of a parent wanted for murder, a parent who has had a stroke
and needs to be taken to the emergency room.
But the facts that we've learned on the ground seem
contrary to that reassuring picture. Last week, HHS IG official
Ann Maxwell told us that her office saw cases in which the
Department of Homeland Security separated children based on
their parents' criminal history, including, for example, a
prior charge of marijuana possession. Mr. Secretary, does a
parent's prior charge for marijuana possession justify taking
his or her child away?
Secretary McAleenan. So I want to start with the rare
portion of this. Fewer than a thousand juveniles have been
separated from their parents crossing the border this fiscal
year. That's with 450,000 crossings of family units. This is
carefully governed by policy and by court order that needs to
have a criminal background or issue as you referenced,
potential communicable disease or medical emergency, or risk of
abuse or neglect from the parent to the child. This is in the
interest of the child. These are carefully governed, it's
overseen by a supervisor, and those decisions are made.
Criminal history, yes, is a factor if there's an extraditable
warrant or a prosecution for another offense.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. So do you think that marijuana--a prior
charge of marijuana possession justifies taking children away
from the parent?
Secretary McAleenan. It depends on the totality of the
individual case. It's kind of hard to say in a hypothetical.
Mr. Raskin. If there were no other factors.
Secretary McAleenan. I would have to look at the kind of
case that you reference.
Mr. Raskin. According to recently released HHS information
on about 3,000 child separation cases, the large majority of
them are labeled as taking place based on a parent's criminal
history, which could include prosecution, charges, or mere
allegations of past crimes based on unsubstantiated information
shared by foreign governments. So I want to be clear about
this. Are separations taking place based on unsubstantiated
evidence regarding suspected criminal backgrounds without
criminal convictions?
Secretary McAleenan. So, when we have an allegation of a
serious crime that we're concerned about, especially if it's
from a U.S. jurisdiction, that would be cause to consider
separation of that case. We also partner with foreign
governments where we work closely with law enforcement in
Central America and in Mexico, and when we have referrals of
criminal activity, a conviction, an indictment or gang
affiliation that is substantiated based on our partnership and
our understanding of their mechanisms, their information
collection procedures, we do take that into consideration into
the safety of the child.
Mr. Raskin. Well, let me take a case kind of like that.
According to the Houston Chronicle, there was a 19-year-old
Salvadoran woman identified as Maria who had been abused by
adult gang members for years. She was present at a gang fight
and was taken into custody by the police but was never charged
with anything, but this interaction was enough for Border
agents to imprison her and to take away her two-year-old son
for more than five months. Do you think that was appropriate?
Secretary McAleenan. Again, I'd have to look at the
specific factors in that case. I'm not sure that the Houston
Chronicle has the same information that was provided by our
foreign government partner, and that's, again, governed careful
by policy with discretion at the supervisor level in the field
for making those decisions.
Mr. Raskin. Okay. We've seen evidence to suggest that three
sisters were taken away from their father in November 2018
allegedly because he was HIV positive. Is that a proper basis
upon which to remove children from their parents?
Secretary McAleenan. Again, you're referencing a number of
specific cases that I do not have in front of me. I'm not sure
if that was the only factor involved in that decision.
Mr. Raskin. But let's assume it was. I mean, just
hypothetically speaking, then, would you remove for that?
Secretary McAleenan. The simple fact of being HIV positive
does not sound like that would meet the standard. There could
be other complications medically that would have required a
temporary separation.
Mr. Raskin. Do you have written civil standards that you
use in order to determine whether children should be removed
from their parents?
Secretary McAleenan. We do have policy and operational
guidance consistent with the executive order and court order
that's been sent out to the field and has been implemented.
Mr. Raskin. Can you make that available to us?
Secretary McAleenan. Of course.
Mr. Raskin. Last week, Jennifer Nagda of the Young Center
testified before this committee. Her group is appointed by the
Department of HHS to advocate for vulnerable children,
including 120 recently separated children. On average, these
kids, she testified, were seven years old, and they were in
custody for 115 days before seeing their parents. According to
Ms. Nagda, the center found that separation was contrary to the
best interests of the child in nearly every single case.
Do you commit to this committee today and to Congress to
have a policy where children will only be removed from their
parents if there is a compelling reason to advance the child's
own health and safety?
Secretary McAleenan. So we also have compelling reasons for
criminal prosecutions that are also of relevant interest, as
understood by the court and expressed by the executive order,
but I'd be happy to work with this committee to evaluate our
procedures on separation, to hear Ms. Nagda's testimony about
her concerns, and to consider ongoing how we can improve what
we do.
Mr. Raskin. I appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud. Thanks, Chairman, and thank you for being here,
Secretary.
In talking about the situation at the border, the President
said there may be some narrow circumstances in which there is a
humanitarian or refugee status that a family might be eligible
for. If that were the case, it would be better for them to
apply in country rather than to make the various dangerous
journey all the way up to Texas to make those same claims.
He went on to say, but I also emphasize to my friends here
that we have to deter a continuing influx of children, putting
themselves at great risk, and families who are putting their
children at great risk, and so I emphasize that, within a legal
framework and a humanitarian framework and proper due process,
children who do not have proper claims and families with
children who do not have proper claims at some point will be
subject to repatriation to their home countries.
Going on, I say this is not because we lack compassion but
because in addition to being a Nation of immigrants, we're also
a Nation of laws. And if you have a disorderly and dangerous
process of migration, that not only puts the children
themselves at risk but also calls into question the legal
immigration process of those who are properly applying and
trying to enter our country.
Would you agree generally with this assessment?
Secretary McAleenan. I didn't hear you say who made that
assessment, but yes, from what you read, I would agree with
that.
Mr. Cloud. It was President Obama five years ago. He went
on to say that there had been a lot of press conferences about
this, referring about this and the time for--``we need action
and less talk'' is what he said, and you mentioned all the
different meetings that you've been in. He also went on to
explain how the economic conditions, wanting a better life, did
not fit in that narrow definition of asylum in that same press
conference.
Could you speak briefly to the magnet that is drawing
migrants here?
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. And just one other comment on
that. As the chairman raised in his opening statement, the
Central American Minors Program ended. That was a program that
provided a categorical parole for certain minors in Central
America. This administration has proposed in January and in a
letter from the OMB Acting Director to Congress on the budget
deal, and again working with Chairman Graham in the Senate
Judiciary side on his legislation, technical assistance that
would allow for a similar approach, applying for asylum,
especially for unaccompanied children, in [the] country closer
to where they are because they don't--we don't want them in the
hands of the smugglers coming to the border.
So, on the incentives, Ranking Member Jordan laid it out.
The main incentive has been the fact that families all over the
region, advertised by smugglers, fully internalized--we saw it
on CBS News last night. A woman all the way from Venezuela said
she knew if she brought her child, she would be released. It
has been a fact that the Flores settlement does not allow us to
do what we were able to do under President Obama and Secretary
Johnson, which is detain families together through an
expeditious, fair immigration proceeding. It took about 40 to
50 days on average. That resulted in a clear immigration
decision from a judge, either a repatriation if there wasn't a
valid immigration claim or a determination that that family
would be allowed to stay. We're not able to do that anymore.
That's why we see so many families coming. It's a direct
response to that gap in the framework.
Mr. Cloud. Right. Now, definitely this is Congress' job to
act. It's our responsibility. We're supposed to fix it. So
nothing is meant to--what I say is meant to take us away from
that responsibility, but we sent you a letter a couple of
months ago highlighting eight actions the administration could
take. I wanted to touch on a couple of them in the time that I
have left.
One of them was training agents to do credible fear
interviews. We got your response. You said, I think, by the end
of this month, we'll have 60 trained over the last couple
months, but that is the limit in that this is a pilot foreman.
Now, the idea of training agents to do credible fear interviews
is we wouldn't have a two-year process. We could really, you
know, solve this right at the beginning as opposed to, you
know, this mass influx that we don't know what to do with these
people. We could solve this almost at the point of entry.
Why are we not doing more? I mean, there's thousands and
thousands of agents at the border who could be trained to do
this, and we're limiting this pilot program to 60.
Secretary McAleenan. So, first of all, agree strongly with
the principle that we should be addressing those asylum claims
at the border, doing a credible fear assessment as soon as
possible, and that training immigration officers, Border Patrol
agents, ICRO, asylum officers, all technically immigration
officers under the statute, on those standards could help us
increase the capacity and volume. What we're trying to do is
balance it against the continuing crisis. The fact that we've
got 40 to 60 percent of our agents doing processing care,
transport, hospital watch for migrants, on and on, on down the
line, so----
Mr. Cloud. I only have 10 more seconds if I could ask one
more question real quick.
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. Please.
Mr. Cloud. Work authorization. Could you explain the
process of who all is getting work visas, why they're getting
work visas in the context of how many people that are crossing
our border----
Secretary McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Cloud [continuing]. end up actually have a legitimate
claim to be here.
Secretary McAleenan. So, in the context, in that context,
we're seeing is, for asylum claims, 10 to 20 percent actually
getting asylum at the end of the court process. Unfortunately,
that takes years to happen. So we are seeing employment
authorizations being issued by CIS. The Acting Director is
looking again at that policy and seeing if we're applying it
appropriately given the context you offered.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Mr. Acting Secretary. I just want to read you
a quote: There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul
than the way in which it treats children.
That was a quote from the late Nelson Mandela. Would you
agree with that quote, the sentiments of that quote, Mr.
McAleenan?
Secretary McAleenan. I have tremendous respect for the late
Nelson Mandela, and that's a powerful quote.
Mr. Connolly. Are you a dad?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes, Congressman.
Mr. Connolly. You've got children. I do too. I have one.
Mr. Secretary, last Friday, the committee released a staff
report on the child separation policy that summarized the data
produced by you and other agencies under committee subpoenas as
referenced by the chairman. We provided you with a copy of that
report last week, and we agreed to delay this hearing in the
anticipation that you would review that report. That report
included 10 case studies, not a hundred, not a thousand, and we
identified specific children at your Department's suggestion by
number rather than by name, though we had the names. I want to
ask you about one of those cases. I assume you looked at the
report.
Secretary McAleenan. I've reviewed the report, but I'm not
prepared to discuss in detail specific cases at this time.
Mr. Connolly. Well, I am. There's a child identified in the
report as Child No. 2. We have additional copies of the report,
obviously, if you need to refer to them.
The records we obtained from you and other agencies show
that this child is a baby boy from Honduras who was just eight
months old when he arrived with his dad at the Texas border in
May of last year. He was eight months old. He was taken away
from his father and sent to a facility in Arizona. He then
spent six months in that facility. He had his first birthday
there. He spent half of his life without his dad, in the
custody of U.S. officials. Meanwhile, his dad was transported
to three different ICE facilities and then ultimately deported
after two months.
Mr. Acting Secretary, why was a child of eight months held
for six months while his dad was deported two months later?
Secretary McAleenan. So, Congressman, if the case your
referred to happened in May 2018----
Mr. Connolly. Yes, sir.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. do you have the date? Do
you have the date?
Mr. Connolly. The actual date in May?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. I can get it to you.
Secretary McAleenan. Okay. Again, we'd be happy to go back
over these specific cases with you and members of your staff,
as appropriate. But what I can tell you is that when we
implemented the zero tolerance protocols to increase
prosecution of amenable adults, including those arriving with
children, I specifically directed and the Chief of the Border
Patrol echoed that that would not include parents traveling
with children under five.
So, when we've gone back and looked at the cases, and there
were a few dozen separations during that timeframe, we've
determined that there were other reasons that would comply with
the current executive order or court order for separations of
children under five that occurred during the zero tolerance
period.
Mr. Connolly. So----
Secretary McAleenan. If this was in that period, I would
imagine----
Mr. Connolly. All right. I'm running out of time. I just
want to clarify what you said. Forgive me for interrupting, but
I want to make sure I understand what you said. Normally,
you're saying, your policy would not have allowed this.
Something must have happened that made an exception to your
normal practice. Is that what I understand?
Secretary McAleenan. Basically, yes. I mean, this was
during the zero tolerance period if it was after May 7 or so.
If it was before then, it would have been under historical
approaches. In either case, there must have been another issue
with the adult or a concern that we wanted to follow-up on.
Mr. Connolly. Let's say there was----
Secretary McAleenan. Okay.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. in theory. Isn't there something
wrong with deporting the dad and keeping the infant? I mean,
don't we have a tracking system in place----
Secretary McAleenan. Sure.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. that would have caught that and
said, hey, we've got to link these two up? It's a dad like
you----
Secretary McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Connolly [continuing]. with his child, a baby. Eight
months old.
Secretary McAleenan. By ICE policy, if they're going to
remove an adult who arrived with a child, it is up to that
adult to choose whether the child should be repatriated with
them.
Mr. Connolly. I've got one more question for you.
On the Erin Burnett show, the Acting Director of USCIS, a
Virginian, Mr. Cuccinelli, actually blamed the father for the
death of himself and his daughter crossing the Rio Grande. It
turns out, of course, that Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez, who
left El Salvador on April 3, actually, his daughter had jumped
into the river, and he tried to rescue her. Mr. Cuccinelli
said, and I'll end on this, that father didn't want to wait to
go into the asylum process so he decided to cross the river,
and, therefore, it was his fault. Do you share that sentiment?
Is that the philosophy of your Department?
Secretary McAleenan. I think what happened to Oscar and
Valeria is a tragedy. I think they deserve better. They deserve
a legal framework in our country that doesn't incentivize
unlawful crossing, and they deserve an opportunity to apply for
protections, if they warrant them, as close to home as
possible.
Mr. Connolly. And you're a dad. I'm a dad. Just one final
point, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired. I'm
sorry.
Mr. Connolly. You would have jumped in the river to help
your daughter, too, right?
Chairman Cummings. You may answer the question.
Secretary McAleenan. Of course, Congressman.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Jordan, and thank you very much for being here today.
In April, I took a trip with my colleagues to Guatemala to
see firsthand the results of human trafficking and abuse of
women that occur in the country. I saw with my own eyes the
devastating impacts that human trafficking has on the young
girls, and I know that this same trafficking is occurring at
the border, our border. We need real solutions to act swiftly
to address the root cause of this issue.
Mr. McAleenan, I have a lot of questions, so try to keep
your answers short enough that I can get to them all.
Nobody wants children to be separated from their parents,
and we all want to ensure that children are treated with
dignity and housed comfortably. What are the factors a Border
Patrol agent uses, what he goes through in order to assess
these illegal family units when they arrive?
Secretary McAleenan. So, by and large, the vast, vast
majority, well over 99 percent, 98 percent of children that
arrive with parents are kept together in the process. The
Border Patrol agent or CBP officer encountering that family
will undertake the analysis under the criteria and the
President's executive order from June 20 of 2018 and the Ms. L.
court order, which are consistent with prior policy that it's
in the interest of the safety and welfare of the child. And
cases are, again, prosecution for criminal offense or serious
criminal history, abuse or neglect, expressed by that parent or
the child where we have a concern or a medical emergency. Those
are the main indicators of a potential separation.
Mrs. Miller. How many children's lives have been saved by
the Border Patrol?
Secretary McAleenan. So I think that's a really important
question. We make over 4,000 rescues a year. Already, in the
first nine months of this fiscal year, the U.S. Border Patrol
has made 3,800 rescues. Their rescues on the river have gone up
tenfold. We're seeing agents almost every day dive into the
water with their full equipment on to try to rescue families
crossing the water. It's high water this time of the year, and
it's very dangerous, so 3,800 rescues so far this year.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.
What is the average size of migrant groups that the Border
Patrol is encountering between the ports of entry, and how is
that impacting the Border Patrol's operations?
Secretary McAleenan. This year has been unlike any other
we've seen in our history with well over 150 large groups of
more than 100 migrants crossing together. We peaked with a
group of 1,036 migrants crossing as one group, all from Central
America; 900 plus of them were family units. But since Mexico
has started to do their interdiction operations and address the
transportation networks on their highways, we've seen a
dramatic drop. We've only had four large groups since the start
of Mexico's operation and zero in July today.
Mrs. Miller. Wonderful. How is the policy for separating
children from their parents, what do you use except in the zero
tolerance? What is different in this administration and past
administrations?
Secretary McAleenan. Right now, our policy is identical to
what we were doing before the zero tolerance practice that
ended over a year ago.
Mrs. Miller. The same.
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. In Fiscal Year 2019, the Department of
Homeland Security identified nearly 5,500 migrants presenting
as family units that turned out to be fraudulent. Why would
adults use children to help them cross the border?
Secretary McAleenan. Unfortunately, we see that all too
often now. It's been a big focus this year to try to identify
those adults that are bringing children with them that are not
their own to try to take advantage of what they perceive is a
loophole in our law that will allow them to be released into
the United States. We've had egregious cases including a 51-
year-old man who bought a six-month-old child for $80 in
Guatemala, and he admitted that when he confronted with the DNA
test by a Homeland Security investigation's agent conducting a
pilot at one of our border stations.
Mrs. Miller. How has the Flores settlement impeded our
ability to enforce the law?
Secretary McAleenan. It's prevented us from getting
immigration results from judges that can be effectuated.
Mrs. Miller. At what point would a child be separated from
the adult they arrived with?
Secretary McAleenan. At what point?
Mrs. Miller. Uh-huh.
Secretary McAleenan. It would depend on when an issue was
identified. For instance, we unfortunately had a 15-year-old
girl a few months ago tell us on her second day in custody that
her father had raped her the night before they crossed the
river, and so she was immediately separated and taken care of
and sent to Health and Human Services as a result.
Mrs. Miller. So it's for safety, isn't it?
Secretary McAleenan. Correct.
Mrs. Miller. If a family unit is housed together, how are
they housed? Are they in a room with other families?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. We separate families generally by
demographic and gender, so male-head-of-household families with
other male-head-of-household families. The same for female-
head-of-household families. The age of the kids is also a
factor. We try to just keep people in the safest groups
possible during the short time they're at the border.
Mrs. Miller. What if one of the----
Chairman Cummings. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mrs. Miller. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary, Acting Secretary, for coming in.
Secretary McAleenan, two weeks ago on July 3, my colleague,
Congressman Chuy Garcia and I wrote you a letter requesting
that you provide a plan within 14 days for how you will utilize
the $1.34 billion in emergency supplemental funding provided to
DHS to address the border situation. I have not received a
response.
Mr. Chairman, without objection, I'd like to enter this
letter into the record.
Chairman Cummings. No objection, so ordered.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. McAleenan, has DHS begun receiving
the emergency humanitarian funds provided by Congress and
signed by the President on July 1?
Secretary McAleenan. Of course. And I can tell you that we
were already acting in hopes of receiving that funding before
the supplemental was enacted.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. What is the status of the plan for
using the funding as Congress intended, and I presume there is
a plan.
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. Of course. About half of the
funding is dedicated to enhanced facilities, temporary
facilities at the border where we can provide additional space,
reduce overcrowding, and improve the care of those that are in
the custody of CBP during their short stay at the border. We've
already erected four temporary soft-sided facilities, two in
south Texas, two in El Paso, and by the end of this month,
we'll have another 4,500 spaces online and an additional set of
temporary facilities in those two locations as well.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So half of the money is allocated for
that purpose? What's the other half?
Secretary McAleenan. So the rest of it covers a range of
issues from paying for the surge force of agents and officers
that's down there helping our Border Patrol agents with the
humanitarian mission, their temporary deployment. It adds to
our medical contracts so that we can provide embedded medical
professionals, certified medical professionals, in our
facilities. It augments our ability to pay for supplies and
food. I referenced the 6 million meals that we provided folks
in our custody since.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Just to be clear--sorry. Just to be
clear, all of this money is being used for the humanitarian
efforts----
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. and not for any interior
ICE deportation efforts or other enforcement actions, correct?
Secretary McAleenan. That's how it was appropriated, but I
want to be clear, Congressman, that that creates a challenge
because we asked for funding for ICE single adult beds, and it
was not granted. So those single adults are waiting at the
border for placement with ICE----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I understand. I understand, sir. But
just to be clear, that is how the money was funded, so that's
how we expect it to be used.
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And for purposes of our letter, Chuy
Garcia's and my letter, we expect a response, how the money is
going to be spent and on what timeline. It has to be
transparent so we can actually measure your efforts against
your plan. Do I have your assurance we'll receive that plan.
Secretary McAleenan. We're transparent through our
oversight on how we're spending the money that's programmed by
Congress, and we'll continue to be.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Do we have your assurance that you'll
respond to the letter with the information requested?
Secretary McAleenan. We'll respond to all appropriate
requests from Congress.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Will you respond to our letter on July
3?
Secretary McAleenan. I'd be happy to come talk to you about
the plan. I haven't seen the letter. I'll talk to my staff
about where it is in the process.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. I expect a response, sir. Mr.
McAleenan, you served as CPB Commissioner prior to your current
role at the helm of DHS. According to CPB, 70 current or former
employees are now under investigation for posting racist,
sexist, and other inappropriate comments about migrants and
Members of Congress to a quote/unquote secret Facebook group
for Border Patrol agents with over 9,500 numbers. Are you aware
of the secret group, sir?
Secretary McAleenan. I've been made aware, yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Were you a member of that group?
Secretary McAleenan. No.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Is Mark Morgan a current or former
member of that group?
Secretary McAleenan. I don't know, but I don't believe so.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sir, what are the efforts to
investigate those particular comments of the members of that
group?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. So our--CBP's Office of
Professional Responsibility initiated an investigation within
hours of those allegations coming to light. As you noted,
they've already placed a number of individuals under
investigation. They put several on administrative duties.
They've issued cease-and-desist letters, and they're moving
very quickly to hold people accountable for conduct that
doesn't meet our standards.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. When will we receive a report on the
results of that investigation?
Secretary McAleenan. So, again, it's proceeding very
aggressively. I would say probably this month or early next
month, we'll be able to update on the result of those
investigations.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. We find this conduct extremely
troubling and expect to receive that report. Would you be
willing to come back in to discuss that report?
Secretary McAleenan. Certainly, or CBP will come and brief
it appropriately.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sir, the last question, which is this:
The zero tolerance policy that was adopted, how do you define
zero tolerance under this administration with regard to
immigration policies?
Secretary McAleenan. Consistent with the President's
executive order from January 25, 2017, that we would no longer
have categorical exceptions to enforcement of immigration law,
one; and, two, under the Attorney General's April 6 letter,
which was to have all 1325 unlawful entry cases be submitted--
that was the goal--submitted for prosecution by DOJ. During----
Chairman Cummings. I thought you were finished. Please
finish.
Secretary McAleenan. During zero tolerance, the
prosecutions increased from about 20 percent of amenable adults
to 50 percent of amenable adults by eliminating that
categorical exception.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A quick question in
response to my colleague's questioning just now. Is it true
that zero dollars are included in the supplemental that just
passed for ICE detention for single or family units?
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Roy. Right. And isn't that part of problem?
Secretary McAleenan. It is.
Mr. Roy. Right. And wasn't it purposeful by my Democratic
colleagues?
Secretary McAleenan. I assume that they did not want to
fund ICE beds, but what I'm trying to emphasize is the impact
it has on adults waiting at the border.
Mr. Roy. But it's not just a humanitarian crisis, is it? We
have a crisis of national security, overstretched resources,
endangerment of American citizens, endangerment of Texas
communities, and endangerment of migrants along the journey at
the hands of cartels. Is it not?
Secretary McAleenan. It's also a border security crisis.
Mr. Roy. The truth is not--is that dangerous cartels,
particularly the Gulf cartel, Reynosa faction, the CDN of Los
Zetas, the Sinaloas are massively profiting by moving people
through Mexico to the United States, correct?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. Three billion-plus a year.
Mr. Roy. The poster behind me is a poster that shows
prices, prices for moving people through Mexico and to the
United States. So do you agree that it is true that certain
dangerous cartels have an entire business model designed to
exploit American laws for profit, to move human beings for
profit, and that they charge money per person as depicted in
this chart?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. I met a family from Honduras
yesterday that explained they paid $10,000 to come across.
Mr. Roy. Do you agree that they use children as a ticket
for profit to come to the United States?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Now, let's look at the numbers quickly. How many
people have come across the border and sought to be detained
themselves, sought detention, or were apprehended? That number
from October 1 to present, it's north of 700,000, correct?
Secretary McAleenan. It's north of 500,000. The single
adults are not, by and large, turning themselves in.
Mr. Roy. Okay.
Secretary McAleenan. They're trying to evade capture, and
embedded in that group, unfortunately, are gang members,
criminals, and hardened smugglers.
Mr. Roy. Then, if you include those that had been
apprehended, that didn't seek to be turned over, it's well over
700,000, correct?
Secretary McAleenan. Well, combined, we're over 800,000.
Mr. Roy. So then there are those hundreds of thousands of
people who crossed our border in that time who were not
apprehended, correct?
Secretary McAleenan. There are, yes.
Mr. Roy. And is it not true that Border Patrol is
overwhelmed? Is it not true that Border Patrol is dealing with
housing migrants rather than policing the border?
Secretary McAleenan. When you have 40 percent of your
agents doing housing, transportation, and care, the border is
less secure.
Mr. Roy. Of those 800,000 you just said, how many were
UACs, around 80,000?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Roy. How many are single adults, 250,000 or so?
Secretary McAleenan. Correct.
Mr. Roy. And of those, are they mostly male?
Secretary McAleenan. The single adults are predominantly
male, yes.
Mr. Roy. How many were family units, over 400,000?
Secretary McAleenan. 450,000.
Mr. Roy. Of those, roughly 200,000 each of adults and
children, about 50/50?
Secretary McAleenan. We're seeing about 1.1 because people
know that a child is a very valuable way to get into the U.S.,
so they're only bringing one child with them at a time now.
Mr. Roy. Are most of those family units now dispersed
throughout the United States?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Roy. For the most part, are these family units claiming
asylum, or are they largely using a child as a ticket for catch
and release?
Secretary McAleenan. The latter. We do see a number of
asylum claims, but it's actually gone down this year from the
peak of about 30 percent of those encounters claiming asylum.
Mr. Roy. Is it true that the issue of UACs could be largely
solved with a fix to TVPRA and that this could be done on a
single piece of paper?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Is it true that we could largely solve the problem
of family units rushing our border and then being caught and
released by addressing the Flores settlement, an extension of
that settlement by a Ninth Circuit judge, on essentially a
single piece of paper?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. That was our experience in 2014
and 2015.
Mr. Roy. Is it true that, with respect to the family unit
problem, representing the majority of the surge across our
border, that the Obama Administration supported a solution to
the Flores problem, and that, again, we could solve it on a
single piece of paper?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Is it true that the Obama Administration asked for
$762 million for ICE to deal with the unaccompanied alien
children problem in 2014, the surge where children were riding
on the top of train cars?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. We all asked for additional
appropriations at DHS to deal with the unaccompanied child
surge, yes.
Mr. Roy. And does that amount seem correct, the $762
million?
Secretary McAleenan. That sounds like it's in the ballpark.
Mr. Roy. That is what I'm told.
Is it true that the supplemental just passed only provided
$200 million for ICE in response to a much larger crisis today
and that it came with significant restrictions on how it can be
used?
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Roy. To repeat again, zero dollars, purposely zero
dollars for ICE beds and ICE detention. Is that correct?
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Roy. Do you anticipate that the Democrat-led House of
Representatives will bring any of these solutions that could be
done on one piece of paper to the floor for a vote this week?
Secretary McAleenan. Probably not this week, but I'm sure
hopeful on a shared set of facts, we can talk about solutions.
Mr. Roy. So for Flores, TVPRA, or money for ICE, the things
that we know would solve the problem and largely address the
crisis, you are not anticipating that that will be brought to
the floor of the House of Representatives this next week before
we adjourn for the August recess?
Secretary McAleenan. I don't see any legislative action
that would make that possible at this time.
Mr. Roy. Which begs the question why? And I'll tell you
why. It is because my Democrat colleagues don't give a damn
about our national security or the migrants coming here, and
they prefer to use children as political props.
Thank you. No more questions.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
And as I said a little bit earlier when I opened, I think
we need to be careful about the motives of our Members, and
that goes to both sides.
With that, we now will hear from Ms. Speier.
Ms. Speier. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Hold on. The bells have rung. Ms. Speier
will be the last person, and then we will go into recess, and
as I said a little bit earlier, we will let you know exactly.
We have three votes, I understand, and then--is it three?
Three, possibly four votes. So I'm just letting you know.
Ms. Speier.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director. I
was with 16 other colleagues at the border at McAllen and
Brownsville last weekend. It was my second trip to the border.
Have you been there, sir?
Secretary McAleenan. Several dozen times.
Ms. Speier. All right. So this is familiar to you, seeing
families, mothers and children caged with mylar blankets.
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Ms. Speier. That's familiar to you. And is this familiar to
you, too? This is what we saw at the processing center: 40 men
in a cell that could probably, under normal circumstances,
accommodate maybe five. This man is putting his fingers up
showing that he has been there for 40 days and 40 nights
without a shower and without being able to brush his teeth. And
I confirmed that with the Border Patrol officers there.
Ms. Speier. This would not be allowed as a kennel for dogs,
yet that's how we're housing them. And you know the sally port
is filled with yet another six, four, five hundred men as well.
It's unacceptable and it has to change. We don't treat human
beings like that.
Now, I'm going to ask you to----
Secretary McAleenan. Can I respond to those comments?
Ms. Speier. You can after I ask you this question. I want
to ask you about a case study that is in our report that you've
had the benefit of looking at. You've had it since last Friday.
It's child No. 3.
He was 19 months old when he arrived from Honduras at the
southern border in Texas with his father in April 2018. He was
taken from his father and transported to foster care in New
York before being released to a sponsor six months later.
During the time, the toddler's father was sent to ICE
detention facilities in Texas, New Jersey, and New York before
being released.
Why was this 19-month old baby taken from his father?
Secretary McAleenan. So, first, on the conditions. There's
no one in this room that has warned more often or more
stridently about the overcrowding and the conditions in our
facilities than I have. So I'm very concerned about them. I've
been asking Congress for help.
We did not get the money for single-adult beds that would
allow us to move those adults out of our custody from Congress.
So I just want to make that point very clear.
Second, on this case, as I said to Congressman Connolly,
I'd be happy to follow-up on specific cases. I don't have the
details on this case today. But what I explained as well is
that----
Ms. Speier. Okay. Here's the problem. You've had this
report since last Friday. You should have come prepared to
answer these particular cases. So I'm wondering why you aren't
able to do so.
Secretary McAleenan. So I've reviewed this report, and I've
explained to Congressman Connolly our policy. I directed and
the chief of the Border Patrol implemented when we--during the
period of zero tolerance that we would not separate--we would
not prosecute an adult that would result in a separation from
their child if the child was under five years old, okay.
So if that happened, it was likely due to another issue in
that adult's history or in the situation with that child that
resulted in the separation. So I want to be clear on that.
Ms. Speier. So we don't know then if the toddler was ever
reunited with the father?
Secretary McAleenan. We do. I mean, the Ms. L.--we have
lots of different ways to confirm this. So the Ms. L. court is
reporting biweekly the results of their own class and the
reunifications of that class. We also have the ability in our
system to see which adults cross with which child and respond
to that. So we can do a very specific response on this
particular case.
Ms. Speier. Okay. So you will provide us with a specific--
--
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Ms. Speier [continuing]. response to the questions that we
provide to you?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Ms. Speier. Let me ask you this. One of the children that
we met was an eight-year-old. His mother was dead. His father
was elderly. He was brought here by his 25-year-old sister and
was separated at the border.
There was another young 16-year-old with an infant that has
a mother in New York, but is going to not be reunited with her
sponsor for as much as 60 days.
Some of these cases are being handled in a way that doesn't
recognize, if you're a family unit, the family unit should be
retained. And I want you to look at ways of improving the
system.
A 25-year-old sister and an eight-year-old child is a
family unit and they should not have been separated. This child
now is homeless, parentless, and has lost his sibling. We can't
treat people like this.
Secretary McAleenan. May I respond?
Ms. Speier. Yes.
Secretary McAleenan. So we've offered, both through the
Senate and House Judiciary Committees in their consideration of
legislation, a modification to the Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act that requires by law that a
child arriving without a parent or guardian be considered
unaccompanied, and the only option that we have at the border
in that case is to transfer that child to Health and Human
Services, where they make the decision on the best placement
with a sponsor.
We would like and be willing to discuss the opportunity to
have more flexibility to adjust to the kind of cases you just
referenced.
Ms. Speier. All right. I want to work with you on that.
Chairman Cummings. The committee stands in recess.
And to the members, we will reconvene a half an hour after
the last vote begins, okay, on the floor.
We stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Cummings. We will reconvene the hearing. And as
soon as our witness gets seated, we will have Mr. Keller.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Ranking Member Jordan.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today.
I know we've been discussing the tragedy at our southern
border and how our public officials are handling that and
dealing with it, and I want to applaud those people that work
every day on our border, and thank you for your service and
them.
It's a tragedy. As a father and a grandfather of two little
girls, it's a tragedy when children suffer under bad
circumstances. And we've talked about ways that we might
improve what's happening at our southern border so at intake
facilities and so forth they aren't overcrowded.
There were some references made to the Flores decision and
also TVPRA, which is the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act. Those were items, I think, Mr. Roy brought
up that you said would be helpful in making sure we can stop
the crisis at our southern border. Is that correct?
Secretary McAleenan. That is correct.
Mr. Keller. Are there other items that you see that we
could, as Congress, put in place to help you and the people of
the United States that work for Customs and Border Patrol and
DHS to help do their jobs?
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. We've talked about three
targeted changes that are most important to addressing the
crisis and the flows coming to our border. You just mentioned
two of them: modifying the Flores settlement to allow us to
detain families together in an appropriate setting through
their immigration proceeding; amending the TVPRA to allow
repatriation of children to noncontiguous countries. But we've
also added the opportunity for children to apply for asylum
from Central America as a potential balance in the legislation
we've been discussing.
But the third change is a modification of the front end of
the asylum process, what's called the credible fear standard.
Currently, it's a possibility of proving an asylum case. We've
recommended a change to make it more likely than not that you
can prove an asylum case, and we think that would allow for
valid claims to come through, but better align that front-end
test with the ultimate decision by an immigration judge.
Mr. Keller. Okay. If Congress were to fix those items the
way that you're recommending, how long would it take you to
implement policy and changes to improve the conditions and make
sure that there's not such a crisis at our border?
Secretary McAleenan. Well, I think there would be a fairly
immediate impact on the flow coming to our border.
We have historical context for this. In 2014, when
Secretary Johnson made the decision to detain family units
through their immigration proceedings, we had a 90 percent
drop-off in family units crossing the border within a matter of
weeks from those first flights arriving in Central America.
So I think we'll see a quick change in the flow when the
loophole is closed.
Mr. Keller. Okay. Thank you for that.
I guess I would want to say then, if Congress would do, and
if the Democrat leadership would bring up these changes and
allow us to give you the tools to do your job, we would stop
seeing children and families being trafficked up to our
southern border.
Secretary McAleenan. I truly believe that would be the
case. That's been our prior experience, when we're allowed to
get immigration results that can be effectuated, and really we
need people to be in custody, adjudicated at the border for
that to happen effectively. We've seen a dramatic drop in the
flow.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, sir.
And I guess I would just say this for my colleagues. I
would encourage you to--encourage my colleagues to encourage
the Speaker and the Democrat leadership to not only do these
things, but then fix the other areas of our immigration
policies that are broken so that we don't have this crisis at
our border.
If we truly care about children and families and what's
happening, it's our duty to give you the tools to do your job.
I'm committed to make sure we help that happen, and I just
would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
push toward that resolution.
I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
On July 6, The New York Times published detailed
allegations about the detention facility at Clint, Texas, based
on dozens of interviews with Border Patrol officers, lawyers,
immigrants.
Here's what the Times wrote, I'm sure you're familiar with
it: Outbreaks of scabies, shingles, and chickenpox were
spreading among the hundreds of children and adults who were
being held in cramped cells, according to agents. The stench of
the children's dirty clothing was so strong it spread to the
agents' own clothing. People in town would scrunch their noses
when they left work. The children cried constantly. One girl
seemed likely enough to try to kill herself that the agents
made her sleep on a cot in front of them so they could watch
her as they were processing new arrivals.
You were asked about these the next day on ABC News, these
allegations, and you said that they were, quote,
``unsubstantiated,'' and you explained, ``because there's
adequate food and water, because the facility's cleaned up
every day, because I know what our standards are, and I know
they're being followed, because we have tremendous levels of
oversight, five levels of oversight.''
That oversight includes the Department's independent
inspector general, correct?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. It also includes lawyers who monitor
compliance with the Flores settlement to ensure the children
are protected, correct?
Secretary McAleenan. It does include the court oversight--
--
Mr. Sarbanes. Okay.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. which is partly done
through the Flores monitors.
Mr. Sarbanes. So in a sense in that statement you're citing
all these various levels of oversight, but that includes the IG
and it includes the lawyers who do the monitoring under Flores.
Well, as you probably know, the IG testified in front of
our committee on Friday, along with the lawyer who inspected
that facility and interviewed children. The IG had inspected
five detention facilities in the Rio Grande Valley housing over
2,500 children.
She found that more than 800 had been held longer than the
72 hours permitted under the Flores agreement and under CBP's
internal standards, which are known as TEDS. This included at
least 50 unaccompanied children younger than seven years old,
many of them in detention for over two weeks.
Do you agree--you must do--that holding young children in
overcrowded detention cells for over two weeks violates both
the Flores decision and the TEDS standards?
Secretary McAleenan. So not only do I agree, while the IG
was touring our facilities on June 10, on CNN I said that no
American should be comfortable with children in a police
station for days on end. That's not an appropriate setting for
kids.
Mr. Sarbanes. The IG also testified the teams, quote, ``The
teams also documented additional instances of noncompliance
with applicable detention standards. These included
noncompliance with standards applicable to the detention of
alien children, including lack of access to hot meals, showers,
and a change of clothes.''
You don't seem to be disputing the IG's findings that DHS
violated both Flores and its own detention standards.
Secretary McAleenan. Congressman, I'd like the opportunity
to quickly unpack these very different sets of allegations so I
can----
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, the problem is I'm going to run out of
time. So if I have time at the end, I'm going to let you unpack
that. But I just want to reference what Elora Mukherjee, which
is a lawyer who visited Clint as part of the Flores oversight,
and she was testifying to, quote, ``seeing children who were
dirty, children who wore clothing that was visibly stained with
dirt, nasal mucus, breast milk.''
None of the children she interviewed reported having access
to soap to wash their hands. She said that many children had
not showered or bathed for days. Some had not showered or
bathed once since crossing the border. They reported they did
not have access to clean clothing.
So I understand that there's a debate about why we're where
we are, but there cannot be any debate--and I assume you
agree--that when you're dealing with children there are basic
standards, humanitarian standards, when it comes to their
treatment that need to be followed.
This is gut-wrenching testimony that we got. It's
unconscionable we would treat children this way in the United
States. And I think what Ms. Mukherjee was witnessing clearly
does not comply with DHS' detention standards and with the
Flores agreement.
So I'm going to let you speak now, but I just want to ask
you, beseech you and your Department to take more ownership of
the treatment standards here.
Leaving aside why it's happening, why the overcrowding, and
we've got our own perspectives and they probably differ on
that, once a child is in that situation it's a matter of basic
human compassion that we treat them with decency and
humanitarian response.
Secretary McAleenan. Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate the
opportunity to answer the remarks of the Congressman.
Chairman Cummings. Yes.
Secretary McAleenan. Thank you.
So, first, could not agree more that overcrowding of
children in our facilities is not an appropriate situation or
result. That's why on May 1 the administration asked for a
supplemental that included $3.3 billion for Health and Human
Services to increase their bed space capacity for unaccompanied
children.
In my opening statement I explained that within weeks of
receiving that funding we have reduced our in-custody
population of children from a high of near 2,700 to about 350
at the end of the day yesterday, from over 1,200 kids that were
with us for more than 72 hours to fewer than 50 at the end of
the day yesterday. That's what we were able to do with the
resources that we asked for and waited two months for Congress
to act upon.
So I agree with you, we need to take ownership of the care
and custody of children at the border, but we needed Congress'
help to do that. And as soon as we got it we applied it
effectively and urgently.
Now, to clarify, the various allegations that you walked
through in terms of difficult situations at the border, I
personally have explained those situations that were in the
IG's findings multiple times in public in press conferences and
hearings and how concerned we were about it, why we needed
Congress to help us change the law and provide the resources
necessary to care for children.
You referenced the Flores monitors. The Flores monitors
that visited Clint Station interviewed children in a conference
room. They did not go into the custody areas of the facility.
They did not see the supplies available. They did not see the
toothbrushes available.
I was in Clint last week. I talked to a Coast Guard
volunteer who's in charge of procurement for that sector. He
told me they had tens of thousands of toothbrushes in the
sector, including available at Clint Station. So when I said
the allegations were unsubstantiated, I was speaking to the
Flores monitors who claimed children didn't have food, water,
or toothbrushes.
Now, you mentioned the New York Times article on July 6.
Clint had 700 kids in custody at one point. It absolutely was
overcrowded. As kids are arriving from the border, sometimes
200 in a single day, they're coming in after a difficult
journey, held in squalid conditions by smugglers, they're going
to have dirty clothes. Guess what? We have laundry there. We're
washing their clothes. We're giving them new clothes.
This was happening in an iterative fashion, but it's really
challenging when you're that overwhelmed. Clint Station has
added additional showers to make sure that every kid can take a
shower within the first 24 hours when they arrive at that
station, and it's been a huge effort on behalf of those men and
women to do their absolute level best to take care of children.
I want to make sure that this committee has that context
and doesn't assume that we took it lightly or were just, you
know, shrugging our shoulders. We were fighting this challenge.
We were asking for help from Congress. And as soon as we got
it, we've applied it, and there's a much better situation for
children at that border now.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I want to build on some of my former colleagues'
comments.
Secretary McAleenan, can you tell me how the recycling of
children is a problem at the border?
Secretary McAleenan. Sure, Congressman. This is part of our
efforts to identify how these loopholes in our law are
generating behavior that puts children at risk, and how we can
address it not only with our border resources, but with our
investigative partners at Homeland Security Investigation.
Early in my tenure, he deployed 400 special agents to the
border in El Paso and Rio Grande Valley, where we see most of
the family units arriving, to really focus on the potential for
parents--for adults bringing children with them who are not
their own, just to try to evade enforcement of our immigration
laws.
In that initial several weeks, with the referrals from the
Border Patrol agents, they found about 15 percent of those
referrals - when a Border Patrol agent said there's a risk here
with this family unit, we don't think that this adult is a
parent - actually were substantiated and demonstrated that they
were not related. So that's a huge challenge.
Child recycling is maybe the worst example of it. ICE now
has three significant cases in multiple cities around the
country where they've identified a small group of children, say
five to eight children who are being used by dozens of adults
to cross our border seeking release into the United States.
So they're pursuing those cases and appropriate
prosecutions, but it's a huge indication that the gaps in our
framework are putting children at risk.
Mr. Gosar. And you're aware that even in early 2014 that
the cartels were actually in Central America extorting families
to send their children to the United States. Are you aware of
that?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. I'm aware that----
Mr. Gosar. So we were enabling this enterprise to move
forward.
Now, you're familiar with Child Protective Services, are
you not, in this country?
Secretary McAleenan. Broadly, yes.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. So if I took my child from Flagstaff,
Arizona, and went to Seattle knowing that there's a 30 percent
chance there's going to be some type of criminal enterprise
along the lines, not knowing that I'm going to get food and
water and protection, would my child be able to stay with me?
Secretary McAleenan. No. I mean, the Child Protective
Services structure in the U.S. is designed for the best
interest of the child.
Mr. Gosar. You know, over and over again we still don't
really understand the complexity of what you're under. So is it
easier to take care of individual men coming across or family
units? What takes more work from your standpoint from your work
force?
Secretary McAleenan. Well, certainly for processing and
care we have very high standards for children in our custody
and anywhere in Federal custody, both under the TVPRA and the
Flores settlement.
Single adults is what our structure was actually built for.
These stations were built, most of them, decades ago. Primarily
the crossings then were single adult males from Mexico. They
were with us just a few hours before being repatriated. That's
the structure that's existed on the border for decades.
So this kind of population, with families, with
unaccompanied children, is a very difficult challenge for us
given the facilities and resources we have at the border.
Mr. Gosar. And the status of some--of a child going through
this long, arduous journey, they're probably pretty debilitated
health-wise, right?
Secretary McAleenan. We see a lot of communicable disease,
a lot of severe illnesses. In some cases we've had immediate
surgery required for congenital defects. They actually came to
the border to have surgery. We are being faced with a younger
and sicker population this year than we've ever seen at the
border before.
Mr. Gosar. So it's going to get worse for you. My
understanding is yesterday or last night the World Health
Organization actually declared an outbreak of Ebola now that
they can't contain in Congo. I've been talking about this for
some time.
How is that going to implicate you, and particularly
looking at these family units, and how will it slow down the
processing of individuals?
Secretary McAleenan. Well, having medical professionals
embedded in our facilities gives us a chance to screen children
and adults arriving into border facilities to ensure they don't
have a communicable disease upon arrival.
We're somewhat insulated given the incubation period for
Ebola is about 21 days. The journey from Africa to our border
generally takes 30 days or more.
But it's something we're going to watch carefully. I'm in
close contact with Secretary Azar on the Ebola outbreak. We
have a responsibility at the border to be aware of it.
Mr. Gosar. Is there one thing that we could actually have
help with HHS that you would ask for that would actually
expedite some of those issues?
Secretary McAleenan. So, you know, the Public Health
Service Commissioned Corps, these are uniformed doctors and
nurse practitioners that have been in our border facilities
with us, the funding and support for those tremendous
professionals in uniform working alongside us is a huge benefit
and helps us carry out our mission.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
I yield myself now six minutes to ask questions.
You know, I sit here, Mr. Secretary, and one of the things
that always has bothered me, and it's bothering me about this
hearing, is it seems that we have a tendency to, I want to say
sugarcoat, but clearly there's something going wrong down at
the border, a lot.
My Republican friends have said that we just declared and
said that this was an emergency. I've been begging for a
hearing before I became chairman. Begging.
And the thing that I think bothers me the most is that when
I see the pictures and I hear the testimony--and by the way,
I'm going down there myself, and I'd love for you to accompany
me, because I want us to see the same things--I can tell you
that I'm at a point where I begin to wonder whether there is an
empathy deficit, an empathy deficit.
So, Mr. Secretary, I was disappointed when you decided last
year to ignore the request for documents that I made with
Representative Meadows. It's a bipartisan request. And you
refused to produce a single document about these kids, which is
why we had to issue subpoenas.
How much money are we spending? How much money are we
spending of the American people's dollars, their hard-earned
tax dollars? How much are we spending?
Secretary McAleenan. On which issue?
Chairman Cummings. Come on. On all of them. Just give me a
ballpark figure. I'll take it.
Secretary McAleenan. Department of Homeland Security is a
$60 billion entity with fees. CBP is about $15 billion.
Chairman Cummings. Yes. That's a lot of money.
In April of this year you gave an interview with Lester
Holt at NBC. You claimed that the children you separated were,
and I quote, ``always intended to be reunited.''
You also said this, and I quote, ``Really, it was done very
effectively. Border Patrol agents kept very careful records
between the relationships between parents and children, and
those connections were made very expeditiously by Health and
Human Services working with the Department of Homeland
Security,'' end of quote.
Given everything that has come out and everything that we
now know, do you still stand by that statement today, is it
your testimony today that you reunited these children very
effectively and expeditiously?
Secretary McAleenan. So, Mr. Chairman, in that interview,
and in response to a number of questions and hearings on the
same topic, what I've talked about then as CBP commissioner is
our Border Patrol agents capturing the relationships between
adults and children at the border in our system.
I've also acknowledged the limitations, that systems
maintained by different immigration agencies have not
historically interfaced with one another in a way that's easy
to track those files. That's something we're going to improve
under the funding we got in the supplemental. We're creating a
unified immigration portal.
That said, I think the response to the Ms. L. court order
and how fast the majority of children were reunified spoke to
good captures of data and a tremendous effort by HHS and ICE to
find the child and the parent and bring them back together. I
do think that's in the record of the court filings with the Ms.
L. court in the weeks after that ruling.
Chairman Cummings. Well, that's interesting that you raise
that, the Ms. L. case, because the judge in that case said your
agency did a better job of tracking immigrants' personal
property than their children. So you could find their keys, but
you could not finds their children. Come on now.
Secretary McAleenan. I'm referencing the result----
Chairman Cummings. Yes, well, we're talking about the same
case. You quoted from it and I did.
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. I'm talking about the results of
the----
Chairman Cummings. Yes, I'm talking about human beings. I'm
not talking about people that come from, as the President said,
s-h-holes. These are human beings, human beings, just trying to
live a better life. So the problem with your claim is that it
is contradicted by the facts.
We now have documents and they show this not to be true.
And I don't say that lightly. Your claim is also refuted by not
one, but two independent inspectors general.
For example, on September 27, 2018, the DHS inspector
general issued a scathing report that this, and I quote, "DHS
was not fully prepared to implement the administration's zero-
tolerance policy or to deal with some of the after-effects. DHS
also struggled to identify, track, and reunify families
separated under zero tolerance due to limitations with its
information technology systems, including a lack of integration
systems--between systems," end of quote.
The IG also found that the Trump administration's public
claim that you had a, quote, ``central data base''--and listen
to this, Mr. Secretary--the IG said it was blatantly false. The
IG also found that, quote, ``There's no evidence that such a
data base even exists,'' end of quote.
Mr. Meadows, to his credit, has often said, and we all have
said, we want transparency. Can you understand when we hear
that kind of information, listen to the IG, who is independent,
see what--and listen to our colleagues who have been there
right on the ground--and then we hear that there--you're
talking about a data base and there is no data base, that seems
to go in the opposite direction of transparency?
Therefore, when we hear about stories coming out from you
and your agency that everything is pretty good and you're doing
a great job--I guess, you feel like you're doing a great job,
right, is what you're saying?
Secretary McAleenan. We're doing our level best in a very
challenging situation.
Chairman Cummings. What does that mean? What does that mean
when a child is sitting in their own feces, can't take a
shower? Come on, man. What's that about? None of us would have
our children in that position. They are human beings.
I'm trying to figure out--and I get tired of folks saying:
Oh, oh, they're just beating up on the Border Patrol. Oh,
they're just beating up on Homeland Security.
What I'm saying is I want to concentrate on these children,
and I want to make sure that they are okay.
I will say it, I've said it before and I will say it again,
it's not the deed that you do to a child; it's the memory. It's
the memory.
And so--and I told the head of Border Patrol the other day,
I said, I want to know what's happening in the meantime.
We are the United States of America. We are the greatest
country in the world. We are the ones that can go anywhere in
the world and save people, make sure that they have diapers,
make sure that they have toothbrushes, make sure that they're
not laying around defecating in some silver paper. Come on.
We're better than that.
And I don't want us to lose sight of that. When we are
dancing with the angels, these children will be dealing with
the issues that have been presented to them. How do you say to
a two-year-old, your mother--we can't find your mother, but we
can find the keys? Oh, we'll find the keys. We've got your
mom's keys.
So I just think we can do better. We can go on and on and
on. But I am hoping that we will see some immediate
improvements. This isn't beating up. I just want to see an
improvement, and I want to see it, and I want to see where we
go with this problem.
Finally, let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary. And that
wasn't the only thing in the report. The inspector general at
HHS issued its own report in January 2019. That report found
that the Trump administration, and I quote, ``faced significant
challenges in identifying separated children, including the
lack of an existing integrated data system to track separated
families across HHS and DHS and the complexity of determining
which children should be considered separated.''
The IG also criticized your agency, the report found. And I
quote, ``DHS provided ORR with limited information about the
reasons for these separations which may impede ORR's ability to
determine appropriate placements.'' As a result, the IG found
that the separated children and, I quote, ``were still being
identified more than five months after the original court order
to do so.''
Both these IG reports were issued before you made your
statements in April.
So, Mr. Secretary, have you read those reports?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes, I have.
Chairman Cummings. Then how in the world can you sit here
today under oath and defend your statement that you kept very
careful records, that you worked with HHS very effectively and
efficiently, and that you reunited children expeditiously?
Secretary McAleenan. Respectfully----
Chairman Cummings. By the way, very expeditiously, you
said. Go ahead.
Secretary McAleenan. Respectfully, I actually highlighted
that issue before you asked the question, but--and I've
testified on it before. We did have a lack of integrated data
bases for the immigration agencies between CBP, ICE, Health and
Human Services. That is correct.
What I've testified before and what I stated a few moments
ago was that the CBP data was carefully captured. It was not
available in an integrated fashion from an IT perspective. But
when you put all that information together with what HHS and
ICE had, that we're able to work within weeks to unify the vast
majority of those adults and children.
And at this time, through that process, every single child
has an identified parent and has gone through that process with
a court and with the ACLU plaintiff's attorneys.
And second, I would welcome the opportunity to travel with
you to the border and to see our men and women and how hard
they are working to care for children. Border Patrol agents
holding children that were not their own, brought across by
smugglers, putting formula in baby bottles together.
There's no one defecating in a mylar blanket. We are taking
care of these children thanks to the resources we finally have.
They're moving very quickly through our facilities to Health
and Human Services to a better situation. I'd be happy to show
you that at the border, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. I'm looking forward to traveling with
you. We'll try to make those arrangements as soon as possible.
Mr. Hice.
Oh, I'm sorry. You had something?
The ranking member.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Secretary, would it have helped if you had
got the resources when you asked for them?
Secretary McAleenan. Of course.
Mr. Jordan. When did you become secretary?
Secretary McAleenan. I became acting secretary on April 8.
Mr. Jordan. This year?
Secretary McAleenan. Or April 10 this year, yes.
Mr. Jordan. A couple weeks later you asked for money,
didn't you?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. You asked for money because they won't address
the underlying problem, what's causing the problem. They won't
fix the asylum law, won't fix Flores, won't build the border
security wall, say it's not a crisis, say it's manufactured,
say it's contrived when it actually is a crisis. Then the
crisis gets even worse, and then they blame you, who took the
position in April and asked for help three weeks later.
Then they wait two and a half months to send the money. And
when they send the money, we had the picture a little bit ago
of the 40 individual males in the--adult males-- in the
facility. You asked for ICE bed money, and what'd they say?
Secretary McAleenan. They didn't provide it.
Mr. Jordan. Didn't provide it. And yet you're the bad guy.
You take the position in April, ask for resources a couple
weeks later. They denied the resources for two and a half
months. And then when the problem gets so bad they say, oh,
it's your fault, even though you've been trying to address the
underlying problem.
And then when they won't do that you say, at least give us
money to fix the crisis that you all helped us create because
you wouldn't address the underlying problem.
It gets so bad they finally send the money, but they still
put limitations on you because they want the political issue
when we're talking about kids. We all care about the kids. This
is ridiculous.
Let me ask you this. We all know there's a crisis on the
border. Does accusing CBP agents of torture help with the
crisis?
Secretary McAleenan. In no way.
Mr. Jordan. Does accusing CBP agents of working at
concentration camps help with the crisis?
Secretary McAleenan. No. It obfuscates the real issues.
Mr. Jordan. When the chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee accuses folks down there working hard of negligent
homicide, does that help with the crisis?
Secretary McAleenan. Of course not.
Mr. Jordan. Would abolishing ICE help with the crisis?
Secretary McAleenan. No.
Mr. Jordan. Would abolishing your entire agency help with
the crisis?
Secretary McAleenan. No.
Mr. Jordan. Does waiting 10--2-1/2-- months to get the $4.6
billion you asked for two weeks after you took the job, does
that help with the crisis?
Secretary McAleenan. No. And it left children in these
situations way too long, and we've proven that as soon as we
got the resources we were able to put them in a much better
situation.
Mr. Jordan. Does denying money for ICE beds help with the
problem?
Secretary McAleenan. No. That's contributing to
overcrowding that still exists today.
Mr. Jordan. I don't know how many times you've said it
already, you said it with Mr. Roy and I think Mr. Keller, two
things right now would help, give you the money for the ICE
beds and fix Flores. And I think you said to Mr. Keller you
think that would be almost immediate action, immediate help.
Within a couple weeks you would see the message sent so these
people won't take this dangerous trip. That would help
immediately. Is that right?
Secretary McAleenan. That is right.
Mr. Jordan. Yet the majority doesn't want to do it, doesn't
want to do it.
The chairman just called it a deficit--he accused you and
your agents and your agency of a deficit of empathy. Do you
want to respond to that, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary McAleenan. I can tell you that the men and women
of DHS and me personally are working----
Mr. Jordan. Where is that picture? I am going to interrupt
you 1 second, then I want you to take as long as you want.
Put this picture up.
Does that look like a deficit of empathy right there?
Secretary McAleenan. Not at all.
Mr. Jordan. That's the kind of stuff that happens every
single day on the border, doesn't it?
Secretary McAleenan. Right. I just wonder why would an
agency, if they have a deficit of empathy, create a border
search trauma and rescue team to try to protect people that are
making this dangerous crossing, make over 4,000 rescues a year
on their own time, with a collateral duty apply to be emergency
medical technicians so they can help people in dangerous
conditions? Where's the deficit of empathy there?
These are predominantly Latino Border Patrol agents. They
have children of their own. They're out there trying to protect
them on the line and trying to do the best they can to take
care of them in our facilities.
Mr. Jordan. Now, you just said something there. You said
they're predominantly Latino border agents.
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Jordan. The majority of your Customs and Border Patrol
agents are of Latino descent, Hispanic descent?
Secretary McAleenan. Border Patrol agents, yes.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. It just doesn't help. It doesn't help.
At some point, at some point we have to get past all this
and focus on what is driving the problem, and we all know what
it is: Flores has to be fixed, the asylum law has to be--the
loopholes, that has been to be addressed.
And, frankly, while we're getting that done, why don't we
give you a few more dollars so you can take these adult males,
have enough beds for them so they're not in the kind of
facility that the picture was put up earlier, right?
Secretary McAleenan. That would be great.
Mr. Jordan. And, oh, by the way, oh, by the way, maybe if
we had a border security wall, that would help as well, because
not all these people are coming to ports of entry. A lot of
folks are coming across, too.
I mean, all this is part of the problem. Let's fix it.
Let's fix it instead of just saying the things we've been
saying.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you, Mr. McAleenan, for your testimony.
And I know I speak for this entire committee when I thank the
border personnel for the work they're doing well beyond the
call of duty. There is no disagreement about that.
I just want to see where we were in order to see where
we've gotten, because some of your testimony has been very
helpful in showing progress, and I understand that you were
fairly recently there.
But what you had to deal with is a policy where 4,000
children were separated from their parents since mid-2017.
There was a cancellation--I want you to note this--of what had
proved one of the few successful policies, that was from the
Obama era, where--which apparently kept people out of
detention.
It's called the Family Case Management Program, where
families had to report, having been released, had to report and
there was a 99 percent success rate on that, only a tenth of
what the family detention costs.
Then there was another Trump administration policy where
they targeted sponsors of children for arrest and deportation.
And I'm talking about--our figure is 170 potential sponsors who
came forward for these children. Well, then they were deported.
So you can see the effect that would have. That has chilled
that humanitarian response.
Now, Congress has prohibited that practice now, I'm pleased
to say. But it is still having an effect because DHS and HHS
are sharing records so people are not stepping forward.
Then, of course, there was the metering process, and we've
discussed that in this committee. DHS found that limiting the
volume of asylum seekers--and here I'm quoting--entering at
ports of entry leads some aliens who would otherwise seek legal
entry into the United States to cross the border illegally.
Mr. Secretary, I take it you agree that those policies,
some of which you were not a part of, did exacerbate crowding
at CBP facilities?
Secretary McAleenan. Could I tackle those one by one,
Congresswoman? And thank you for----
Ms. Norton. Remember, I have only----
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. for being at our ribbon
cutting for the new Department of Homeland Security
headquarters.
Ms. Norton. Of course, pleased to do that.
Secretary McAleenan. Appreciate your support for that.
Ms. Norton. But I need you to answer. I have a limited
amount of time. Did it exacerbate the policies or not, sir?
Secretary McAleenan. No.
Ms. Norton. What I've just described did not exacerbate the
policies?
Secretary McAleenan. If you're going to ask it in a blanket
way, I'd prefer to target--you raised four separate issues.
Ms. Norton. Well, I'm going to let you go back in a moment,
but I have limited time.
Would you agree that this family management program, which
I described, 99 percent success rate, people showing up, was
successful? Would you agree that that was a successful way to
relieve overcrowding and yet get compliance with the law?
Secretary McAleenan. So I can't agree that it was
successful in ensuring compliance with the law. What we found
is that when you have families that are not detained we don't
actually complete the process in a way that can be effective.
Ms. Norton. Ninety-nine percent of the families showed up.
Secretary McAleenan. Appeared for their initial hearing. At
this point we have 150 cases of final orders of removal, and
those families have not shown up to be removed from the
country.
Ms. Norton. Look, I can only go on the statistics we have
before us. So you're saying that that program, where you had
such a high rate of compliance, was not successful after all,
even given the figure I just gave you?
Secretary McAleenan. They appeared at their initial
hearing, Congresswoman, but they did not complete the process
in a way that allowed for repatriation.
Ms. Norton. I'm saying--I'm only trying to show that if you
release these families they will show up. You seem to want to
avoid any credit of these families for compliance with what the
law says--show up here, 99 percent showed up here. Why did you
get rid of that program?
Secretary McAleenan. Because it wasn't working, because it
was actually more costly to continue to pay for it day after
day when a family is released than complete a proceeding in 40
to 50 days in custody, and because we have 150 final orders of
removal of families in that program that are not showing up to
be repatriated. That's not successful.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you. The gentlelady's time has
expired.
Mr. Hice.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been at the border, and I have absolutely not seen
any indication of a deficit of empathy. In fact, just the
opposite is what I have seen over and over and over. I'm
returning back to the border at the end of next week. It is
unbelievable that such accusations would be hurled against you
and those agents who are working so hard and giving so much of
their time.
And to ask for seeing improvements, there's no question, as
you have testified, that as the funds came, which the Democrats
continually held back from coming, as the funds were made
available improvements have been evident, and they've been
stunning.
I'd like to ask you, regarding the cartels renting of
children, I've seen that agents are now even beginning to find
paper fliers advertising this type of thing. Is that true?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. I mean, we've seen direct
Facebook advertisements in Central America. Smugglers will use
any means necessary to get customers.
Mr. Hice. How much does it cost to rent a child?
Secretary McAleenan. It depends. We've had indications in
Homeland Security Investigation efforts and Border Patrol
agents doing good intelligence interviews that it could cost
anywhere from a few hundred or even in some cases less than a
hundred dollars, up to a thousand or more.
Mr. Hice. So walk us through the process. A child--there's
advertisement, parents, someone responds, a child is offered?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. So in many of these communities
in Central America it's pretty known who the coyote is, who the
alien smuggler who's willing to bring you to the United States
is in those communities.
So they'll have a situation where everybody knows if they
bring a child, they'll be allowed to stay in the U.S. They call
it a passport for migration. I heard that directly from a
gentleman from Huehuetenango, the western-most province of
Guatemala.
If they have an individual who wants to go to the U.S. and
somebody has a child, that they might want to make some
additional money renting that child; or they want the child to
be delivered to a relative in the U.S., they'll say, hey, take
my child, they go procure a fraudulent document, and then
they're smuggled to the U.S. border.
Mr. Hice. And the cartels are receiving that money?
Secretary McAleenan. They're getting paid for the
fraudulent document, they're getting paid for the smuggling
event, and the child is being put at risk.
Mr. Hice. Any idea how many children are being trafficked
like this?
Secretary McAleenan. So that's a huge concern. We've
identified 5,500 cases of fraud in family units in just the
eight weeks or so that we've had special agents helping our
Border Patrol agents with these investigations. Fifteen percent
of those that they've interviewed have turned out to be
fraudulent cases. That tells me that we might be scratching the
surface of this problem.
The number of children being put at risk might be even
higher. If I could give you a quick stat. Of the first 2,475
family units they've interviewed, 352 were fraudulent, 14.2
percent; 921 fraudulent documents have been uncovered; and
we've prosecuted 615 individuals for basically trafficking or
smuggling a child with fraudulent documents.
So that's just in the last eight weeks we've been doing
this operation.
Mr. Hice. Unbelievable.
Another issue is obviously the treatment of migrants. We've
heard in this room that there are people being held in rooms
with no running water. We heard several days ago that people
are being forced to drink from toilets. Whereas the regional
Border Patrol Chief, Chief Border Agent Aaron Hull, has
disputed these allegations and have said they're absolutely not
accurate, that no one is forced to drink from toilets, noting
that cells either have water fountains or five-gallon jugs of
water.
What's the truth of the matter?
Secretary McAleenan. That's our requirement by our policy.
Again, it's overseen by multiple layers of oversight. Every
station I've been to has both either running water--and
sometimes a faucet will break temporarily--but has running
water or the 5-gallon jugs outside.
Children must be kept in the least restrictive setting.
Their doors in their areas where they're being held are not
even locked. They're able to move around freely.
So we are providing water consistent with our policy
directly available in our custody.
Mr. Hice. Maintaining border agents has got to be--and
recruiting them--has got to be a serious problem. I know you're
working on it. There's about 7,000 fewer than needed, as I
understand it.
Does it help when some elected officials refer and liken
our agents with Nazis and claim that the agency is running
concentration camps?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes, I talked about in my opening how
unproductive and unacceptable demonizing law enforcement
professionals, who are--they chose a career protecting others
is. It does not help.
We are turning the corner on our recruiting due to about
three dozen process changes we made over the last several years
at CBP. We hired more agents, net agents, last year than we
started the year with, and we're going to do that again even
with the shutdown.
So we're making some progress, but it is a challenge in
this media and political environment.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
As we go to Mr. Rouda, I want to just clarify something,
because we have a way at times of hearing a few words and then
we repeat them over and over again.
Mr. Hice just said something that is--that I didn't say.
And I, from the very beginning, I said I don't mean for us to
get confused with regard to the, Mr. Secretary, with regard to
the good work that the folks down there are doing.
What I was saying, and I know what I said, is that you were
a co-signer of the zero policy document. Is that right? Would
you agree?
Secretary McAleenan. Would you like the context on that,
Mr. Chairman, or just a yes-or-no question?
Chairman Cummings. No. I just want--because I'm really
not--I just wanted to make a point, just trying to correct him.
You were involved in that policy?
Secretary McAleenan. I signed a memo----
Chairman Cummings. Right, you signed a memo.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. presenting options for
increasing prosecution for immigration violations at the
border.
Chairman Cummings. And I will give you time later on to
explain that. All I'm saying, and I felt--I felt that there was
an empathy deficit there, in that, not knocking the Border
Patrol people, and I didn't say that, all right.
Now, Mr. Rouda--Mr. Gomez. Mr. Gomez.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I start, I want to break up my questioning.
The percentage of the individuals coming from--that are
apprehended at the border, what's the percentage from Mexico?
What's the percentage from Guatemala? What's the percentage
from, you know, the three countries, Guatemala, Honduras, and
Nicaragua?
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. So this is the first year,
Congressman, that we've had a higher percentage from any
country other than Mexico, and for every month of this year the
number has been higher from Guatemala than Mexico, and for
four--five of the nine months this year the number has been
higher from Honduras than Mexico as well.
Mr. Gomez. Additionally, have you heard of the fact that
net migration from Mexico is inherently zero?
Secretary McAleenan. I have.
Mr. Gomez. And additionally, the undocumented population in
the U.S. has decreased, and that's because a lot of Mexicans
are returning back to Mexico?
Secretary McAleenan. I've definitely seen studies on the
first point. I'm not sure the second point would be accurate at
this stage given the flow we've seen this year.
Mr. Gomez. The reason why I want to bring that up is that
there was a claim made earlier that says immigrants know if
they bring a child to the border that they'll be able to cross
and to get asylum into this country. It seems that we only
focused on what they called the magnet, right?
Secretary McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Gomez. But yet, at the same time, if--do the Mexicans
also know about this magnet, the fact that--as you claim?
Secretary McAleenan. Actually, we're able and much more
successful at repatriating Mexican families than noncontiguous
families. But as you noted, the numbers have been down from
Mexico, not necessarily because they couldn't take advantage of
the same loopholes, but because Mexico's economic development
and opportunity creation has exceeded, you know, the push for
migration. They've also had a very significant demographic
shift where the birthrate is about similar with the United
States.
So I don't believe that that's a lack of taking advantage
of the loophole.
Mr. Gomez. Okay. My point--that's exactly my point.
Everybody always makes it seem that this is like--that there's
this big magnet that draws immigrants to this country and it's
just here. But there's also the push factors in these other
countries--economics, violence--that push those people to flee,
right?
And we like to make--pretend that things are very simple,
but they're not. Sometimes when the hard lines of--like zero
tolerance-- people think that that's going to solve the
problem. It's not, you know. It has to be in coordination with
a strategy that's developing the countries and helping the
economics in the countries in order for the people not to
leave.
You know, shifting millions of dollars of aid from the
Northern Triangle countries to Venezuela is not smart when it
comes to immigration. I believe Venezuela has a different issue
and we have to get money to that country, but that complicates
the situation.
Before I run out of time I wanted to move on to a different
issue.
Secretary McAleenan. Could I respond to that point?
Mr. Gomez. Sure.
Secretary McAleenan. Because I believe a multifaceted
strategy absolutely requires engagement with Central America.
I've been to Central America three times in the last six weeks,
met with all three Presidents, including the incoming President
of El Salvador.
Advancing cooperative efforts on security, targeting
transnational criminal organizations, and fostering economic
development are absolutely essential parts of the
administration's strategy.
Mr. Gomez. I appreciate that.
And one of the things we've also seen is an increased use
of for-profit prisons and safety issues. Since 2017 the value
of ICE contracts awarded to private detention companies has
increased sharply. The two biggest contracts, GEO Group and
CoreCivic, were paid a total of $810 million.
But there has been some questions regarding some serious
problems at these private prisons. The IG reported on five ICE
detention facilities, including one run by CoreCivic, and it
said, quote, ``identified problems that undermine the
protection of detainees' rights, their humane treatment, and
the provision of a safe and healthy environment.''
Next year they'll be awarded--CoreCivic will be awarded
more than $141 million in new contracts. Secretary, do you
agree that ICE should not reward a contract that is putting the
health and safety of detainees at risk with more than $100
million in new contracts?
Secretary McAleenan. With any government contract you want
to ensure that the contractor is meeting the standards
required. ICE does oversee this aggressively. The contractors
are committed to comply with the performance-based detention
manual standards, which are extensive, issued in 2011, in the
last administration, and those kind of issues that are
identified are corrected and followed up on.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Secretary, I've run out of time, but the
issue regarding the use of for-profit prisons is a concern.
Some of the safety complaints that are coming out of these
prisons is a concern. I would love to follow-up on that.
But with that, I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. McAleenan, I really appreciate you coming. You
know, listening to some of the questions you've had is like
jumping on--you know, shooting the messenger. It's like
pointing to a cancer patient and blaming the doctor because
he's not getting the chemotherapy to treat the cancer patient
and somehow saying that you're responsible for that.
And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you clarifying the deficit
of empathy, because I thought that's who you were talking about
here. I'm glad that was not.
But I really take issue with the rhetoric that we've had
over the last couple of weeks with, you know, drinking out of
toilets, children in cages. If they'd had the money, as Mr.
Jordan said, that would not have taken place at any level.
Nobody wants to see children like that. Like my colleague Mr.
Roy said, it can be solved by one sheet of paper, with curing
the Flores amendment.
I've been to the border, as Mr. Hice and many others. I've
seen that Border Patrol agent jump down, arrest a fleeing
alien, tackle him, not know whether he's going to be shot or
live to see his children.
I've seen that sheriff who had a dinner when he woke up at
3 o'clock in the morning and 12 thugs were attacking him and
shooting his house up.
I've seen the families who have been robbed repeatedly.
They've got their cars chained because of what the drug cartels
are putting all those families through.
So I appreciate your effort and appreciate you taking these
kind of questions knowing that most of them are for politics,
and it's behind this--these cabinets that we can fix this.
On the--there has been a lot of confusion on who actually
shows up for immigration hearings. Can you give some clarity on
that?
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. Yes. The appearance rates are a
very important issue. Obviously, that's overseen by the
Department of Justice Executive Office of Immigration Review.
But they published a whole set of statistics to provide context
on this recently on their website. I want to just offer the big
picture and then a specific, you know, more recent stat of
concern.
Across all demographics, about 44 percent of those non-
detained removal cases end with a removal order in absentia.
That means that, obviously, the migrant or alien did not show
up for their hearing at the end of that process, so they got a
final order from a judge when they were absent from the hearing
room.
For the recent border entrants, the people crossing now,
and especially family units, the number appears to be
significantly higher. We've worked on a pilot with the
Department of Justice since last September, and in that pilot,
it's called an expedited docket, out of 10 cities,
unfortunately, about 58 percent of those cases' final orders of
removal have been issued in absentia as well.
So I want to--that's what we're dealing with on the
appearance rates. The overall appearance rate of 44 percent in
absentia; for the recent family cases that have been on the
expedited docket, it's 85 percent.
Mr. Norman. Thank you.
And one other thing. You were--you've been very open and
frank about the overcrowding conditions, and you were quoted in
the media saying that certain claims were unsubstantiated.
Which claims were you referring to?
Secretary McAleenan. The Flores monitors' claims based on
interviews, not actually going in the facility at Clint, where
they said the children didn't have access to water, food,
toothbrushes, and weren't being given showers for days on end.
Those were not substantiated.
Mr. Norton. That's unfair for whoever brings that up to
even make that kind of claim.
Again, thank you for what you're doing. I've seen Tom Homan
break down in tears about the death that he's seen. So thank
you.
I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. McAleenan, just a couple quick questions in the minute
that I have.
I heard about empathy here today. My colleague discussed
the individuals that have been saved. You said up to 4,000
people, children or migrants, been saved by Border Patrol, yes?
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Roy. In this fiscal year?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Mr. Roy. Great empathy for those lives saved, yes?
Secretary McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Roy. Empathy for Jared Vargas, who was murdered in San
Antonio, Texas, last summer by somebody who was here illegally,
captured, released, captured, released. Murdered. His mother,
Lori, a dear friend of mine, no longer has her son.
Empathy for the people, at least the individual that I
believe was murdered by allegedly by two Guatemalans. It was in
the news today in Iowa.
Border Patrol and ICE are on the front lines trying to
prevent those who are here illegally from carrying out the
kinds of crimes I just described. Is that right?
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Roy. And oftentimes they're doing so without all the
resources necessary. Is that right?
Secretary McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Roy. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Now we will move to Mr. Rouda.
I want to thank you, Mr. Rouda, for managing the
suspensions on the floor yesterday.
Mr. Rouda.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming today. And my thanks to
ICE and DHS and all the hardworking men and women there who are
trying to fulfill their mission on a daily basis in a very
difficult situation, often in ways that they were not trained
for, and I recognize that.
I also agree with many of the members who are talking here
about we need to get the rhetoric out of this, the rhetoric
that you talked about in your opening statements, the rhetoric
about build the wall and have Mexico pay for it. That type of
rhetoric simply acts as a diversion from what we need to do.
I do think most Americans recognize that this is a
multifaceted issue, from beginning with the Northern Triangle
countries, and the fact that the President has cutoff aid to
those countries creates economic consequences that causes even
greater levels of immigration.
I do applaud the administration for working with Mexico to
try and stop that immigration at that border. I also recognize
that we need to have strong borders and ports and am willing to
work with anybody across the aisle to accomplish that.
But I also think all of us want to make sure that we have
the appropriate response for a country as great as ours at the
border to make sure that those who have come here are treated
with dignity, respect, security, and safety.
Mr. Secretary, I want to discuss a key finding in the
committee staff's report. According to the DHS data, even after
separated children were reunited with their parents, hundreds
continued to be detained with their parents for weeks or months
in so-called family detention. At least 380 children spent time
in family detention. More than 300 were held for more than 20
days past the legal limit. Some were held in detention for up
to five months.
Under the Obama Administration, there was a successful
alternative for families seeking asylum that didn't have them
in long-term detention, but President Trump canceled it. It was
the Family Case Management Program, which we talked a little
bit about earlier.
That program had a 99 percent success rate, costing
taxpayers $36 per day versus $319 per day to keep them locked
up in detention. You said that that program wasn't successful,
and I'd like to understand why. If you could elaborate very
briefly on that, I would appreciate it.
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. And thank you for your comments.
The program wasn't successful because that's not the only
measure of success. That appearance rate at an initial hearing,
that's great. That's a start of a court process. But what we
were looking for is consistent appearance rates, and if a final
order of removal is issued, an actual result effectuated from
that.
Mr. Rouda. Can I ask you this, though? It says 99 percent
of these recently released families represented by an attorney
attended all immigration court hearings. And that data is from
the Department of Justice. Are you disputing the data from the
Department of Justice, or are they just simply wrong?
Secretary McAleenan. I'm saying at this point we have 150
orders of final removal, and none of those families have shown
up to be removed from the United States at the end of the
process.
If they're not detained, there's a very difficult chance to
effectuate that final order of removal. It ends up being an ICE
officer going into a community to try to find that family.
Mr. Rouda. So you are saying the data is wrong and the
Justice Department's data is incorrect?
Secretary McAleenan. I'm saying it's incomplete.
Mr. Rouda. Incomplete.
Secretary McAleenan. A successful program results in actual
repatriations or a finding that somebody has a right to asylum
or an immigration right to stay in the United States.
Mr. Rouda. So let me ask you. When that decision was made,
who made that decision to cancel that program?
Secretary McAleenan. I don't know. At the time, I was at
U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
But we do have appropriations language and funding this
year, and we're looking at how to redesign the program so that
it could be effective throughout the entire process.
Mr. Rouda. So you're not--you have no idea who made that
decision. You have no idea if there were any conversations,
memorandums, or otherwise that talked about what the
implications would be if that program was canceled and how it
might be use as a determent for people coming to our southern
border?
Secretary McAleenan. No, I don't, as I sit here today.
Mr. Rouda. Okay. I'd also like to ask you that--one of the
challenges we've had is having enough people to be able to
administer the needed services, both in border protection as
well as addressing the needs of those who have made it to the
southern border.
As of March, there was 2,000 open positions in the CBP. Is
that correct?
Secretary McAleenan. In terms of the Border Patrol levels,
yes. We were down almost 2,000 from our authorized--not
necessarily our appropriated levels--and we're aggressively
pursuing hiring of additional agents.
Mr. Rouda. So we just approved funding for additional
people and additional beds, but to some degree there was
already an existing backlog of over 2,000 positions that
haven't been filled. Can you help us understand why we need
more people--and, arguably, we do--when we haven't even filled
the 2,000 vacancies that have been vacant for quite some time?
Secretary McAleenan. Supplemental funding doesn't provide
new positions for CBP or ICE, in my understanding. There's some
salary funding.
But we've improved our hiring over the last several years.
We ended the year with a net gain last year in Border Patrol
agents, and we're going to do so again this year, despite the
shutdown, despite the politicization of their mission, which is
challenging from a reciting perspective. But it's something
we're working on aggressively.
But the humanitarian crisis is immediate. So the funding
that we're getting, we're applying both in facilities, medical
care, transportation, and contracts to augment our ability to
care for people in our custody right now and get law
enforcement agents doing their duties on the border.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Secretary.
Today has been interesting because I've seen some of my
colleagues on the other side of this particular room actually
come together in a way that I have not seen in previous
hearings. So I want to thank you for being straightforward,
giving us the facts.
One of the facts that I found out the other day that was
very troubling to me is how there are actually cards and
directions that are given to people trying to come into our
country to actually tell them how to use children to circumvent
our laws. Is that correct?
Secretary McAleenan. We've seen all manner of smuggling
organizations communicating to potential customers and to those
crossing the border how to bring a child with them to be
allowed to stay in the United States, yes.
Mr. Meadows. So would you say that there is a coordinated
effort among some south of our border to actually exploit
children to circumvent U.S. laws?
Secretary McAleenan. Absolutely. I've got a document full
of individual cases that have been identified by his through
their interviews and their DNA testing, and almost every single
summary says something to this effect: The subject stated that
he made the attempt because he heard in his hometown that
anyone traveling to the United States with a child will be
released.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I've looked at some of those documents
because it's very--it really bothers me, because I saw the cost
of purchasing a child, and we're talking about $160, $84 in one
case, $250. And when you can buy a child in some of these
countries to use them, they become not only trafficked, but
used over and over again.
Have you found that some children are actually recycled in
this process?
Secretary McAleenan. Absolutely. I mean, July 17 of last
year I talked about the crisis at the border, over a year ago,
and what I highlighted was that the vulnerabilities in our
legal framework were incentivizing smugglers and families to
put children at risk.
The recycling problem is maybe the worst manifestation of
that. We have three ongoing cases, significant cases that ICE
is managing, where a small group of children, five to eight in
each case, have been used by dozens of different adults to
cross our border, seeking release into the United States.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me ask you a question,
because Mr. Roy brought it up, and I believe Mr. Jordan brought
it up, and even I think Ms. Speier brought it up from the other
side.
If we were to appropriate money and allow you to keep
families together when they come across--and one of the things,
it was a brother and a sister, I believe, that Ms. Speier was
talking about--but if we appropriated the proper amount of
money to make sure that we keep family units together, we
address Flores to allow them to stay there, would that help
solve the problem where this trafficking of kids is not
necessarily eliminated but substantially reduced?
Secretary McAleenan. That single change would make the
biggest possible impact not only on the flow, but on protecting
children.
Mr. Meadows. So I'm hearing you right--I want to make sure
I'm clear because I've had some of my other colleagues that
when the cameras are not rolling they're willing to work on
this, and I think it's important on this committee to address
this issue, and I think we've got an opportunity to address it.
There's going to be a budget caps deal, and that budget
caps deal will probably be voted on before we leave here in
August. And what you're telling me, if we address Flores and
appropriate, how many billion dollars would you need to build a
facility to make sure that we can keep families together and
keep kids safe?
Secretary McAleenan. So actually it was in the hundreds of
millions range, and it was requested in the supplemental to----
Mr. Meadows. So you're saying it's not even billions of
dollars.
Secretary McAleenan. No, because what we find very quickly
is a response. If people are not successful in coming with a
child being released, you're actually getting a decision from
an immigration judge resulting in repatriation for the vast
majority, that would mean that others would not try to come.
Mr. Meadows. So we don't have to change our asylum laws, we
don't have to change anything about sanctuary cities, we can
make kids safe. If we address Flores and give you less than a
billion dollars, we can keep families together and we can keep
kids from being trafficked.
Secretary McAleenan. In an appropriate setting and a fair
and expeditious proceeding.
Mr. Meadows. Well, let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. You
know that this matters to me because I joined you on that
letter over a year ago. I will say this. That request is still
out there. I have some other recommendations. Because we want
to make sure that we're seeing this and that we actually
provide oversight. But I think it's time for us to come
together, and let's do it in the next seven days.
I'll yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. I
saw he had a comment.
Chairman Cummings. Five seconds.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, you've had 13 minutes. I got--we
all--the rest of us got five minutes, and you get 13? You're
going to limit me to five seconds?
Chairman Cummings. I'll give you a minute. Go.
Mr. Jordan. I appreciating the gentleman's words from North
Carolina. I think he's right on target. And as the Secretary
said, it would be immediate, immediate results, and immediate
better care and safety for these kids.
Mr. Secretary, when's the last time you were at the border?
Secretary McAleenan. Yesterday.
Mr. Jordan. Yesterday. You know exactly what's going on.
You've got the most recent knowledge of anyone in this room,
probably more--and more experience in this area than anyone in
this room.
So just a few minutes ago, Mr. Norman asked you about some
claims that have been made about conditions down there, and I
think your response was they were unsubstantiated. Does that
mean not one single person that you talked with who works in
your agency could confirm some of the things that have been
said, like kids don't have toothbrushes, kids are drinking out
of toilets, all these other statements that have been made, not
one single person could confirm those things? Is that accurate?
Secretary McAleenan. So in terms of toothbrushes, that's
accurate, yes. Drinking out of toilets, that's accurate, yes.
Mr. Jordan. Totally unsubstantiated.
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Chairman Cummings. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Jordan. All right. Thank you.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary McAleenan, the nonprofit law firm Americans for
Immigrant Justice has conducted numerous interviews with kids
who have been processed through CBP facilities at the border.
There are children, multiple children, who have reported to AIJ
that CBP officers punished them for no discernible reason. It's
not punishment, it's abuse.
Secretary McAleenan, I want yes-or-no answers to these
questions because these are very simple questions.
First, kids reported being forced by CBP officers to kneel
on concrete floors for extended periods of time. Are CBP
officers permitted to force children to do this?
Secretary McAleenan. No.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Kids reported being forced to stand
in front of air vents in very cold rooms. Are CBP officers
permitted to force children to do this?
Secretary McAleenan. Of course not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Kids reported CBP officers kicking
them awake every few hours while they are lying on the floor
trying to sleep at night. Are CBP officers permitted to prevent
children from sleeping by kicking them awake?
Secretary McAleenan. No. And any allegation with
specificity----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes or no----
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. will be investigated and
followed through on.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes or no will suffice.
Kids reported officers withheld food and water to the point
that teenage mothers have been unable to produce milk to breast
feed their kids. Are CBP officers permitted to withhold food
and water from children?
Secretary McAleenan. Not from anyone in our custody.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. A majority of kids who spoke to AIJ
reported CBP officers treat them like animals, literally
calling them animals, and told kids they're dirty and never
should have come here. Are CBP officers being trained to call
kids animals and dirty?
Secretary McAleenan. Verbal abuse will not be tolerated. It
will be investigated if we can get a specific allegation.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Are they being trained to call kids
animals and dirty?
Secretary McAleenan. Of course not.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. Secretary McAleenan, advocates
are hearing these reports directly from child after child after
child. These aren't one-off accusations. These are consistent,
broad-based accusations from the majority of children that AIJ
lawyers are interviewing. That denotes a systemic problem, and
that denotes a tolerated culture of abuse.
So I need a yes-or-no question--a yes-or-no answer to this
question. Will you commit today to immediately order an
investigation into these allegations of abuse of migrant youth?
There are far too many reports. I'm sorry, but doing a here-
and-there review of whether some of these reports mentioned
today you can unequivocally say are unsubstantiated, unless
you've done a comprehensive investigation, you can't
unequivocally say that.
So will you make that commitment to do this investigation
today?
Secretary McAleenan. Any specific allegation that we can be
given will be followed through on and investigated fully.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. There are lots of specific
allegations, and I am asking you today, because we have a pile
of them, will you commit to immediately order an investigation
into these allegations of abuse of migrant youth?
Secretary McAleenan. Any specific allegation will be
investigated immediately.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay. There are multiple--so if I
give you----
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.--specific allegations, you will
commit to doing an investigation.
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct. We do this routinely.
And we've built relationships with advocacy groups----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. so if they come across a
case, they can refer it to us.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time because I want to
get to my next question. Thank you for commitment, and we'll
make sure we get those to you.
Secretary McAleenan. I can give you some more context,
though, on how we're working these issues.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No. I have another question that I
want to make sure I ask you.
A 15-year-old boy was just reunited with his family. He has
lived here since he was nine months old but was taken from
family members at a traffic stop and sent to Homestead
Detention Center as an unaccompanied minor. He went without a
shower and toothbrush while he was detained for five days. His
mom didn't know where he was. His mom was in the United States
just two hours away when he was apprehended.
Yes or no, do you agree that this is a violation of the
statutory definition of unaccompanied minor?
Secretary McAleenan. I'd have to say the details of this
case.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I'm sorry. You know the details of
this case. It was in the newspaper.
Secretary McAleenan. I don't.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You should be very familiar with it.
Secretary McAleenan. I don't, but I can tell you----
Secretary McAleenan. It is tiresome that every time you're
asked a detailed question, and you did this in the Homeland
Security Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Secretary, you never
seem to be able to answer or bring answers to detailed
questions to hearings when you're--when requested.
Secretary McAleenan. We followed up with a briefing for you
with all the details of that question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Let's not even get into the briefing
you followed up with me on. That was unacceptable.
You don't know anything about the case I'm talking about?
Secretary McAleenan. I'm not going to comment on specific
cases----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. here today.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. How many children--reclaiming my
time--how many children have been apprehended in the interior
of the United States who don't meet the statutory definition of
a UAC and placed into detention with true unaccompanied minors?
Secretary McAleenan. So I'm not confirming that there's any
mistakes on following the statutory definition----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Oh, no. There are.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. of unaccompanied child,
but I'd be happy to look at individual cases that you would
refer.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, I'm not going to refer
individual cases to you. I want an answer. I want you to look
into how many children have been detained by your agencies who
don't meet the statutory definition of unaccompanied minor and
have been housed with true unaccompanied minors. I want an
answer to that question and the number.
Secretary McAleenan. So are you suggesting that an
unaccompanied child that has a parent somewhere in the U.S. is
not unaccompanied?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Yes. I will read you the statutory
definition, because it specifically says: As used in this
section, the term placement means the placement of an
unaccompanied alien child in either a detention facility or an
alternative to such a facility, and the term ``unaccompanied
alien child'' means a child who, A, has no lawful immigration
status in the United States, B, has not attained 18 years of
age, and with respect to whom there is no parent or legal
guardian in the United States or no parent or legal guardian in
the United States that's available to provide care and physical
custody.
Someone who is nine months old, whose mother is two hours
away, does not meet the statutory definition of UAC. Wouldn't
you acknowledge that?
Secretary McAleenan. I would have to look at the specific
details of that case.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Come on.
Secretary McAleenan. But I'm saying the suggestion that any
parent in the U.S.--you know, being considered an accompanied
child would have implications.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, I know you're tapping
me.
I would like a commitment from you, Mr. Secretary, that you
are going to get us the number of UAC--of children you've
detained that don't meet the statutory definition.
Chairman Cummings. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Can he answer?
Secretary McAleenan. I'm happy to follow-up on your
request. Formally submit it.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Secretary, Ms. Wasserman Schultz
just gave you a whole list of cases and incidents, and one of
the things that you said was that you would look into it and
that if there were such cases--and I'm not trying to put words
in your mouth, so correct me--that you would look into them.
I'm just curious, are there such investigations going on now?
Do we----
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. Thank you for asking.
So we created, through our Office of Intergovernmental and
Public Liaison at CBP when I was acting and then commissioner,
direct relationships with advocacy groups that were bringing
forward allegations so they could be referred.
Those are being followed up on through our Office of
Professional Responsibility. We've closed out dozens of
investigations. Many were unsubstantiated, but some resulted in
discipline of officers and agents who hadn't handled the cases
properly.
This is an ongoing effort that we want to make sure we're
holding ourselves accountable to the highest standards, to our
legal requirements, and to our standards of conduct.
So if we do get specific cases, we will follow-up on those,
and that's a connection that we built when I was in CBP.
Chairman Cummings. You are committing to that right now.
Secretary McAleenan. Yes.
Chairman Cummings. Is that right, sir?
Secretary McAleenan. Any specific allegation will be
followed up on, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely. That is our
responsibility.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much.
First of all, Mr. McAleenan, I'd like to thank you for
being here today. It's unfortunate it's a fly out day, and as
you can see, a lot of Congressmen are missing your fine
testimony. I would love it if sometime in the future we could
have you come here again, because five minutes really isn't
enough to ask you the questions we have, and, unfortunately,
too many people aren't here.
I've been at the border twice myself. I think you guys are
doing a tremendous job. I couldn't help but be impressed by the
professionalism that your staff showed and the high morale they
had despite some people saying there wasn't a crisis at the
border. I know your people have done all they can to educate
the public there was a crisis at the border.
Now, one of the things that intrigues me is sometimes
children are coming here with people who are not their parents,
and I compare it to how we treat children in American society.
You know, if one parent tries to grab the child away from other
parents, we have court hearings, we have all sorts of hoopla. I
think we would never stand for an aunt or uncle grabbing a
child away when the parents are far away.
Could you elaborate a little bit on the concern of children
being here who somebody purports to say is their parent but
turns out isn't a parent or relative? Is this a concern?
Secretary McAleenan. It's a concern, obviously, for the
safety and welfare of the child to make sure they're with a
parent or guardian, but it's also the legal requirement under
the Trafficking Victims Reauthorization Protection Act. That's
an essential inquiry that our agents are making at the border
to try to determine if the adult crossing purporting to have a
child with them is the actual parent or guardian.
Unfortunately, we're finding in too many cases that's not the
case.
Mr. Grothman. How do you find out?
Secretary McAleenan. So a couple of different ways. One,
our Border Patrol agents, when they have the time and space to
do good interviews and questioning, often determine either
through the answers, through the presentation of the documents,
that there might be fraudulent birth certificates involved, or
the behavior of the child, looking uncomfortable with that
adult.
We've now expanded this practice with 400 special agents
from his alongside our Border Patrol agents doing more in-depth
interviews. They have done about 2,500 so far and found out
that almost 15 percent of those cases they were actually
presenting a fraudulent family.
Mr. Grothman. That's shocking. Do the cartels who are just
the epitome of evil, do they do anything to encourage this sort
of behavior?
Secretary McAleenan. Absolutely. They've been active in
advertising literally on Facebook and in the radio in Central
America that if you bring a child with you, you're going to be
released in the U.S. There's a whole fake document operation
really in all three countries. We have identified 900 fake
documents in just the first eight weeks of Homeland Security
Investigations doing this in-depth interview.
Mr. Grothman. When children come here, are they purchased
or kidnapped?
Secretary McAleenan. We've seen all of the above. We've
seen rentals, purchase, kidnap, delivery to a relative or
parent in the U.S., and outright human trafficking.
Mr. Grothman. You said sometimes you do DNA testing. Is
that right?
Secretary McAleenan. We started a pilot earlier in my
tenure, in the first few weeks of my tenure, where we did about
109 DNA tests at the border. Again, a 15 percent return rate on
either people admitting that's not my child, including a 51-
year-old who bought a six-month-old for $80 in Guatemala. It's
a real concern. We want to expand our DNA testing coverage with
the new rapid DNA technologies that are coming out.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. One other concern, which I think may be
a difficult thing for you to worry about, though I was
concerned about it when I heard testimony, previous testimony.
In America we go through a great deal to make sure that
something doesn't happen to a child if one parent would object.
It occurs to me that if somebody shows up, even if it is their
child, do we know if the other parent is there, whether that
parent is agreeing to allow this child to be brought in the
United States?
Or if a child shows up and is eventually given to somebody
who purports to be their aunt or uncle, which, as I understand,
was going on, do we have any legal way of knowing if this is
right, or for all we know, we may have a situation in which one
parent is absconding with the child without the other parent
knowing.
Secretary McAleenan. So we do have concerns that that could
be happening, and they're even heightened more gravely when we
have an unaccompanied child who is coming to the border, often
had a smuggler paid by a parent who is here in the United
States.
I don't think most people realize that most of these
unaccompanied children are being released to parents or
relatives in the U.S. who are also here unlawfully, who may not
have permission to work in the United States, and yet, these
children are being released as sponsors in the U.S. under the
operation of law and restrictions placed by Congress in the
current appropriations and supplemental.
Mr. Grothman. And the default is to allow them in the
country even though maybe another parent somewhere else would
have wanted that child to stay with them?
Secretary McAleenan. Correct. We've had all three
Ambassadors from the Northern Triangle countries assert that
those governments should have some say in what happens to that
unaccompanied child.
Mr. Grothman. Oh, absolutely. I mean, if they're ignoring
the wishes of the courts in Central America, I mean, that's
just appalling.
Well, I'd like to thank you for being here again. I intend
to go back to the border, to go back to El Paso within a couple
weeks and talk to your folks again. And I encourage my
colleagues to go down to the border and see what a fine job
you're doing despite being under-funded by Congress.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Secretary McAleenan. You'll see a dramatic improvement in
the situation in El Paso, from 5,000 in custody to 500 today.
Chairman Cummings. Ms. Hill.
Ms. Hill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So I completely rewrote my question line because I think we
just need to acknowledge across the board this is hard. This is
a hard thing for us to be tackling. It is something that
Americans can't agree on and that we as policymakers can't
agree on. In the meantime, people are hurting in so many
different ways.
Regardless of politics on this issue, I don't believe that
anyone looks at the pictures of children in cages and feels
good about it. I don't think that anyone looks at those
pictures and feels proud to be an American. I'm guessing you
don't, either, and neither do those Border Patrol agents who
feel a major dissonance between what they signed up to do and
what they have to do now.
This is an emotional issue for everyone, but the more we
grandstand, the fewer options we're left with.
If someone showed up at my door asking for help, I'm glad
to know that I have a doorbell. I'm glad to know that I'm the
one who gets to make the decision if that person is there
legitimately in need or if they're there to rob me or do me
harm, because it's my house and it's my door.
Border Patrol agencies should provide the function of
guarding the door, but they shouldn't be the ones who are
caring for kids, in the same way that if someone comes to my
house bleeding, I'm not going to be the one who pulls out a
suture kit and gives them stitches. I'm going to take them to
the hospital or call the paramedics.
I hope we can agree that once we do know that people aren't
trying to rob us or do us harm, that they can be treated and
should be treated with the dignity and grace of the United
States of America. But let's be real, it's not the Border
Patrol agents who should be doing that job.
Mr. Secretary, I think you know as well as I do that we're
in this reality of a severely divided government that reflects
a country that's divided, too, and our democracy is a simple
reflection of the will of the people.
There are people in this room who believe we need to
abolish the law enforcement agencies at the border, and there
are people in this room who believe that no matter what the
circumstances, we should keep our doors closed to everyone. Of
course the President's policies and remarks reflect that same
belief.
But the vast majority of Americans are somewhere in
between, and we're trying to figure out how we uphold our
values. I think that that's something that you probably
struggle with and the Border Patrol agents struggle with.
So how do we greet a family in need at our door and still
make sure that we're safe in our home when they step into it?
How do we do everything that we can to make sure that the kids
that are being brought here are not being abused by people who
are seeking to take advantage of our American values of helping
families?
I appreciate my colleague Mr. Meadows' desire to work on
some immediate solutions, because I think we can't not, but I
don't think that with a Democratic majority in the House we're
ever going to get rid of the Flores settlement, because I don't
think it's a solution to keep kids locked up longer even with
their parents. But I do want to talk about how we can make sure
that people make it to court. And we're also not going to put
more money in detention beds when people continue to see the
images that make us sick to be Americans.
So what do we do? This is my question to you. Knowing the
reality is not probably what you would want it to be in terms
of what's going to happen, what can we do that's somewhere
right now that is going to get fewer kids to be in those kinds
of situations, that's going to make an impact at the border,
and is just acknowledging the simple reality of what we could
actually pass here and now with the kind of divided government
that we have?
Secretary McAleenan. So I guess I don't want to accept yet
that the better system that we had before in the prior
administration, having families kept together for 40 to 50 days
in a campus-like setting, in a family residential center, with
education, recreation, medical care, and courtrooms right there
onsite, is not something that the Congress could consider in
this environment.
Ms. Hill. So is there a way that we could even learn more
about this kind of campus setting? Is this something that we
have--that we could, you know, even begin to propose to people
that, you know--I mean, like, I don't think that people
understand that there could be a difference----
Secretary McAleenan. Right.
Ms. Hill [continuing]. right, between what we've been
seeing. Right now, these are the images that are stuck in
people's minds. So, you know, if you're describing something
different, I mean, listen, that doesn't sound crazy, but it
also isn't what people think is really going to happen.
Secretary McAleenan. I think we could have a meaningful
conversation. First of all, I would invite you to visit one of
our family residential centers in Dilley or Karnes, Texas. But
also, if there could be a dialog about how to do this better,
there could be a dialog about even improving the standards that
exist there if we could get the funding to do so.
I think that's the right way to handle this. We're not
seeing successful results in immigration cases when anyone is
released from the detained custody, but especially for
families. They're more likely to cutoff their bracelets,
they're less likely to show up for hearings, they're less
likely to respond to a final order of removal.
So being able to address that at the border in an expedited
and fair way with due process is a much better solution than
what we're doing now.
Ms. Hill. So if we're doing that at the border, are there
agencies--and I realize money has to be a huge part of the
solution. There's no way around that. But if we're doing that
at the border, let's assume that CBP is going to play a role in
it, but do you think that there needs to be involvement of
other agencies, community-based providers, things like that?
Because I also, you know, I think case management needs to
be part of it, too. And if we don't come to some kind of a
place where it's extending the time for the Flores settlement,
then how do we make sure people still show up to court?
Secretary McAleenan. I think there could be a meaningful
discussion about how to accommodate concerns and interests that
both parties would raise and how to do this right.
Ms. Hill. So what do you think is the next step to make
sure that we actually have that meaningful discussion?
Secretary McAleenan. So Department of Homeland Security has
provided the technical assistance to Congress on the way that
they would like to structure that, and there's a discussion
going on in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would be great
if we could start one here in the House as well. I'd certainly
be willing to work with any Member who wants to have a serious
dialog on these issues.
Ms. Hill. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I actually agree, in talking about the reality. But I think
one thing that happened, we talked about earlier, and we have
to also be able to educate people on how the things work, how
the world works, particularly in the areas of where these
people are coming from.
We know this because there are many who think that just
being from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras should make sure
that you immediately qualify for asylum, and we know that is an
argument. But then at the same time as we're working through
this, and we heard this last week in the hearing, too, we hear,
like, unsubstantiated claims of criminal activity.
Well, Honduras is one of the--I mean, is an incredibly
violent country. It has one of the most corrupt governments in
the entire world. Their criminal justice system is directly
connected--I mean, their entire government elite and power
people and different cartels.
Guatemala is controlled in a lot of ways at all levels of
government by powerful criminal organizations. Their criminal
justice system is flat-out inept, and I can't even find
statistics on it.
In El Salvador, 92 percent of the crimes go unpunished.
So when we're talking about this, I'm assuming when you
have somebody come to the border and you are doing this, you
don't call the clerk of court in El Salvador and do a criminal
history check. Is that correct? I mean, I'm assuming you do do
that, but that's not the end of the inquiry.
Secretary McAleenan. We don't call the clerk of the court,
but we have a relationship with the national police in El
Salvador and do share information with them.
Mr. Armstrong. But so criminal convictions in and of
themselves, though, I mean, how many of the cartels are
directly connected to the governments in those countries?
Secretary McAleenan. So I don't want to cast broad
aspersions on the governments or connections to organized
crime. The cartels are not as present in those three countries.
They're more violent gang activity. And, frankly, in the last
five years they've all made significant strides in reducing
violence, 40 to 70 percent reduction in murder rates in three
countries.
So it's a little bit more complex than just kind of
painting a broad brush on all three governments.
Mr. Armstrong. But that's what I'm saying. You don't treat
it as a normal criminal justice inquiry. You use your allies
and other----
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. It's not dispositive. Again, we
make judgments based on our direct interaction, our liaison and
attache personal in country who work alongside these law
enforcement agencies. Many of the programs that we get
information from are actually supported by State Department
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau. So that
gives us greater comfort when we're using different pieces of
information from partners.
Mr. Armstrong. And you're confident in the intelligence
gathering you do in these scenarios?
Secretary McAleenan. Again, no blanket statements----
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. but in these scenarios
when we're trusting that information, it's because we've vetted
the process and have a program and a relationship that we think
we can verify.
Mr. Armstrong. Then I'm going to piggyback off the last
question, except I'm not going to place it in you having to
deal with the partisan nature of Congress. I just want to ask
you, what are three concrete steps Congress could do right now
to help the situation at the border?
Secretary McAleenan. The three things in the dialog that I
just had with Congresswoman Hill. The Trafficking Victims
Protection Reauthorization Act.
We've offered a process, the administration in January and
again in May, one of my first weeks as Acting Secretary, a
process where children could seek protections safely from their
home country or a neighboring country. But we would have the
balance of being able to repatriate those children who arrived
at our border if they did not meet those standards or didn't
avail themselves of that process.
And the third is a modest change to the credible fear
standard as we assess asylum claims from a standard which 85 to
90 percent of people are clearing to a more rational connection
to the ultimate result from an immigration judge.
Those are the three major authorizing changes that we're
looking for from Congress.
Mr. Armstrong. All right. Thank you.
Then with that, I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Secretary, Ms. Hill said in her comments that she
doesn't think the Democrats are going to be willing to change
Flores. You said you don't want to give up hope on actually
making that change because that's at the heart of the problem,
right?
Secretary McAleenan. Correct.
Mr. Jordan. Let's hope that they can work together and we
can change the Flores decision, because if you don't nobody's
going to show up, right? You used the number earlier, 150 to
zero, right? What was that number about?
Secretary McAleenan. So that was the final orders of
removal under the Family Case Management Program that have not
been effectuated. None of those who have gotten the final order
have shown up for their removal.
Mr. Jordan. So if we don't change Flores and you have to
release families, they're never going to show up for their day
in court where we could determine if they're here legally, and
if they are, they're going to get a stay. They're just not
going to show up unless we can deal with this Flores decision.
Is that right?
Secretary McAleenan. Right. And it puts ICE in the position
of having to go into communities to effectuate the final orders
from judges.
Mr. Jordan. When would be much better to keep them in the
facilities you described, where families stay together, and 50
days later, within 50 days, they actually sit down in front of
a judge, they hear all the case, everyone gets their due
process which they're entitled to, and a decision can be made,
and families stay together the entire time. But they don't want
to fix that. They don't want to change that.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
We will have next Mr. Khanna.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
I want to focus on some basic facts. I hope you'll answer
the questions not as a political appointee but in the spirit of
when you were at the University of Chicago.
When the zero tolerance policy was being planned, at any
point did anyone in the room ask how will the parents and
children come together afterwards?
Secretary McAleenan. I mean, I was not in every room where
every conversation about increasing these prosecutions was had,
so----
Mr. Khanna. And to paraphrase Lin Manuel Miranda, you were
probably in the room where the decisions were being made,
right?
Secretary McAleenan. Interesting paraphrase. On April 19,
between the Attorney General's decision letter about expanding
to all amenable adults crossing the border and the actual
implementation of zero tolerance by the Department of Homeland
Security, CBP, working with HHS, made changes to its system to
identify better the relationships between the adult and child
crossing the border. So that conversation was had, and we did
make system modifications to address it from the CBP
perspective.
Mr. Khanna. You recommended--you had a process in place of
how these kids would be reunited that you recommended?
Secretary McAleenan. On how he would effectively capture
the data so that they could be later in the process.
And again, the belief was that the adults would be
prosecuted, they'd complete their immigration proceedings, HHS
would have the child during that time and make the sponsorship
decision to reunite them at the appropriate point in the
process.
Mr. Khanna. So what went wrong? I mean, why where they not
being able to be reunited if you had this process in place?
Secretary McAleenan. So I had a colloquy with the chairman
on this a little bit earlier. I mean, if you go back and look
at the Ms. L. court filings, again, very early in this process,
before these different parts had concluded, the HHS sponsorship
checks or the ICE and immigration court process for the adults,
I mean, a matter of weeks, based on the data we had in our data
base, the data that ICE had in theirs, the data that HHS had in
theirs, put all together in spreadsheets and worked manually by
a team, those reunifications were able to be made.
And at this time, every single child has had their parent
identified and has either been reunited, or there's a decision
made that they can't be for child welfare issues, or the parent
has decided not to be reunited.
Mr. Khanna. Your testimony is there's not a single child
who hasn't been reunited or hasn't been--where their parents
haven't been identified?
Secretary McAleenan. They've identified a parent in every
case, and they've taken the appropriate action, in concert with
the plaintiffs in the Ms. L., as specified in the court filings
that happen every two weeks in this matter since last June.
Mr. Khanna. Let me ask you this. In a self-reflective
moment, are you proud of how this whole situation has happened,
or do you have some regrets?
Secretary McAleenan. I've testified, I've answered the
question in the media multiple times. This program, we lost the
public trust. I think the President was right to end it. And if
I could go back and redo it, I would.
Mr. Khanna. How about beyond the program, I mean, in terms
of how we're treating the kids. I mean, I know you're blaming
Congress, Congress is partisan.
But when you reflect, I mean, look, you had a distinguished
career before coming into government service, and you look at
your tenure, what would you say? Where do you think you've
fallen short?
Secretary McAleenan. You know, that's a big question. It's
been a couple decades here responding after 9/11 to try to help
protect the country and serve at CBP and the Department of
Homeland Security. It's been a huge honor. I think we've
accomplished a lot in that timeframe.
I'd like to go back to 2014 and 2015 when the Flores court
changed the rules after we made the difficult decision. Jeh
Johnson made a hard decision to create family residential
centers and detain families, but it was the right decision
because it stopped the crisis. It reduced the flow.
There was a gap there where the flow was down where we let
that decision stand as a government, as the executive branch.
We didn't work with Congress in advance of the next crisis. We
faced another one around the election in 2016. And here we are
today----
Mr. Khanna. Let me ask you that because you've testified--
--
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. with a scope even well
beyond that.
Mr. Khanna [continuing]. that these border facilities are
not adequate for children to be there. I mean, you've testified
before. You've been with the Department since 2014, and you are
testifying that you anticipated we could have a surge again.
Did anyone--did you ever raise that maybe we should
retrofit some of these buildings or that we should design these
buildings in a way that would be hospitable for kids?
Secretary McAleenan. So when the system works properly,
when Health and Human Services has adequate resources to deal
with the flow, the time that children spend at the border is
very short. It can be 24 to 30 hours. That works pretty well.
To rebuild the entire border infrastructure is challenging.
El Paso, for instance. Two years ago, El Paso was one of the
lowest sectors in terms of crossings on the border. This year
they've had a twenty-fivefold increase in family units
crossing, a 500-plus percent increase in unaccompanied
children. That was a sea change that could not have been
anticipated in that location. So what's better is to have the
process work so those kids can go very quickly to HHS.
Mr. Khanna. I'm out of my time.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Green.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
And, Secretary McAleenan, thank you for coming today and
for your testimony.
Last week I talked and shared from my perspective as an
emergency medicine physician about, you know, just trying to
give people perspective about what's happened at the border.
And I think that repeating the analogy will be helpful.
Imagine you're working in an emergency department and a
natural disaster occurs, let's say it's an earthquake, or maybe
something as bad as 9/11. There are thousands of patients that
are now rushing into the emergency department. The ER is
completely overwhelmed. There's patients in the hallways that
are being treated. They're in the parking lots. Doctors are
running from place to place.
It's not the physicians' fault that that scenario has come
upon them. It's not the nurses' fault. And I would submit that
that's the kind of crisis that you're experiencing at the
border this year, this calendar year particularly, one that no
one could anticipate, and the systems are completely
overwhelmed.
Would you agree with that statement?
Secretary McAleenan. I think that's an apt analogy. The
Border Patrol agents and CBP officers in that analogy are faced
with a crisis that's happened that they need to respond to with
the resources they have on hand. And sometimes that can be
challenging, it can be messy, but it is something they're doing
with heart and soul and empathy.
Mr. Green. No, I really appreciate that, and I can actually
empathize significantly because I've delivered patients in--I
delivered a baby in a parking lot because we just--we were so
overwhelmed. I ran out, she was delivering. I mean, you do what
you have to do when you're overwhelmed, and that's kind of
where you are.
I also wanted to talk a little bit about children. In
emergency medicine we teach our doctors to be very, very
cautious because a child can be sick and not look sick.
Secretary McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Green. You know, they tend to fall off of a cliff, is
the way we say it. They look great, their vital signs are
fantastic, and then they crash really fast.
So expecting people, particularly people who aren't trained
in emergency medicine--which took, by the way, you know, four
years of undergrad, four years of med school, and three years
of residency--expecting those individuals to recognize a child
that's about to crash is really inappropriate and unfair, and I
just wanted to share that thought, too.
By the way, when the physician codes that patient and they
die anyway and that doctor or that nursing team has tried
really hard, it's not their fault, either. They're doing the
best that they can.
You wanted to say something. Go ahead.
Secretary McAleenan. Both of those comments, Congressman,
resonate for us, you know.
And maybe if I could amend my answer to Congressman Khanna
for a second. I think it would have been better to have more
medical capability available in our border stations, in the
higher trafficked areas, for our agents to access for the
migrants as they came in. But we have been responding. We've
increased it tenfold since January.
Mr. Green. You mentioned four new facilities and two more
coming on. Is that right?
Secretary McAleenan. That's right, for the temporary
facilities, absolutely.
Mr. Green. Awesome. Fantastic.
It's interesting. Flow through a pipe is Bernoulli's
equation, for anybody who wants to know. And if you increase
the radius of the pipe, it exponentially increases the flow
through the pipe. So just a little bit of change gives you a
lot more flow.
Let me ask about these single adult folks that you don't
have the beds for.
Secretary McAleenan. Right.
Mr. Green. If you had those beds, how would you shift
resources? And would it give you better access elsewhere to
take care of families and children?
Secretary McAleenan. Sure. I mean, so Immigration and
Customs Enforcement maintains facilities to house single
adults. We requested thousands more beds than we got in the
appropriations in Fiscal Year 2019. We requested $200 million
worth of additional beds in the supplemental. We didn't get any
of that funding.
Mr. Green. Okay.
Secretary McAleenan. So that's why we're experiencing that
backup at the border, which is taking Border Patrol agent time
away from either policing the border or caring for the more
vulnerable populations crossing.
Mr. Green. Yes. So if you had that diameter expansion,
you'd be able to have more capacity and be able to shift
resources to take care of those families and those children.
I'd like to, Mr. Chairman, give my time to the ranking
member. Thank you.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Just one question. It would be better for them, refugee--
people seeking refugee status, to be able to apply in country
rather than take a very dangerous journey all the way up to
Texas and make those claims. Do you know who said that, Mr.
Secretary?
Secretary McAleenan. Other than me and some other members
of the administration recently?
Mr. Jordan. President Obama.
Secretary McAleenan. Okay.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. So it wasn't just the Trump
administration. It wasn't just you. President Obama made that
statement.
And that seems to me the exact same thing Senator Graham is
proposing in his legislation, which would be another thing we
could do to help deal with the situation. Isn't that true?
Secretary McAleenan. That is correct.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I know it's really frustrating, I know, for my residents.
President Obama is not the President anymore. I think we need
to get over it and move on and know that we have a crisis and
that we need to address it.
And so, Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for coming before
this. I think you're serving your agents by being here. And
telling the truth as much as you can, provide more to us in
actual information is going to help create the sense of urgency
to help not only your agents, but the children and families at
the border.
Mr. Secretary, there's been a lot of discussion in this
committee about rhetoric, this rhetoric, talking a lot, and
kind of dismissing and discrediting many of my colleagues,
including Congresswoman Escobar who is here with us, what we
saw at the border.
On June 28, 2019, you were asked about allegations of
shocking conditions at Clint, in Clint, Texas. Quote, you said
unsubstantiated allegations last week regarding a single border
patrol facility in Clint, Texas, created a sensation.
But in May--dismissing, I think, a report that came out,
because in May 2019, before you made that statement, the
independent Inspector General for DHS issued a report on a
Border Patrol facility in El Paso.
Mr. Secretary, were you aware of that report before you--of
the poor conditions they talked about, the length of time, the
overcrowding, the fact that many were wearing soiled clothing--
were you aware of that report before you said it was
unsubstantiated.
Secretary McAleenan. So I was offered the opportunity to
explain what I was talking about earlier in the hearing. I can
do it again.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. I'm just curious.
Secretary McAleenan. Okay.
Ms. Tlaib. Because when you say that, it's misleading to
the American people.
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. So I hope not, because one of the
things I started in my opening statement to show all the times
I've warned about the humanitarian crisis, the challenges, the
overcrowding in our facilities, saying on June 10 that----
Ms. Tlaib. I think for me, Mr. Secretary, you hear people
saying that much of what we're saying is rhetoric, and when
it's also backed up with you saying those terms. But I
appreciate you trying to urge us and trying to identify that
there has been a crisis.
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. It was not rhetoric when I said
that no American should be comfortable with children in a
police station for days on end, that's not an appropriate
setting for kids. That was not rhetoric. That was a
description.
Ms. Tlaib. But it contradicts in the way you said by using
that word. I think be cautious. I'm telling you just as a mom.
Just be cautious in the terms that you use because when you say
unsubstantiated, when the IG office just gave you a report
before you said that, it does mislead the American people that
there isn't a serious issue there, that it's not backed, that
there's no credibility.
Secretary McAleenan. And just to be clear, though, I was
talking about the Flores monitors' comments----
Ms. Tlaib. Let's talk about those.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. who did not go into the
Clint station----
Ms. Tlaib. Let's talk about Flores real quick.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. but claimed that there
were no toothbrushes available for children, that they didn't
have water----
Ms. Tlaib. I understand.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. they didn't have access
to showers, when they had all of those things, as I know you
saw when you went to Clint.
Ms. Tlaib. I understand, sir.
So Flores was a case because it talks about the maximum you
can keep a child is 20 days, as you know. And then it talks
about things that you have to have, really important aid, like
food and drinking water, appropriate food and drinking water,
adequate temperature control, ventilation, contact with family
members who were arrested with the minor, separation from
unrelated adults whenever possible.
It talks about toilets and sinks. It really goes into
specifics. Medical assistance of minors in need of emergency
services.
What's wrong with Flores that everybody keeps saying they
want to change Flores?
Secretary McAleenan. Just a single provision. We don't want
to----
Ms. Tlaib. You want to keep kids longer.
Secretary McAleenan. We don't want to change those
provisions about conditions in our custody.
Ms. Tlaib. You want to keep kids longer, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary McAleenan. We want to codify those provisions to
maintain the highest possible standards.
Ms. Tlaib. No, you want to keep kids longer. It's been very
clear from this administration you want to keep kids longer.
Secretary McAleenan. We want to keep families together
through an immigration proceeding that's fair and expeditious--
--
Ms. Tlaib. By keeping kids longer.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. in an appropriate
setting. That can't be done in 20 days with due process.
Ms. Tlaib. That's right. So just admit that, though. Tell
people it's not--you want to keep the conditions, but you want
to keep the kids longer.
Secretary McAleenan. We want to keep very high standards,
and we're willing to have a conversation about how high those
standards should and can be. But we need to be able to finish
immigration proceedings before people are released, otherwise
we don't have an effective result.
Ms. Tlaib. I understand.
So, Mr. Secretary, I want to go through something else
that's important to what I have witnessed and what I was told.
So these are things that CBP agents, your agents on the ground,
told me.
Stop throwing money at this. One specific person.
Another said: We weren't trained for this, to separate
children, we aren't--I'm not--he said specifically, I'm not a
social worker or a medical care worker.
This is the most important one: The separation policy isn't
working.
What do you say to that?
Secretary McAleenan. So I would say three things.
Money is needed to mitigate the crisis. We're applying it
effectively now. But I agree, we should change the authorizing
law so that we wouldn't have the crisis in the first place,
because throwing money at it is just going to continue to
manage it.
For training for challenging issues and trauma to our
children, that's a hard thing to comprehensively provide for
law enforcement. That's why we're trying to have people on
contract in our facilities that have that background and can
identify mental health trauma, can identify kids who are
suicidal. We've done that hundreds of times since we put that
in place last July at my direction as commissioner of CBP.
And your third question?
Ms. Tlaib. My third question was about the separation
policy.
Secretary McAleenan. There is no separation policy. There's
a court order and an executive order that define the conditions
for the welfare of the child, and they're limited conditions,
they're extraordinarily rare. Out of 450,000 families this
year, fewer than 900 children have been separated from the
adult they crossed with who is a parent, and it's been because
of a criminal history or a prosecution----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. And the definition of criminal history, we
can talk about that.
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. not related to the
immigration process, a medical issue, or an abuse or neglect
concern with a child.
Ms. Tlaib. Mr. Chairman, if I do have more time at the end,
I would like to ask further questions for clarification.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Secretary, for coming in and offering your
testimony.
Under the subpoenas that we issued to DHS, your office has
produced to this committee data showing that child separations
skyrocketed after your zero tolerance policy went into effect.
More than 2,000 children were separated from their parents in
the two months following your memo that Secretary Nielsen
accepted, some for more than a year.
In making these decisions around family separation and
child separation, did you all consider the emotional and mental
impact on CBP officers in forcing them to take children away
from their mothers and fathers?
Secretary McAleenan. So we absolutely consider the well-
being of our professionals who are strained with the crisis
they're facing. They're strained with the stories they're
hearing of the dangers of the journey, the abuse of women and
girls----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And do you----
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. on the process of getting
to the United States. We're absolutely worried about that.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. Reclaiming my time.
And do you believe--but did you consider the dehumanizing
effect on the officers specifically in child separation in
forcing them to take children away from their parents?
Secretary McAleenan. Enforcing the law often has emotional
impacts for everybody involved, and that's something that they
sign up for, but it's something we want to provide resilient
services, mental health support for anyone who needs it.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay. And do you agree with the Federal
court's decision that halted your child separation policy?
Secretary McAleenan. I agree with the President's executive
order on June 20 last year that ended the practice.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. But not the Federal court's decision?
Secretary McAleenan. Of course we follow the Federal court
order assiduously.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. There have been reports that President
Trump and Stephen Miller wanted to restart mass child
separations earlier this year, but top DHS officials, including
Secretary Nielsen, told them that this would violate the court
order. Is that true?
Secretary McAleenan. So the President said that zero
tolerance prosecutions of adults crossing with family units is
not on the table at this time.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So you are saying that it's incorrect,
the reports are incorrect saying that the President wanted to
restart child separation?
Secretary McAleenan. I'm referring to the President's
public statements on this issue----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay. But privately, in your
experience----
Secretary McAleenan [continuing]. that this not on the
table, not being considered.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And so in your experience, the answer is
no, he did not consider restarting child separation?
Secretary McAleenan. First of all, I'm not going to speak
about conversations with the President that I've personally
had. I'm not aware of other deliberations between other
officials.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Secretary, there were reports that
the President offered you a pardon for closing the border to
asylum seekers. According to a CNN report, a senior
administration official told CNN that President Trump told you
he would grant you a pardon if you were sent to jail for having
border agents block asylum seekers from entering the U.S. in
defiance of U.S. law. Is that correct?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes. I've testified about this,
answered this question in the media. I've never been asked to
do anything unlawful by the President or anyone else, nor would
I.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, are you aware of the ProPublica report
indicating that there were about 10,000 potential current and
former CBP officers in the violently racist and sexist Facebook
group?
Secretary McAleenan. I am aware of the ProPublica article,
yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Did you see any of the posts in the
report?
Secretary McAleenan. I did.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Did you see the posts mocking migrant
children's deaths?
Secretary McAleenan. I did.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Did you see the posts planning physical
harm to myself and Congresswoman Escobar?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes, and I directed an investigation
within minutes of reading the article.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Did you see the images of officers
circulating photo-shopped images of my violent rape?
Secretary McAleenan. Yes, I did.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Are those officers on the job today and
responsible for the safety of migrant women and children?
Secretary McAleenan. So there's an aggressive investigation
on this issue proceeding. You've heard the Chief of the Border
Patrol, the most senior female official in law enforcement
across the entire country, say that these posts do not meet our
standards of conduct, and they will be followed up
aggressively. We've already----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. But those officers----
Secretary McAleenan. We've already put individuals on
administrative duties. I don't know which ones correspond with
which posts. And we've issued cease and desist orders to dozens
more.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay.
Do you think that the policy of child separation could have
contributed to a dehumanizing culture within CBP that
contributes and kind of spills over into other areas of
conduct.
Secretary McAleenan. We do not have a dehumanizing culture
at CBP.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Okay.
Secretary McAleenan. This is an agency that rescues 4,000
people a year, that's absolutely committed to the well-being of
everyone that they interact with. We don't believe there's a
dehumanizing culture.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And, Mr. Secretary, so you don't think
that having 10,000 officers in a violent racist group sharing
rape memes of Members of Congress points to any concern of a
dehumanized culture?
Secretary McAleenan. Congresswoman, those posts are
unacceptable. They're being investigated. But I don't think
it's fair to apply them throughout the entire organization or
that even the members of that group believed or supported those
groups.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mr. Secretary, just one last thing. How
did 10,000 members join this group, including--including, I
believe, the head of CBP? I'll double check. Including the CBP
chief. How were they in this Facebook group without anybody
knowing, without anyone in leadership knowing?
Secretary McAleenan. Again, this is a subject of an ongoing
investigation. If there was supervisory knowledge of
unacceptable activities, that will also be considered and
followed up on.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. All right. Thank you very much.
Chairman Cummings. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you this: You
know, with these entries on social media that was just talked
about, do you think people will make those kinds of statements,
which obviously, I guess, reflect what they're feeling, should
be on the force? I'm just curious.
Secretary McAleenan. So it depends on the individual
statement, the individual standard violated, but, yes, that's
something that this investigation is looking at. And the
appropriate discipline will be meted out up to and included
removal.
Chairman Cummings. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask unanimous
consent that the gentlewoman, Ms. Escobar, from Texas, be
authorized to participate in today's hearing.
Without objection, Ms. Escobar, we'll yield you five
minutes.
Ms. Escobar. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for the
opportunity to be seated with this distinguished committee, of
which I am not a member. But I am so grateful to all of you for
your work and your commitment to creating a better government,
a government we can be proud of.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I've been sitting
through some of your testimony just right behind you. And, you
know, this whole exercise, I can tell you, on the House
Judiciary Committee, this plays out as well. And it is very
frustrating when I hear folks talk about how quick and easy the
solutions can be when it is not that we don't want solutions,
it is that we disagree on the end result.
Some in Congress would like to see more hardline policies
that essentially shuts our front door and ensures that this
becomes someone else's problem, and others would like to truly
address the challenge that we face as a country and as a
hemisphere in a holistic, compassionate way.
We've talked a lot about the crisis and the problems that
have arisen, and there's absolutely no doubt that the
increasing number of families arriving at our front door have
caused a challenge. They've caused a challenge for law
enforcement agents, many of whom I respect, but there are some
very bad ones, who need to be rooted out.
And the good ones are--have told me they are feeling more
and more despondent because there are no consequences for the
bad ones. There is no accountability for the bad ones. I'm
worried about them. I worry about my community, which has
shouldered the responsibility of being the good servant in a
very dark time. And I worry, of course, for the migrants who
have been dehumanized and who are looked at as a problem to be
fixed instead of people to be helped.
And I feel like so much of this--and I was privileged to
testify before this committee last week. So much of this comes
down to a choice in how we choose to approach a challenge. And
I would tell you that El Paso, Texas, the community I'm so
privileged to represent, has chosen to respond in a way where
we create humanitarian standards for migrants as soon as
they're released from custody. We literally, as a community,
wrap our arms around people in need.
We have a fraction, a miniscule fraction of the resources
available to the Federal Government, and we have done far
better. I feel that the matter of choice is one that is pretty
transparent when we've chosen to separate children as a
government, when we've chosen to block entry at our ports of
entry for legal asylum seekers, and when we've chosen the
Migrant Protection Protocol Program, which sends legal asylum
seekers back into Mexico.
So I apologize for the long preamble, but I just--I felt
like I had to get that off my chest. I have a couple of
questions for you, Mr. Secretary. I shared with you when you
first were sworn in the day that you were sworn in that I felt
you had a problem in ICE, and that one of the problems within
ICE is that they are detaining people who could easily be
paroled.
I used as an example the nine Indians in custody in El Paso
in our processing center who could have easily been paroled and
should have been paroled and, after nearly being held in
detention for--or being held in detention for nearly a year,
decided to go on a hunger strike, had tubes forced down their
nose so that they could be force fed. They were so depressed,
and they could have been paroled. Ultimately, two were paroled.
Seven were deported.
I asked for you to look at what was happening in the ICE
facilities and in those cases to do a deep dive. Have you done
that deep dive?
Secretary McAleenan. That deep dive is ongoing. And a
number of the cases where we had very long detentions are being
looked at. It's a very small percentage. I have data and I'll
be getting back to you on the findings.
Ms. Escobar. I appreciate it. I'm going to ask you--I have
13 seconds. I'm just going to ask you if you will provide my
office with an accounting of all ICE facilities for the last
six months, the number of vacancies at each facility, the
number of beds filled at each facility every day for the last
six months.
We keep hearing that there are no ICE beds, that you need
ICE beds, that we're out of ICE beds, and yet, interestingly,
the President can announce interior raids for which he would
obviously need ICE beds. Meanwhile, single adults are held in
deplorable conditions, abhorrent conditions, while I suspect
there are lots of empty ICE beds waiting for the interior
enforcement. So would love that information please. Would you
get that to my office?
Secretary McAleenan. We will follow through on an oversight
request, absolutely.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
To the committee members, I want to thank all of you for--I
know this is getaway day, but this is an urgent matter. But I
want to thank you all for being here. We're getting ready to
shut down now, and we will now hear from our ranking member.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Secretary, do you want to change Flores so
you can keep kids longer as Congresswoman Tlaib asserted just a
few minutes ago?
Secretary McAleenan. We want to complete an immigration
proceeding and get a result as people arrive at the border so
that we can have a system with integrity.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. You don't want to keep kids longer. You
want to keep families together until you can actually give them
the due process which our law entitles them to receive and make
a final determination, right?
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Jordan. And that seems like commonsense to me. And,
frankly, it was commonsense for the previous administration.
That's how they wanted to do it. And now, when this
administration wants to do it somehow oh, no, no, we can't go
there because of this Flores decision.
So, if we could--I think we've made this clear, I think
you've made this clear this hearing, if you change that, it has
immediate impact, it keeps families together, it gives these
families trying to get into our country their due process,
their completion----
Ms. Tlaib. Ranking Member.
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. and it gets to--a judge can make a
final decision and would make everything better for everyone
concerned, for the Congress, for the Agency, and for the people
who made this long trek and came here to this country, right?
Secretary McAleenan. That's correct.
Mr. Jordan. That's what you want to have happen. That's all
you want to have happen. But we've heard from the other side,
they're not going to do it.
Ms. Tlaib. Sir.
Mr. Jordan. They're not going to do it. And that's the part
that I--Mr. Meadows said earlier, we're willing to work with
anyone to fix that one thing which would be the most immediate
thing we could do to help with the situation on the border.
Republicans are ready. You're ready. My guess is, these
families, like that picture, that little girl and her parents,
they're probably ready for that too, but they won't do it.
Let's just do that. I hope today, if one thing happens from
this committee--we've got a lot of other things that need to
happen on the border. But if one thing happens, let's fix that.
Let's fix that and stop all the stuff we've heard about and
do what you know with your 20 years' experience in this--more
experience than anyone in this room what you know has to
happen, what you've came here and said, I bet at least eight,
10 times what has to happen, but they've said they won't do it.
I hope they change their mind. And I hope they'll work with
us, and I hope we'll get that done. Thank you for your service,
for the guys who work for you, the folks who work for you,
thank you for their service and for being here today. I yield
back.
Chairman Cummings. Ms. Tlaib, I'm going to give you--since
the ranking member----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes. Mr. Secretary----
Chairman Cummings. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not finished.
Ms. Tlaib. Oh, I'm so sorry, sir.
Chairman Cummings. I'll give you one minute and 30 seconds.
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, sir.
I want to thank the ranking member. One of the key things
is I don't disagree that we have to fix some sort of policy,
but keeping the kids longer in various kids is my issue, right,
the fact that it is a broken system. I believe that CBP agent--
I really truly do--and that throwing money at this, continuing
this isn't working.
And, Mr. Secretary, please share with me and the ranking
member, in the 1980's, we had more people come to our border.
Detention was very rarely used. Can we look at those policies--
no, really. I can share the information with you if you don't
have it.
But I don't want to leave folks thinking that I wouldn't
want to obviously support some sort of resolution to this
that's humane and that gives our agents on the frontline more
time, more information on training, those things. However, I
think we should be very cautious when we say let's just keep
them longer, like that's supposed to be some sort of fix. And
that's my issue.
And I don't want people to mischaracterize Flores. When you
look at Flores, it's all of these conditions. And one of the
key things about that case was we kept her longer, and that was
inhumane in itself, Mr. Secretary. And that's one thing that my
colleagues on the other side won't understand, detaining people
in itself for a very long time, even if they're families, is
inhumane and it's harmful.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it with this: What did you
say? We leave them with the memory. So you can't keep them
longer. That's not going to fix it.
Chairman Cummings. Thank you very much.
And I want to thank all--everybody for a--this is a
difficult conversation because we are dealing with difficult
issues. And I want to thank you, Mr. Secretary. We really
appreciate you being here. I know you had a hard stop at 1:30
and now we're approaching 20 of three.
Let me just say that, as I listen to all of this, I just
want to--and the other day, I said this, I want us to make sure
we concentrate on in the meantime. In other words, people may
differ about what they have observed, but we do have the IG
reports, and we did have the IGs come in and testify before us.
And there had been some things that today, to be very frank
with you, you seem to not be in agreement with the IG.
Secretary McAleenan. No.
Chairman Cummings. I'm sorry. Did you say something?
Secretary McAleenan. Actually, I accept the conclusions of
the IG reports, and, frankly, I think my own comments were at
least as strident and specific on the overcrowding and the
challenges it was creating in our facilities.
Chairman Cummings. And that's the point. I want us to try
the address the overcrowding. But I am convinced that a lot of
the policies, the zero-tolerance policy has led in large part
to what's going on.
Let me be very clear. I get tired of people saying that
folks up here on our side of the aisle are beating up on the
Border Patrol and beating up on others. There is nobody that I
know of probably in this Congress that fights harder for
Federal employees, period, because I know that they're often
unseen, unnoticed, unappreciated, and un-applauded. I get that.
At the same time, I want us to keep in mind that we are
dealing with children in many instances. We are dealing with
people who are trying to simply live a better life, trying to
live a better life. And when I think about the idea--it seems--
a policy that basically says, ``Well, I got over the ladder
into the country, and now I kind of pull up the ladder so
nobody comes; we don't have enough room''--and I'm not saying
that you're saying that--that is not the America I know, and
that is not the America that I want for my children and for
generations yet unborn.
But most significantly too, I think we need to keep in mind
what I will say over and over again until I die: The deeds you
do to children may very well come back to haunt us, but it will
definitely haunt them. And I think we need to treat these
children and ask our--when we're dealing with them, ask them,
would we have that for our own?
They are human beings, and that same little child may be
like the persons who saved my life at Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Most of the people that saved my life were--well, half of them
were first generation. And that's the beauty of America. Our
diversity is not our problem; it is our promise.
And, with that, I'd like to thank our witness for
testifying today. Without objection, all members will have five
legislative days within which to submit additional written
questions for the witness, and you must submit them to the
chair, and which will be forwarded to the witness for his
response.
And I would say to you, Mr. Secretary, you made a lot of
commitments here today, and we want to follow-up. We're going
to follow-up on all of them because time is of the essence. And
so I ask that you please respond to those inquiries as rapidly
as possible, okay.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:46 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]