[Senate Hearing 116-431] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 116-431 BORDER SECURITY-2019 ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: BY THE NUMBERS, APRIL 4, 2019 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FRONTLINE, APRIL 9, 2019 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: THE EXPLOITATION OF MIGRANTS THROUGH SMUGGLING, TRAFFICKING, AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, JUNE 26, 2019 ROUNDTABLE: UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: BIPARTISAN POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL, JULY 17, 2019 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: WHAT IS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS?, JULY 30, 2019 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: THE YEAR IN REVIEW, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 ---------- Available via the World Wide Web: http://govinfo.gov Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] BORDER SECURITY--2019 S. Hrg. 116-431 BORDER SECURITY_2019 ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: BY THE NUMBERS, APRIL 4, 2019 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FRONTLINE, APRIL 9, 2019 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: THE EXPLOITATION OF MIGRANTS THROUGH SMUGGLING, TRAFFICKING, AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, JUNE 26, 2019 ROUNDTABLE: UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: BIPARTISAN POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL, JULY 17, 2019 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: WHAT IS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS?, JULY 30, 2019 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: THE YEAR IN REVIEW, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 __________ Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 37-003 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021 RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman ROB PORTMAN, Ohio GARY C. PETERS, Michigan RAND PAUL, Kentucky THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire MITT ROMNEY, Utah KAMALA D. HARRIS, California RICK SCOTT, Florida KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri Gabrielle D'Adamo Singer, Staff Director Brian P. Kennedy, Professional Staff Member Melissa Egred, Professional Staff Member Caroline Bender, Research Assistant David M. Weinberg, Minority Staff Director Zachary I. Schram, Minority Chief Counsel Alexa E. Noruk, Minority Director of Homeland Security Samuel Rodarte, Minority Professional Staff Member Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Johnson 1,89,263,341,427,529 Senator Peters 3,91,267,350,429,532 Senator Hassan 20,109,276,443 Senator Portman 21,105,292,440,552 Senator Carper 25,121,295,454,556 Senator Rosen 27,126,279,448 Senator Sinema 30,123,298,451 Senator Hawley 37,287 Senator Lankford 111,290,445,549 Senator Romney............................................... 115 Senator Harris............................................... 117 Senator Scott................................................ 285 Prepared statements: Senator Johnson 55,143,303,381,465,565 Senator Peters 56,145,305,467,566 Thursday, April 4, 2019 WITNESSES Mark Morgan, Former Chief, U.S. Border Patrol (2016-2017), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security....................................................... 5 John Daniel Davidson, Senior Correspondent, The Federalist....... 9 Andrew Selee, Ph.D., President, Migration Policy Institute....... 12 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Davidson, John Daniel: Testimony.................................................... 9 Prepared statement........................................... 73 Morgan, Mark: Testimony.................................................... 5 Prepared statement........................................... 58 Selee, Ph.D., Andrew: Testimony.................................................... 12 Prepared statement........................................... 78 APPENDIX Minors, Families, Asylum Chart................................... 86 Statement submitted for the Record from Church World Service..... 87 Tuesday, April 9, 2019 WITNESSES Rodolfo Karisch, Rio Grande Valley Sector Chief Patrol Agent, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security................................ 93 Randy Howe, Executive Director for Operations, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........................................... 95 Timothy Tubbs, Deputy Special Agent in Charge-Laredo, Texas, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.............. 96 Commander Jonathan White, Ph.D., USPHS, Deputy Director for Children's Program, Office of Emergency Management and Medical Operations, Office of Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services......... 98 Greg Cherundolo, Chief of Operations, Drug Enforcement Agency, U.S. Department of Justice..................................... 100 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Cherundolo, Greg: Testimony.................................................... 100 Prepared statement........................................... 180 Howe, Randy: Testimony.................................................... 95 Joint prepared statement..................................... 148 Karisch, Rodolfo: Testimony.................................................... 93 Joint prepared statement..................................... 148 Tubbs, Timothy: Testimony.................................................... 96 Prepared statement........................................... 157 White, Ph.D. Commander Jonathan: Testimony.................................................... 98 Joint prepared statement..................................... 173 APPENDIX Minors, Families, and Asylum Chart............................... 195 Detention Beds Required Chart.................................... 196 CRS Definition................................................... 197 ORR Statistics................................................... 203 Sponsor Status................................................... 205 Statement submitted for the Record from: Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service..................... 206 National Treasury Employees Union............................ 217 Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: Mr. Karisch and Mr. Howe..................................... 226 Mr. Tubbs.................................................... 242 Mr. White.................................................... 258 Wednesday, June 26, 2019 WITNESSES Brian S. Hastings, Chief, Law Enforcement Operations Directorate, U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security................................ 269 Randy Howe, Executive Director for Operations, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........................................... 271 Gregory Nevano, Assistant Director for Investigative Programs, Homeland Security Investigations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.............. 272 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Hastings, Brian S.: Testimony.................................................... 269 Joint prepared statement..................................... 308 Howe, Randy: Testimony.................................................... 271 Joint prepared statement..................................... 308 Nevano, Gregory: Testimony.................................................... 272 Prepared statement........................................... 316 APPENDIX Minors and Families chart........................................ 322 Statement for the Record from Church World Serive................ 323 Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: Mr. Hastings, Mr. Howe and Mr. Nevano........................ 324 Wednesday, July 17, 2019 WITNESSES Hon. Karen Tandy, Chair, Customs and Border Protection Families and Children Care Panel, Homeland Security Advisory Council.... 342 Jayson Ahern, Vice Chair, Customs and Border Protection Families and Children Care Panel, Homeland Security Advisory Council.... 344 Leon Fresco, Member, Customs and Border Protection Families and Children Care Panel, Homeland Security Advisory Council........ 348 Sharon W. Cooper, M.D., FAAP, Member, Customs and Border Protection Families and Children Care Panel, Homeland Security Advisory Council............................................... 348 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Ahern, Jayson: Testimony.................................................... 344 Cooper, Sharon W. M.D., FAAP: Testimony.................................................... 348 Fresco, Leon: Testimony.................................................... 348 Tandy, Hon. Karen: Testimony.................................................... 342 APPENDIX Minors and Families chart........................................ 382 Letter submitted by Senator Hassan............................... 383 Final Emergency Interim report................................... 388 Tandy U.S. Border Patrol (Southwest Border) Chart................ 426 Tuesday, July 30, 2019 WITNESSES Mark A, Morgan, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security............... 430 Jennifer L. Costello, Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security........................................... 433 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Costello, Jennifer L.: Testimony.................................................... 433 Prepared statement........................................... 475 Morgan, Mark A.: Testimony.................................................... 430 Prepared statement........................................... 469 APPENDIX Minors and Familes chart......................................... 485 Illegal Immigrant Arrests........................................ 486 Morgan chart and pictures........................................ 487 Statement for the Record from Church World Serive................ 495 Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: Mr. Morgan................................................... 496 Mr. Costello................................................. 527 Wednesday, November 13, 2019 WITNESSES Mark A, Morgan, Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security............... 534 Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, Acting Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security..... 537 Derek N. Benner, Acting Deputy Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security...... 539 James McHenry, Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, U.S. Department of Justice..................................... 542 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Benner, Derek N.: Testimony.................................................... 539 Prepared statement........................................... 585 Cuccinelli, Kenneth T.: Testimony.................................................... 537 Prepared statement........................................... 580 McHenry, James: Testimony.................................................... 542 Prepared statement........................................... 596 Morgan, Mark A.: Testimony.................................................... 534 Prepared statement........................................... 568 APPENDIX Minors and Families chart........................................ 601 Southwest Border Apprehensions/Asylum Claims chart............... 602 Human Rights First Report........................................ 603 ICE Statistics................................................... 619 Notice to Appear-REDACTED........................................ 620 Statement for the Record from Church World Serive................ 622 Responses to post-hearing questions for the Record: Mr. Morgan................................................... 623 Mr. Cuccinelli............................................... 672 Mr. Benner................................................... 690 Mr. McHenry.................................................. 727 UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: BY THE NUMBERS ---------- THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2019 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:31 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Romney, Scott, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, and Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I want to thank the witnesses for taking the time to testify, for taking the time to write your testimony, by the way. I have read it all. It is excellent, doing exactly what I was hoping we could do in this hearing, the first step in the problem-solving process, and we are well into many steps of this first step, though. This is close to 30 hearings we have held on some aspect of border security. But it is about gathering information, describing reality, trying to define the problem, do some root-cause analysis, and then the next step would be to define an achievable goal. There are all kinds of things we can try. What is an achievable goal before we really start talking about solutions? I want to thank Senator Peters, who I really look forward to being a good partner in trying to go through that process and actually starting to solve this problem. We are not going to solve all the problems of the world, but I think this is one we can get our arms around. I do have a chart\1\ that is certainly describing the magnitude of the problem. I have been building this over the last couple years. It shows a number of things, but it shows unaccompanied alien children (UAC) from Central America as well as people coming to this country illegally and being apprehended at the border as family units--two particular groups where we have laws on the books that really are loopholes that are being exploited. And you can see the results. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 86. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prior to 2012, we only had about 3,000 or 4,000 unaccompanied children from Central America come to this country illegally and were apprehended. In 2012, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) memorandum, it does not apply to anybody in the future, but it was used by coyotes as an incentive. They said, ``Go to America. You get the permiso slip,'' which is really the notice to appear (NTA). Again, reasonable people can disagree. I personally think that kind of sparked this, was a catalyst for what we see in the ensuing years. You can see in 2013, 36,000 individuals in those two categories. 2014, the year that President Obama declared a humanitarian crisis and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) was overwhelmed at that point in time, 120,000 unaccompanied children and individuals as family units came to this country illegally. And then the Obama Administration, obviously recognizing it as a real problem, started detaining children with their families, and that was a consequence. And you can see in 2015, that consequence, I would argue, reduced the flow and cut it almost in half. But then the Obama Administration was taken to court, and I think Secretary Jeh Johnson completely disagreed with the ruling but said that the Flores Agreement applied to not only unaccompanied children but accompanied children as well, and so the Obama Administration had to make a choice. Are we going to enforce the law, which would require us to separate children from their families? They chose, no, we are not going to do that, and that began what is commonly referred to as ``catch- and-release,'' which sparked even further. Candidate Trump obviously talked tough on the border. I think maybe that might be a little bit of why you see a downturn in 2017 when he first took office. But once the cartels, once the coyotes, once the individuals who want to come to this country realized that nothing had really changed in American immigration laws, they could still be fully exploited, the problem has really exploded. What is interesting about this chart is you have to realize this is all fiscal years (FY), and this exponential growth in people coming in as unaccompanied children and family units, the final year is not a full year. The approximately 240,000 individuals, now primarily people coming as family units, primarily illegally--we have added a new category of people coming in by the port of entry (POE) borders. That is the light blue and the little green line up there. Very few are really presenting at the ports of entry because it is a lot easier, it is a more streamlined process to come in illegally. In just the first 6 months of this year, not quite 6 months, we are over 240,000. We have doubled the full year figure from 2014 when President Obama declared that legitimately a humanitarian crisis. We have doubled that in less than the first 6 months. I think by anybody's definition this is a real problem. I was interested to see Secretary Jeh Johnson on ``Morning Joe'' last Friday describing when he came into work, if it was less than 1,000 apprehensions, it was an OK day. But if detentions or apprehensions were more than 1,000, it was going to be a really bad day. We have had days over 4,000 apprehensions in the recent weeks. This is a problem. We have to deal with it. As you can see, in 2014 or 2015, a reduction, a consequence actually has an effect. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff recognized the exact same thing back in 2005. Back then, 2003, there were about 5,200 Brazilians getting into Mexico and coming into America illegally through the Southwest Border. In 2004, it was 8,800. In 2005, that more than tripled to 31,000. Secretary Chertoff realized this was a problem and he had to do something about it. In response, DHS dedicated bed space. They detained and they initiated a program of expedited removal. Other Brazilians called it ``Texas Hold 'Em.'' By doing that, the next year only 1,400 people came illegally. And to quote Secretary Chertoff, he said, ``The word spread surprisingly swiftly; within its first 30 days, the operation had already begun to deter illegal border crossings by Brazilians. In fact, the number of Brazilians apprehended dropped by 50 percent. After 60 days, the rate of Brazilian illegal immigration through this sector was down 90 percent, and it is still significantly depressed all across the border. In short, we learned that a concentrated effort of removal can actually discourage illegal entries by non-Mexicans on the Southwest Border.'' I think my point in this problem-solving process is an achievable goal is something that we have already achieved at some point in time. The goal ought to be short term, immediately. How do we reduce that flow? The 240,000 individuals in less than 6 months, how can we reduce that number? Listen, I am all for helping Central American countries develop providing opportunity, but that is years in the future. It is certainly going to be a bigger problem when you have the drug cartels operating with impunity, destroying those public institutions. That is a really heavy lift. Michael Chertoff showed us there is a way for us to at least achieve this short-term goal of reducing that flow, and hopefully our witnesses will paint the picture that there is nothing humane about incentivizing people to take a very dangerous journey, reducing CBP, as I said last Friday, to a mere speed bump along the path to long-term residency in this country for unaccompanied children and people coming as family units. There is nothing humane about those people basically living in the shadows, potentially being exploited by employers. This is a problem. We have to recognize it as such, and we have to do something to fix it. I do ask that my written statement be entered into the record.\1\ Without objection, it will be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 55. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With that, I will turn it over to Senator Peters. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\2\ Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the Appendix on page 56. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I appreciate the Chairman's focus on obtaining accurate, timely data on migration and border security. Certainly, few issues that we face today are as complex as this one or as controversial. Far too often, harmful rhetoric drowns out reasonable dialogue, and I hope that this hearing can cut through that rhetoric and let us focus on the facts. The situation on our Southern Border, in Mexico, and throughout the Northern Triangle is dynamic. Our immigration system and our infrastructure should reflect that fact. The reality is that much of our current infrastructure was built to address the challenges of the 1990s and early last decade when the majority of unauthorized border crossings were single men seeking economic opportunity. That is not what the statistics show us today, and it is not what our staff saw during a bipartisan delegation to the Southern Border last month. Overwhelmingly, they saw families from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. They saw parents with children. They saw children who had made the journey to the border without their parents. They saw our hardworking law enforcement officers, public servants, volunteers, and civic leaders doing their best to manage what is certainly a very difficult situation. Many of these families are fleeing violence and extortion. Homicide rates in the Northern Triangle are some of the highest in the world. Corruption and impunity prevail. Only three out of every 100 homicides lead to trial and conviction. This breakdown of the rule of law is a clear ``push factor'' that drives migrants to flee these countries. Unfortunately, our system has not been able to keep pace with the increase in asylum claims. Screening interviews are being delayed. The average wait to appear before an immigration court is now over 2 years, and the backlog is quickly approaching 1 million cases. This is simply unacceptable. We need to do more to decrease processing times while increasing border security. We absolutely need secure borders, but it will take cooperation and credibility, not chaos and confusion. This Administration will need to cooperate with Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and international organizations to take on cartels and corruption. They will also need to cooperate with Congress and build credibility. Unfortunately, this Administration has provided too much chaos and confusion and too little credibility. It has been one step forward and two steps back. The Department of Justice (DOJ) approved a plan to reduce immigration court backlogs only to see backlogs grow as a result of an unnecessary government shutdown. We passed a bipartisan deal to make meaningful investments in security for both our Northern and Southern Border, only to see the President unilaterally declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and potentially pull away funds from important military construction projects. In February, the Department of Homeland Security announced a Memorandum of Cooperation with the Northern Triangle nations to combat human trafficking and organized crime, only to see the President cutoff existing funding to these countries just 5 weeks later. Chaos is not a strategy. We need bipartisan cooperation at home and effective American leadership projected abroad. This is still possible. Just yesterday, I introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Cornyn from Texas to address staffing shortages at our ports of entry across the Nation, both on the Northern Border and the Southern Border. This is especially important now as DHS is potentially moving upwards of 2,000 Customs and Border Protection officers to the Southern Border. I believe this legislation is an important first step we can take to reduce the strain on our Southern Border while improving the facilitation of trade, travel, and commerce across the United States. But there is clearly much more to do, and we will begin that journey today with your testimony. So we appreciate you being here, and I look forward to the discussion. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters. It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if you will all stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Morgan. I do. Mr. Davidson. I do. Mr. Selee. I do. Chairman Johnson. Please be seated. Let me first say that if the Committee Members have not read the full testimony of all the witnesses, I would really urge you to do so. It is excellent. As a result, what I have decided to do is give all three witnesses 7 minutes--we normally just give people 5--to summarize the excellent written testimony. Our first witness will be Mark Morgan. Mr. Morgan is the former Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP). Prior to joining the Border Patrol, Mr. Morgan spent 20 years in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), including nearly 3 years as a Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's El Paso Division. Mr. Morgan. TESTIMONY OF MARK MORGAN,\1\ FORMER CHIEF, U.S. BORDER PATROL (2016-17), U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Morgan. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to appear before you today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Morgan appears in the Appendix on page 58. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I enthusiastically agreed to appear when I was asked because I truly believe that our country is at a crossroads. With more than 30 years of public service, I am extremely concerned about the growing risks to our Nation's safety, national security, and rule of law due to illegal and uncontrolled immigration. We are experiencing a crisis at the Southern Border at a magnitude never seen in modern times. It is unprecedented. In the words of the former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, ``By anyone's definition, by any measure, right now we have a crisis at a border.'' I will say it is chaos. Make no mistake: Our personnel resources are overwhelmed. They are drowning. As each day passes, the threat to our country and the rule of law worsens. The loopholes in our asylum laws and nonsensical judicial precedent has driven what has devolved into essentially an open-border policy for a certain demographic. Central American families are incentivized and rewarded to come here illegally, enter our Southwest Border because they know DHS by law has to release them within 20 days into the interior of the United States where they are going to be allowed to remain indefinitely. It is simple. They know if they set one foot on American soil, say the magic words, they are allowed into the United States, and they know it. Through social media, smugglers, and family members who have successfully exploited our laws and remain in the United States legally, they are well informed. What should sound an additional alarm of concern is that most of these family members we are allowing in, we cannot properly vet. Let that soak in just for a second. We are letting in tens of thousands of people in this country every day who we know virtually nothing about. We must start being intellectually honest. Those coming, they are not all bad, but they are not all good. What is happening is counterintuitive to the rule of law and defies basic principles of sovereignty. Here are a couple of false narratives quickly that I would like to address. Only 15 percent of those coming in are found to have valid asylum claims, which really debunks the uniform outrage often used that immigrants are fleeing from extreme violence or persecution. In fact, recent statistics that I have seen have shown that the murder rate per capita has decline in the Northern Triangle countries. Baltimore, for example, has a higher murder rate per capita than Guatemala. The fact is they are being pulled here for two reasons: economic equality and family reunification. Neither are valid claims under the asylum process. Nevertheless, we continue to facilitate an abuse of our laws and the generosity of this country. As a society, we cannot turn our backs and ignore the law, especially Congress. We cannot selectively enforce the laws based on political ideology or a personal sense of morality. There is another false narrative which goes something like this: But the numbers of illegal immigrants are way down, so it cannot possibly be a crisis. It is essential to look at the context behind those numbers to evaluate their true meaning. In the late 1990s and 2000s, there was 1.5 million apprehensions at the border, but as previously mentioned, the overwhelming majority were Mexican adults, of which we deported 90 percent of them, sometimes within hours of being apprehended. Additionally, one-third of those apprehended were recidivism, meaning the same person going back and forth. Those numbers are really about a million. But back then, everyone agreed it was a crisis. Today 60 to 65 percent of those illegally crossing are family units and minors, and because of our broken laws and policies, those individuals are allowed into the country. Let us do the math: 1 million this year anticipated, that means we are going to release 650,000 individuals into this country that are going to remain here indefinitely. This makes the current crisis, in my opinion, the worst we have ever experienced. In 2016, as Chief, I estimated 15 percent of the agents' resources were being diverted from the front lines to support humanitarian activities. I saw that as a crisis, and so did everyone else. Now Border Patrol is diverting 40 percent of their personnel away from the front lines to provide humanitarian-related functions. Meanwhile, the cartels are exploiting the resulting increased gaps because of our resources being diverted. Simply put, more drugs and criminal aliens are illegally entering the United States. It is common sense. While the Border Patrol personnel are at their breaking point supporting the humanitarian crisis, the cartels are expanding the threat crisis while they are getting rich. It is a multi-billion-dollar industry for the cartels. Here is something else that is not discussed. We know the unfathomable abuse suffered by those making a dangerous journey. That has been talked about a lot. But the victimization of this vulnerable category of people that are coming in does not stop when they complete their entry into the United States, nor does the criminal activity, those criminal aliens making their way into the country. Many of those seeking improved economic equality and family reunification continue to be preyed upon and victimized long after they have made their way into the United States. I have seen firsthand the transition of countless youths into gang membership, and the reasons are varied but have remained consistent. The young immigrant population is increasingly susceptible and vulnerable to gang recruitment. That is a reality. Additionally, the ability to interdict and seize illegal narcotics is being negatively impacted as well--another cause and effect of the unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Again, it is common sense. Shut down interior checkpoints, divert 40 percent of your resources away from enforcement action. We should not be surprised that smugglers are exploiting the wide open border. As far the talking point that more drugs are seized at the POEs, simply false. Fifty percent of the border is wide open; 40 percent of your resources directed away from law enforcement; we have no idea what is coming in our Southwest Border. How can we fix this? We need Congress to pass new legislation to fix outdated laws and gaps in the DHS authorities. We need to continue to work with Central American countries to improve economic opportunities. We need to continue to work with Mexico to eradicate the transnational organizations as well as drive them to be partners in addressing the humanitarian crisis. We must continue to invest in border security, including additional infrastructure, technology, and personnel, where it makes sense, and we need increased support for appropriate interior enforcement. We must also confront our broken legal framework if we are to achieve lasting and effective border security. We need legislative answers to the Flores Settlement Agreement, which really it stops the ability and impedes our ability to maintain custody of families and minors. We must have the authority to detain asylum seekers while they are going through the immigration proceedings. We must also reengineer our laws to ensure all minor children who are not victims of trafficking or persecution are returned home and reunited with their families, regardless of their country of origin. These two fixes that I just mentioned eliminate catch- and-release. Congress can do that. The last fix that I want to talk about quickly--and I will wrap up here--a crisis requires swift, immediate, and bold action. It is chaotic. We have a crisis. I recommend a border- wide implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) which are being implemented currently in select locations whereby certain immigrants entering or seeking admission to the United States from Mexico--illegally or without proper documentation--may be returned to Mexico and wait outside of the United States for the duration of their immigration proceedings. Mexico has to get off the sidelines and be a proactive partner in this solution. Accompany this by port courts, which means we are pushing resources to the front lines to expedite all immigration proceedings. In closing, I would like to talk about Drew. This is Drew Rosenburg, a young man who died needlessly because of our broken immigration system. For me, Drew's story, along with all the other angel families, serves as a reminder, and it should serve as a reminder for all of us. We have failed. Our collective failure has resulted in the pain, suffering, and irreparable harm of unfathomable numbers of people. To be clear, this threat is not just to American citizens. The incentives of knowing you will be allowed into the United States outweighs any risk, harm, including death, for migrants. It has become an acceptable risk. Thirty-one thousand medical treatments are anticipated this year that Border Patrol will ensure immigrants receive. Last year alone, Border Patrol conducted 4,300 rescues of people trying to illegally enter this country because the incentives are so strong. This has to stop. No more Drew Rosenburgs. No more American citizens should die from something that we can prevent. His death was preventable along with thousands of American citizens, as well as immigrants looking for a better opportunity and a better life. The way it is being done now has to stop. It is not right. It is not working. People are dying. American citizens are dying; illegal immigrants coming here illegally are dying. We have to fix this. I thank you and I look forward to your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Our next witness is John Davidson. Mr. Davidson is a senior correspondent for The Federalist and a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Right on Immigration Initiative. Mr. Davidson. TESTIMONY OF JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON,\1\ SENIOR CORRESPONDENT, THE FEDERALIST Mr. Davidson. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify today about some of what I have seen on the border. I just want to highlight three key points from my written testimony, which you all have. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson appears in the Appendix on page 73. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first is the scale of people coming across into Texas communities and cities this year compared to last year and the way that those communities are in crisis. Second is what some of the migrants themselves say about why they are coming and what their situation is. The third is the vast, complicated black market that is operating south of the border that is driving and facilitating all of this illegal immigration and moving families up to and across our Southern Border. About this time last year, I visited a Catholic Charities respite center in McAllen, Texas, which at that time was receiving between 60 and 120 people a day, all of them families from Central America that had been discharged from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. The way it worked is that ICE would drop them off at the Greyhound station in downtown McAllen, and the Greyhound employees would call the Catholic Charities respite center and say, ``ICE just dropped off a bunch of people.'' The charity would send vans to pick them up and bring them into their respite center, which is sort of one-half of a rundown commercial building in downtown McAllen. They would give the kids something to eat, and they would help the adults find bus tickets and try to get them on a bus that same night to get them out because another group of people would be coming in the next afternoon, and there was not space for everybody to stay the night there. It was not a shelter. It was a respite center. It was not set up to be a shelter. Today the Catholic Charities respite center in McAllen is receiving between 800 and 1,000 people a day. Last Sunday, they received 1,300 people--way beyond their capacity. They are in a new facility now, but it is a former nursing home. They are not set up to receive this volume of people. McAllen is a city of about 150,000 people, and according to the mayor of the town and according to people that live there, they are now facing the prospect of thousands of migrants discharged from ICE custody wandering the streets and sleeping in doorways and on park benches. By any measure, the situation there is an emergency. This is just one border town in Texas. Something similar is playing out all up and down the border and all throughout southern Texas. I want to talk as well about some of the conversations and the time I have spent talking with migrants themselves. If you spend enough time down there and talk to enough people, a few common characteristics will stand out. The first is the majority of these family units are men traveling with one or more children--usually just one. Many of them will say they have a wife and other children back in their home countries, that they are coming here to find work and send money back home. They freely admit this. They are headed for all points across the United States and often have networks of family and relatives in those places. Many of them already have jobs lined up. Nearly all of them will say that they left their homes because of gang violence, threats, extortion, etc., or that they simply have nothing and they are claiming asylum. At the same time, many of them will admit that they do not plan to remain in the United States permanently and have a set amount of time that they plan to stay and live here and work before returning to their homes and their families--a year and a half, 3 years, 5 years. It varies. But a lot of them will say this. They all say that they paid a smuggler to secure safe passage across the border, anywhere from $2,000 to $6,000 per person, on average, sometimes more. Generally, they take cars or buses transiting through Mexico. Some of them will stay in hotels along the way. A lot of the groups, especially those showing up in downtown El Paso, appear to be in pretty good shape, and they report that they got here with no problem and were only on the road for 3 to 5 days, generally. Despite the challenges and dangers they face in their home countries, the vast majority of these people appear by all accounts to be not refugees but economic migrants, and very few of them appear to have what sound like valid asylum claims. Part of what is driving this--and this is the third point I want to emphasize especially--is that what is happening here is not an accident. It is an industry. When we talk about the migration pipeline through Mexico, we are talking about a very large international smuggling black market that is worth billions of dollars. A complex network of smugglers, local officials, drivers, landowners, lookouts, loan sharks in Central America, and Mexico drug cartels control the migration flow through Mexico and have, over the past decade or so, refined it into a lucrative business enterprise. The chief beneficiaries of this pipeline are Mexican drug cartels and the smuggling networks that work all throughout Mexico. Generally, the cartels require every man, woman, and child who passes across the border to pay a tax, which is usually included in the fee that the smugglers will quote to Central American families. Without paying this tax, migrants cannot cross the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) and in many cases are at risk of being kidnapped or otherwise exploited by these cartels in northern Mexico. The amount of money that they bring in is substantial. In the Gulf Region alone, cartel factions are making hundreds of millions of dollars annually off illegal immigration, off this tax that they charge per person. The numbers from last year were very high. The numbers from this year will be orders of magnitude higher. This black market is sophisticated. The inception point is in villages and towns across Central America, and it works mostly, at the beginning through word of mouth. If you want to migrate, you get hold of somebody whose family member or neighbor migrated, and they put you in touch with a local smuggler who quotes you a price. Adults who bring a child with them get a cheaper price because it is easier for smugglers to transport families claiming asylum than single adults who are trying to evade detection. This is for the simple reason that with asylum seekers, smugglers simply take them up to the U.S. border and tell them when to cross. They do not go across the border themselves, and, therefore, they are not putting themselves at risk for being apprehended. Smugglers themselves are telling potential migrant families that if they claim asylum, they will be allowed to stay in the United States and work. They do not have deep knowledge of asylum policy, but they know enough to be able to sell the services that they are trying to get families to buy. They are incorporating this into their sales pitch, and they are instructing them in what to say to U.S. authorities. It is part of how they market their services. I see my time is running out, so in conclusion, I will just reiterate what the Chairman said and the Ranking Member said. There is indeed a crisis at the border, and it is being driven by three major factors. For those claiming asylum, it is easier to enter the United States now than it was during the Obama Administration because there is no capacity at Federal detention facilities, and the families can expect to be released after being detained. Smugglers are marketing to people who do not want to undertake an arduous or dangerous journey, like women and families with small children. The smugglers have created an efficient travel package that has proven popular in Central America, and word has gotten back to these Central American communities that, if they pay, the journey will be short, safe, and you will not be detained in the United States. Third, the conditions in Central America have not improved enough to induce people to remain in their home countries. Poverty, violence, and corruption, combined with the fear that it is not going to be this easy to get into the United States forever, is prompting families to come now. I will reiterate what Mr. Morgan said. Only legislative action can address this problem. The problem is not with CBP or with Border Patrol. Those are not the institutions that have failed here. Congress has failed by its inaction to address this crisis. As long as Central American families know they can gain entry to the United States by claiming asylum at the border, the crisis will continue. As long as cartels and criminal networks know they can profit by trafficking migrants across the border, they will do so. As long as conditions in Central America continue to fester, families who can afford it will seek a better life for their children by traveling north. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I look forward to your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Davidson. Our final witness is Dr. Andrew Selee. Dr. Selee has served as the president of the Migration Policy Institute since August 2017. Previously, he spent 17 years at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Dr. Selee. TETIMONY OF ANDREW SELEE, PH.D.,\1\ PRESIDENT, MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE Mr. Selee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking Member Peters, thank you to all the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify today. I am, as you know, with the Migration Policy Institute, which is a nonpartisan, independent organization that tries to do fact-based research and look at pragmatic solutions for managing migration, both in the United States and around the world. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Dr. Selee appears in the Appendix on page 78. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I just got back this morning from Phoenix, Arizona, and so let me start off by saying, Arizona is deeply linked to Sonora, Mexico. A lot of what goes on, when we talk about the border, we are talking about a specific part, but it is worth starting out by remembering that we actually have lots of legal commerce and lots of legal transit across the border. Indeed, most of what goes on between, Mexico and the United States is, in fact, legal flow back and forth, and it works quite well. We did have a long period of Mexican unauthorized immigration into this country, and quite significant. Chief Morgan made reference to it earlier, quite significant. It started to slow down in 2008 and has slowed down considerably. It has continued to slow down despite the current peak we are seeing in unauthorized migration. Mexicans have stopped coming, and hold that thought because I will come back to that in a minute. Mexicans come legally, by the way, to this country. Lots of Mexicans are still coming through legal channels, but we have seen an enormous drop in unauthorized migration from Mexico. An enormous drop. We started to see in 2012 and in 2014, as you have seen on this chart\2\ that the Chairman has given us, a spike in Central American unauthorized migration. 2014, let me offer one other explanation, which is the gang truce in El Salvador ended, and El Salvador had a huge spike in murders. In 2014, it became the most violent country in the world, either in 2014 or 2015, so there was both a push and a pull factor most likely. I think that is something we need to keep in mind. There are push and pull factors going on, as well as transit factors, as well as smugglers are an actor here, as you heard from John. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The chart referenced by Dr. Selee appears in the Appendix on page 86. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For a long time, we could continue to say that unauthorized migration was dropping at the border, that illegal migration was dropping at the border, because the Mexican numbers were going down so much that it obscured the fact that the Central American numbers had gone up. That has changed. In the past few months, we have seen what is clearly a significant number of people crossing the border. We are back to numbers we have not seen in a decade. And particularly this is a substantially different flow than we have seen before in its origins, characteristics, and drivers, and as a result, we need different policy solutions to address it. This flow is predominantly Central American, not Mexican. It is predominantly families and unaccompanied children, 61 percent this year, mostly families, 51 percent, 10 percent unaccompanied children, rather than adults traveling alone, and it is driven by a complex set of factors that include not only economic opportunity in the United States, but also the effects of chronic violence and poor governance in the countries of origin, and the incentives created by the ballooning backlog of U.S. immigration courts. There are at least four things that changed in the past year that have created this spike. As with any wave, there is not one cause. There are multiple things that interacted with each other. But one of them is the smuggling patterns changed, and they changed largely because of the caravans. The caravans are not the reason for the spike in numbers. The caravans are a small percentage of people that cross. The caravans got the smugglers to respond. The caravans were an existential threat to the smugglers. They were taking their business away. It is a free way of crossing. The smugglers innovated. They got creative about what they offer, about their prices, about their modes of smuggling, some of the things you just heard Mr. Davidson say. They got very creative about how they sell their messages. Smugglers matter in this. Second, there was a lot of U.S. policy chaos. U.S. policy chaos created the perception and created the awareness that was then exploited by smugglers about where some of the ability was for families to stay in this country. That information was not generally available, and particularly the news cycle that drove this was family separation. Family separation, which was then abandoned, created a news cycle about the fact that families could not be held, and this information has been used effectively by smugglers to let people know, coupled with, as you heard, the notion that at some point the border was actually going to get shut down. It is going to become harder, but right now you can actually be let loose. This is the message people are getting. Third, I think we do have to take seriously worsening conditions in Guatemala and Honduras, and this is primarily a crisis of Guatemalans and Hondurans coming to the United States. Salvadorans have dropped in the past 2 years. I will come back to that. Now, they have gone up a little bit this year, actually, with the overall surge, but they are still way below numbers of 2 years ago. This is primarily Guatemala and Honduras. Something is going on in those two countries, and it is tied in part to an ongoing drought, ongoing issues that have affected about 5 million people in those two countries. It did not start this year. It started about 4 years ago, almost 5 years ago, but it is something that has not gotten better, and it has continued to impoverish people. You have seen a movement of some of the organized gangs from El Salvador into parts of Honduras and Guatemala where they were not there before, so homicide statistics are going down, but predatory violence is going down in some of these communities. You are seeing a worsening governance situation in both Guatemala and Honduras, unlike El Salvador. You are seeing actually in Guatemala and Honduras significant backsliding in democracy in the past year. The government is taking on international bodies that were sent there to help the attorney general's (AG) office take on corruption, and that is a big issue. In terms of people's sense of ``Is my country going to get better?'' that matters. There is one other possible explanation, which I would almost discard but not quite, which is that Mexico's new government sort of let everyone through. That does not seem to be true. Looking at the numbers, Mexican enforcement has more or less continued on autopilot, as it always did. The numbers look very similar this year, the last 3 months, 4 months of this new Administration versus a year before. However, there was clearly--in the same ways in the United States a bit of policy chaos, there has been a bit of policy chaos in Mexico about what their message is. They have started talking about creating legal pathways that they do not yet have. And so that may have also been part of the smugglers' message, which is it is easier to get through Mexico. It is not a drop in enforcement, but it is a change in messaging. So in the same way there is no single factor leading to the rise in migration, there is no single way of fixing this. But let me throw out three options that would actually help us deal with this. The first is to fix the asylum system. This is not a question of trying to get around Flores or get around the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). This is a question of an asylum system that cannot make decisions about who needs protection and who does not. This is something in our power to do. It is something in your power to do, and it is something in the Administration's power to do, is to make the asylum system make timely decisions. If we can make timely decisions, it would be both more fair to people who have real asylum claims--and I have talked to a lot of people who had pretty strong asylum claims, so out there I can tell you there is a bunch of people that do, and we should be giving them justice in real time and giving them protection in real time. But it would also discourage people that do not have asylum claims, and there are a lot of people who are economic migrants, and they should actually be returned because asylum is not the pathway for people who are economic migrants. We can talk later about labor migration and how we do this, but we do not want the asylum system used for that. There is a simple way of doing this, and nothing is simple--right?--but there is a way that is actually doable, which is instead of sending everything to the backlogged immigration courts, we have asylum officers make the first decision. DHS can actually have asylum officers make the first decision. This is what we do with refugees. We have a pattern-- -- Senator Carper. In their native countries? Mr. Selee. No. In the United States, but at the border. Rather than sending--we can actually, have the asylum officers make that--it would require a rule change or legislation, but it is eminently doable. You could make decisions in months instead of years. OK? We do not actually need to hold children in detention centers either. We can actually make this--we can do case management. There are lots of ways we can do this that is both humane but also tough. Second, we need to work with Mexico to strengthen their migration system. They have said, the new government has said that they want to strengthen their asylum system, give more people asylum. They have said they want to create labor migration. There are parts of Mexico with real labor needs. We should help them do this. This is in our interest; it is in their interest. I do not know if it is going to happen quickly or effectively, and it is something in which we could be very helpful as a partner in doing. We have some experience in doing this as well. We could bring in the Canadians and others. But this is something we should take advantage of the moment. The more people stay in Mexico and the more they fill labor needs and they receive protection in Mexico, the less pressure on our border. It is time to take advantage of that. Third, we should work with Mexico and Central America to tackle the smuggling networks. We can talk about that, and we should prioritize the predatory networks and the ones dealing in special interest immigrants. Finally, we do need to invest in governance, public security, and youth employment in Central America. Mexico is the case that shows us that over time some things do make a difference. In Mexico's case, more Mexican investments, but it was also tying the economy to the United States where people stopped coming. The U.S. economy is really good, by the way. I forget to mention that. The U.S. economy is really good. Mexicans are not coming. Guatemalans and Hondurans are coming because there is a push factor as well. Right? The pull factors and the push factors work together. Salvadorans are not coming in large numbers yet. I mean, we will see what the numbers look like down the road. It tells you that if you invest in the point of origin, it can make a difference over time. I agree with the Chairman, it is not a fail-safe that works tomorrow. But in a place like El Salvador where there seems to be a virtuous cycle going on, where you actually have demographics in your favor--it is an older population, more urbanized population where security seems to be getting better, the kind of investments we have made on the ground with local governments in El Salvador as far as that seem to be making a difference. You can actually tell in the 50 municipalities where we have worked predominantly the kind of investments in youth engagement, in community policing, as well as what we have done on national level to support the attorney general's office and go after corruption, these things make a difference. It is going to be harder to do in Guatemala and Honduras. I will not sell a bill of goods that we cannot come up with. It will be harder. But it is something clearly we need to do because that will be our long-term solution. Just to conclude, because I know I am over time, let me say that there is no magic formula to stop migration flows. We need to think in terms of a range of policy strategies. We do need to accept that there are legitimate asylum seekers out there. I can tell you stories of--I spend a lot of time in women's shelters and in youth shelters in Mexico. I can tell you, any number of stories of a woman whose 3-year-old had a gun put to his head and was told if they did not make their next payment to the extortionist, to the local gang, they would kill her son. The next time they could not make the payment, they left. I can tell you about a young woman I met who left because the gang leader in her neighborhood wanted her to be his woman, whatever that means, and she decided to flee. As she fled through Mexico, she got a call in every city. Every shelter she landed in, someone from the gang called her to let her know that he was following her, up until she got to Tijuana and finally was able to disappear. I can tell you about a young man who was told he had to join the gang or they were coming for his mother, and he never went home again. He had his brother go get his stuff and never went home and has not seen his family since. That said, that is not everyone. We are a country that cares about protection. We are country that cares about refugees. We need to have an asylum system that works. At the same time, that asylum system should be timely enough that people who are using it for other means than protection should actually not make the cut and should be returned in a timely way as well. We need to work with our partners in Mexico and Central America. We should not be threatening them. We should be working with them. We should be looking at the root causes of migration because in the end that is the one thing that is going to make a difference in the long term. I would put out again the example of Mexico. This was once--15 years ago, it would be impossible to think that people would stop migrating from Mexico. I mean, even 10 years ago I did not believe--5 years ago, I was not sure I believed this was not going to start up again. I actually believe it now. El Salvador, I think we may be at the beginning, cautiously, but I think we may be at the beginning. Guatemala and Honduras, we have to imagine that we have to get them to a place where people do not want to leave, with both the incentives on our side to leave, because I think there are incentives in our policies, do not bring people, but also the causes on the ground do not lead people to go. The smugglers, also, we have actually dealt with in such a way that they are less of a threat and less pernicious in their ability to convince people to move when they should not. Thanks. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Dr. Selee. I am going to defer my questioning, but I want to make a couple points. First of all, we will definitely stipulate there are all kinds of depredations; there are all kinds of people that are fleeing unbelievable types of threats. But I do look at what is probably our best information right now. About 15 percent of people seeking asylum actually have those asylum claims granted. So that would indicate to me about 15 percent of the people coming in here are subject to those types of threats, which, of course, we all want to grant asylum for those. But 85 percent are probably more in the category of economic migrants. Now, those are not perfect stats, but it gives us some kind of indication. The other thing is, again, separate out achievable goals short term versus long term. Right now, what I want this Committee to work on is the short-term goal, which I would say is what we need to concentrate on: reducing this flow of illegal immigration. I am happy to talk about the long-term goal, but recognize it is a long-term goal. We are not going to improve the economies significantly to reduce this by development dollars in Central America. Again, I just kind of want that to inform our discussions and questions as we move forward. But, with that, I will turn it over to Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the three of you for your testimony. You certainly gave us an awful lot that we will now try to unpack through a series of questions over the remaining time that we have in this hearing. First, I want to deal with a short-term issue that you mentioned, Chairman. According to the CBP's own workload staffing model, the Office of Field Operations is understaffed by nearly 4,000 CBP officers right now. Certainly we must address the challenge of the Southern Border, which was laid out quite extensively by the three of you gentlemen. But these efforts should not create a large-scale disruption in the legitimate trade and travel that is occurring across these borders, and I remind everybody we have a Northern Border as well as a Southern Border, and these trade relationships are critical to the economic viability of our country. Yesterday I introduced legislation with Senator Cornyn that would fully staff our ports of entry, airports, seaports, and land ports of entry. Dr. Selee, I appreciated that in your December testimony before the Judiciary Committee you specifically recommended investments in technology, customs officials, asylum officers, and things that you have echoed here today. But could you discuss the potential negative impacts to our economy of moving hundreds or even thousands of CBP officers from our ports of entry to the Border Patrol sectors? What will that potentially do? Mr. Selee. I think it is hard to underestimate how much the U.S. industrial base, our productions chains, are, in fact, North American. They are not American anymore. I mean, the auto industry relies on an integrated platform that is, Canada, the United States, and Mexico. So I have, somewhat too poetically, called it a ``murder-suicide'' to close down the border. We can do it, but it actually comes back and boomerangs on us as well. This is the kind of thing where we are deeply economically interdependent. It is true in refrigerators; it is true in cars; it is true in--run down the U.S. industrial production. It is starting to be true in technology, some areas of technology, but slightly less true. We are deeply integrated. So even slowdowns have a huge impact on just-in-time manufacturing, right? It has a huge impact on American workers, right? We can sustain it for a week or two. We can sustain it-- American industry will survive for a short amount of time. If we continue to disrupt commerce across the border, that will be an issue for American workers, and Mexican and Canadian workers, for the long term. It will have a huge impact on gross domestic product (GDP) growth. This is an area where I think we should not underestimate how interdependent we have become. Actually, the Governor of Arizona, talks about this quite eloquently. This really is a-- Sonora and Arizona are one tied-together entity, economic entity. If you go to San Diego and Tijuana, Mayor Faulconer of San Diego talks about Tijuana and San Diego now being one metro area rather than two cities because they are economically integrated in a way that was not true 10 or 20 years ago. Senator Peters. Dr. Selee, you mentioned the impact on manufacturing. Certainly we see that firsthand in Michigan with the dependence of the auto industry, as you mentioned, of both Mexico and Canada and the just-in-time delivery that we see across the Canadian border in particular that, if disrupted, creates a cascade of bad impacts that ultimately impact American workers and impact our country, but agriculture as well. If the agricultural inspections that we are taking CBP officers away and sending them to the Southern Border, that could have a devastating impact on agriculture, too, couldn't it? Mr. Selee. A huge agricultural market for the United States, Mexico is one of our biggest markets for any number of agricultural products, from soybeans to, wheat, corn, pork, and beef. Actually, Mexico is one of the top, one, two, or three on all of those. Yes, it is a huge market disruption, and, obviously, is a source for strawberries and fresh fruits and other things we consume as well. So huge impact. Senator Peters. But having those officers in ports of entry around the country, because we have imports coming in from around the world---- Mr. Selee. We do. Senator Peters [continuing]. If not screened properly, can have a devastating impact on our agricultural industry. Mr. Selee. Yes, very much so. We can miss this in the talk about the tough things going on at the border, but I think one of the things that we have actually achieved, to the credit of CBP, actually, over the past few years and their counterparts in Canada and Mexico, is we increasingly manage the border at both the north and the south very collaboratively and with a lot of minding the flows rather than just the line, how we prescreen things before they get to the border. It has become much more secure and much more efficient at the border than it has ever been before. Senator Peters. In 2016, to Senator Johnson, you included a measure in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to establish some baseline metrics for the DHS to measure security along the borders, and I want to compliment you on that. I think that is an important effort to understanding what exactly we are dealing with, and data is critical. We want to make this fact-based and data-driven as to what we do going forward. I would like to ask the panel, is there additional data that CBP should be collecting in your estimation so that we can get a real true sense of what is happening here? I will start with you, Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan. I think if you look at the data right now, they are doing a pretty good job--I mean, the data is not perfect, and I do agree there is some improvement in some areas. I think we saw in the past that, when you have taken action like separation of families, we should do a better job of that data, and I think we can all agree on that. But if you look at what they are collecting, it clearly paints a picture from 2014 to now. It clearly shows the demographic changes from Mexican adults to Central American and Northern Triangle countries. It clearly shows that in 2012-- really in 2014, how it was mainly unaccompanied minors, but now it has shifted to family members. I mean, those are the key essential elements of data that they are collecting that really illustrates the critical crisis that we are in now. Specifically, are there overall improvements? But I think they are doing a pretty good job right now. Senator Peters. Mr. Davidson, specifically, is there anything additional--not what we are doing right now, I appreciate that comment, but anything additional? I will go to you afterwards, Dr. Selee. Mr. Davidson. To my mind, the one area when it comes to data that we do not have any and we may never have any is data about the smuggling networks and the cartels and the kind of money that they are making off of this. We can do back-of-the- envelope approximations. An $800 tax per person to the gulf cartels for everyone that crosses, that is hundreds of millions of dollars on that part of the border. But the amount of money, I think, is substantial, and I do not think that we quite have gotten our minds around that yet, how big the industry is. That does not really answer your question, but---- Senator Peters. Thank you. Dr. Selee? Mr. Selee. Yes, I would agree. Actually, information on smuggling networks and the fact that you have to really compile that across agencies and across countries, which is complicated. I would say also making sure that the numbers that DHS has are public in a timely way. I will actually throw out--just since we have mentioned a couple times here the asylum numbers, the latest asylum numbers we have are, by the way, 15 percent approval rate for Guatemalans, but it goes up to about 21 or 22 percent for Hondurans, 25 percent for Salvadorans. It actually goes up a lot depending--El Salvador has been much more of a violence-driven flow. Guatemala has been a more economic flow. Honduras is in between. But I mention that because those are old numbers. OK? We do not actually have updated numbers. A lot of the numbers that we deal with on the outside--but I suspect a number that people on the inside are dealing with also have a giant lag in them, and so investing in up-to-date--especially when we are dealing with things that change in 2 months, right? This would have been a different conversation 3 months ago than it is right now. We have to have real-time numbers that can be socialized across agencies to Congress and to the wider world. Senator Peters. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters. As the accountant on the Committee, it drives me nuts that we do not have the kind of data that we really do need. But I agree with Chief Morgan that we have done a pretty good job. We kind of have this assessed. But I would like to know exactly what it is in terms of percent of asylum claims right now that are valid. That gives us information. Talking to the Secretary last week, her sense was it is shifting more and more to an economic migrant flow. But, again, you just do not have the data on it. Senator Hassan. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Peters, for this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses today. I also wanted to thank the Ranking Member for his opening comments and associate myself with them. Thank you for that. Dr. Selee, we have heard from all three of you today about the impact of drug cartels at our Southern Border. Last year, I was at the border myself, and one of the things that I heard from agents on the front lines was the need to stem the flow of illegal firearms and cash southbound from the United States to Mexico, because that is, of course, feeding the cartels. Firearms and cash make their way into the hands of these cartels, empowering and driving them to commit more acts of violence on both sides of the border. Dr. Selee, in your opinion, what needs to be done to improve our capacity to conduct southbound inspections at the U.S.-Mexico border? Mr. Selee. That is a tough one because you do not want to gum up the system going south. Senator Hassan. Right. Mr. Selee. At the same time, it really is a problem. We have a circular business here, right? The cartels are moving narcotics northward across the border, but then the money that is spent by American consumers of illegal narcotics is then going back into Mexico, and some of it is used to purchase arms and head back. We have a real circular trade going on here. Senator Hassan. Yes. Mr. Selee. Probably the best way of dealing with this is not actually stopping people at the line, but it is looking at the flows. It is what CBP is becoming increasingly adept at doing, what the FBI does very well as well, which is increasingly it is how do you follow the networks of people that are involved in arms trafficking? How do you the kind of investigations that allow you to figure out who are the people that are moving the money? First of all, the financial side, who is moving the money? Some of it still moves in cash, which is hard to believe, this quantity of money. Some of it moves through the financial system, some of it moves in cash, though. Because those networks are there, right? People who are going north are going south again. So it is actually more in the investigation side. That is a coordination issue among agencies, and it is a coordination issue with Mexico as well. Senator Hassan. And that assumes that, of course, if we can have good investigations that follow the money and follow the firearms, we will be able to disrupt the cartels, right? Mr. Selee. That is right. The most we can hope for is disrupting, to be honest with you. I mean, I do not think we are going to stop the business by, stopping all the money, but disrupting it enough that you create chaos. A little bit of chaos and disruption and a big of degrading of their financial logistical networks goes a long way. Senator Hassan. Right, and working, obviously, with governments south of the border, too. Mr. Selee. Very much so. We did this right after--during the Calderon administration in Mexico, both with the Bush Administration and the beginning of the Obama Administration, we were very active, actually, on the financial side. We have moved a little bit away from it. Senator Hassan. OK. That is helpful. We have also heard from other witnesses here today and many of us up on the dais about the migration that is happening despite the President and the Administration's actions. If I understand your testimony correctly, you indicate that actually the opposite is true. In your view, are the actions and policy decisions of this Administration contributing to the spike in migration and border crossing at the Southern Border right now? Mr. Selee. I think the answer is yes, although it would not be the first Administration that has done that. Senator Hassan. Right. Understood. Mr. Selee. Being fully balanced on this. My sense is that we have tried repeatedly to overreach and fix specific things. We have actually been trying to limit people's access to asylum, trying to separate families, we need to be actually fixing our asylum system. There is one big thing we could do that would actually make this easier. We keep doing sort of overreaches. It was family separation, but then it was a DHS order to not take asylum applications between ports of entry. That was stopped in the courts. There have been a couple others along the way. It is metering, frankly, also I think is another piece of this, where it becomes very hard for people who have legitimate claims to present those at the ports of entry, and so the message from the smugglers is, ``Hey, come with me between ports of entry.'' People who might actually have wanted to do the right thing are not doing it. We need to figure out, rather than trying to fix a lot of small things, just do one big fix that actually makes sense here. Senator Hassan. Right. It seemed to me from your testimony that in some ways we are playing--it is whack-a-mole, right? I mean, we go after one problem; we create a ripple effect or a side effect; then we have to go after that, when, in fact, we have some systemic changes we need to do, including a lot more judges, a lot more personnel at the border, something I heard about when I was at the border, smart infrastructure, smart deterrence and technology at the border. Thank you very much, and I yield my time. Chairman Johnson. Senator Portman. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate all of you being here. Chief, I was doing a ride-along with the El Paso Sector, probably 40 years ago, which dates me, and you indicated that things have changed dramatically. At that time, it was primarily men coming over from Mexico looking for work, and the numbers were about a million, but I actually was working with some of those men at that time, and some of them were apprehended by the Border Patrol, and they were back that night because they were sent back to Mexico and they simply crossed again. There was not the families, there were not the kids, so it is a very different concern. On data, I could not agree with you all more. We want the data. We want it in a timely fashion. We really do not have good numbers. We do know that the vast majority, whether it is 15 or 20 percent, of asylum claims are turned down. I guess we know that generally speaking. We also know that of those, 10 percent, roughly, we are told by the Secretary of DHS, who are now being sent back to Mexico to await a hearing, which is a pilot program, in effect, that there seems to be some indication that those individuals are not staying in Mexico waiting for their hearing but going back to their home country, which is primarily Northern Triangle countries. Does anybody have any data on that, any information on that? Dr. Selee, you may know about that program. Chief or Mr. Davidson, any thoughts on what those numbers are? Mr. Morgan. I do not. Senator Portman. Dr. Selee, do you know? Mr. Selee. I can try and get that to the extent the Mexican authorities may know something, but I have not seen that. My sense from journalists that are following this--there is a set of journalists that have been following this. Most people seem to be staying and waiting to see how their case plays out. But I would not doubt you get a few people headed back. It is still too new. We are talking about 300 people, more or less, the last number I saw earlier this week, so it is a small number. Senator Portman. I do not think it is the solution to the entire problem because I think you have to deal with the broader issue, including, in my view dealing with the TVPRA issue and the Flores decision, and, just coming up with a new approach generally to immigration. But I think it is an interesting short-term effort to try to encourage people to stay in Mexico rather than coming over here and awaiting their hearing. What percentage of people who are released to the community actually show up at the hearing? Do we have that number? Mr. Morgan. We have a general number, so what they say, the numbers that I understand--again, the numbers are not perfect, but about 40 percent do not show up. They end up getting orders of deportation in absentia, and then the remaining do show up. Of course, the majority of those, the claim is found to be unsubstantiated. Senator Portman. Do you agree with that, Dr. Selee? Mr. Selee. Yes, that is about right. It depends on what group you are talking about. For families, it is fairly high. People tend to show up--there are two places that people can disappear, right? One is they get through--they are released. They are either given a notice to appear , and they do not show up or they do show up. They go through credible fear, and then they have to apply for asylum. A lot of the disappearance comes at that point. People do not apply for asylum--or they do not show up for their NTA hearing. Once people apply for asylum, the numbers are pretty good about people carrying through their case, and people that have lawyers actually overwhelmingly carry through their case. But I would say the numbers I have seen are probably there, 40 percent probably do not, 60 percent do. Senator Portman. I think most people who we represent would be surprised by those numbers, and I think there is a broken system here, and we just added a lot more judges, as you know, in this latest appropriations bill, and we also added some other things to border security, including more inspections at the border for drugs. In Ohio, we are getting slammed by drugs coming across that border. Most of the fentanyl, by the way, comes through the mail from China, but some of it is coming from Mexico now and in higher numbers. That number has increased. But crystal meth, which is our new problem in Ohio, is primarily, maybe exclusively even, being made in Mexico and coming across. Of course, heroin has been coming across, about 90 percent through the border. This inspection technology I hope will work better, and, Chief, I do not know if you had much exposure to that at the ports of entry, but do you feel as though this new technology is going to make a big difference in terms of being able to stop some of the flow of drugs? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. Unequivocally, we need more technology. We need more technology at the ports. We need more technology in between the ports, absolutely. But make no mistake. One of the false narratives out there is that more drugs are interdicted at the ports. First of all, just on its facts, that is incorrect. If you take into account, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, and methamphetamines, yes, at the ports. But if you take into consideration all drugs, pound for pound, more is actually interdicted in between the ports. What is another element that is critically important in that false narrative is 50 percent of the border is wide open, and now that 40 percent of the Border Patrol resources are diverted to do the humanitarian mission, the border is even more unsecure. The real thing we should be focusing on and talking about is we have no idea, sir, what is coming through our border because it is unsecure. We have no idea. Senator Portman. Again, going to data, hard to get to good data when we do not have the ability to collect the data. Let me ask you another question. One of the things we focus on a lot is, the push factors, and I agree that the Northern Triangle countries deserve to have more assistance from us that is effective. We have tried different things. We tried the Millennium Challenge approach, particularly in Honduras, which I had great hope for. Frankly, it did not work out as I had hoped. I was on that board at one point when I was U.S. Trade Representative and was very supportive of trying to help change some of the institutions in those countries to create more rule of law and create the basis for economic development. I am not sure we know how to do that, but we should do more of that. On the pull factors, one of the things that I think is lost sometimes is that these people are primarily coming here to work. It is a magnet. The families and the kids, people might say, ``Well, that is for another reason.'' Not really because those adults are coming here to find a job. As was indicated earlier, many have a job already lined up. What do you all think of making E-Verify mandatory and actually dealing with the magnet, the draw, which is a job ultimately? Right now I think people would be surprised to learn that with regard to E-Verify, which is an attempt to authorize somebody to be able to work, to say whether they are here legally or not, we do not have an effective system. We do not have an effective system when someone shows up with a false ID, fake Social Security card, fake driver's license, employer is off the hook, and it is not mandatory. Can you all talk about that as a pull factor and whether we should do more on E-Verify? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. So the answer to that is yes, absolutely. Just like we should continue to, work with the Mexican Government, just like we should continue to work with the Northern Triangle countries, just like we need more technology, just like we need increased barrier. All that is true, and we need to get better at that. But make no mistake. We can do all of that we are talking about, sir, all of that, and nothing is going to change. The numbers are going to keep coming because of challenges like the Flores Settlement and TVPRA. If those two elements are not addressed, which is going to take congressional action, if they are not fixed, the incentives are there. That is the pull factor. The pull factor is Flores and TVPRA. We could do E-Verify. Yes, we need it. We can get more technology. Yes, we need it. Physical barrier, yes. Continue to work with Mexico, yes. Northern Triangle countries, yes. Those numbers are not going to change, and the chart shows it. We have been working with Mexico. With all due respect, Mexico, the reason why adult Mexican and the illegal entry of Mexicans went down was because we, America, we applied consequences. We removed them. Now, you can say that work with Mexico helped a little bit, but make no mistake. Those numbers went down because we removed them and we applied consequences. So all this other stuff, while it is important, it is not going to eliminate the Central American families and minors from coming until we fix Flores, until we fix TVPRA. That will remove the incentive. That will eliminate catch-and-release. I promise you you will see those numbers go down dramatically. Senator Portman. My time has expired. Again, I appreciate all three of you and your service. I would say that even for these families coming up from Central America, I believe the primary pull factor is a job, is our economy, so I do think there is a way for us to address that through legislation. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. So just real quick, one piece of data we do collect is if we detain an individual versus if we do not detain them, on final order of removal, if they are detained, we remove about 77 percent. If we do not detain, we only remove about 7 percent. So that kind of gives you the idea, that is one stat we actually do keep track of. I would also say in terms of Mexico, a lot of it is the Mexican economy has really revved up. I think North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) worked, and as a result, Mexico needs more workers, and if anything, we might even had an outflow of that. The next questioner is Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Our thanks to each of you. This is a little bit like Groundhog Day. I have been sitting here for 18 years, and we have talked about this issue a whole lot. I have said to my colleagues more times than they want to remember that there is no silver bullet here. There are a lot of silver BBs. Some of them are bigger than others. We are hearing about Flores revisited. We are hearing about TVPRA. I had the privilege of leading a congressional delegation with Jeff Merkley and some of our House colleagues about a month ago, and we were in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. We do not have an ambassador in Honduras. We have not had one all year, did not have one last year, did not have one the year before. That is crazy. That is crazy in this situation. We could do something about that if we get a nominee. There was a nominee 2 years ago, and he was held up and never allowed to go through--not by us, not by our side, but by the other side. I want to just mention a couple things about my trip to the Northern Triangle. You mentioned, Dr. Selee, that something interesting is going on in El Salvador, and you are right. Fifty cities there, 50 town cities, have been targeted for crime reduction successfully. We are complicit in those actions, which is a good thing. For every $1 we put up through the Alliance for Prosperity in El Salvador, they spend $7. It is like Home Depot: ``You can do it. We can help.'' We have also just had an election several months ago. The current leader of El Salvador is a 75-year-old guerrilla leader with close ties to the Cubans, the Venezuelans, the Chinese. He has been succeeded by a 37-year-old mayor of San Salvador who gets economic development, understands the role of government in creating a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation, understands why crime and corruption are important elements in creating that nurturing environment. He is the first candidate in El Salvadoran history to win an outright election as President of his country. Guatemala is going to have an election in June, and some of the folks who helped put together the winning campaign in El Salvador are helping to run their campaign of former Guatemalan Attorney General Thelma Aldana. She is going to be a change agent. If she is elected, she will be a change agent in terms of crime and corruption. There is something for us to learn from that election in El Salvador, and the fact is that illegal immigration is not dropping in El Salvador but it is not skyrocketing, and I think it is in part because people who live there sense a renewed sense of hope and opportunity. We have talked a bit about what can Congress do, revisit the Flores decision. It has been mentioned here that part of the problem, a big problem, we have 157 million people who went to work today in this country--157 million. There are about 3 or 4 million jobs that nobody showed up to do. Americans do not want to do that work, cannot do that work, are not educated to do that work. There are folks who want to come to this country who can and are willing to do that work, and they will try real hard to get here to have these opportunities. We passed by a two-thirds margin immigration reform. How many years ago was it--6, 7, or 8 years ago? Part of that was a guest visitor worker program, which I think makes a lot of sense in the world. I have talked to so many people in these three countries of the Northern Triangle who say, ``We do not want to come and live in America and stay here. We would actually like to be able to come here and work some and go home and eventually live full-time in our country.'' We hear that again and again. That would work for us, and I think it would work for them. I interrupted one of your questioning, I think you mentioned asylum, the ability to have access to asylum pleas almost upon entering this country. Secretary Nielsen has been pushing the idea of asylum hearings literally in our consulates within Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, which I think makes some sense. Let me just ask, just go down the line--Dr. Selee, you can take it first--does that make any sense? Mr. Selee. Thank you, Senator. I think it does make sense. I think we would have to figure out how we structure it. The devil is in the details a bit, but it is a good idea to think of in-country processing. We have to have a way of protecting people if they are making an asylum application in their own country. We had a pilot program, a very small pilot program in the Obama Administration, the Central American Minors (CAM), where we did this with minors. We can learn from that experience and build on it. We did have a way of getting people to Costa Rica to be protected while their asylum application was pending. It was actually not asylum. It was done through a different figure. But it was nonetheless the same idea. We could also be talking with the Mexican Government about doing asylum processing in southern Mexico. I am not sure whether that would fly or not. It is not clear to me that it would work, but it is also something we could be having a productive conversation, people get into Mexico, have a safe zone under international auspices where people can apply for asylum, perhaps in both countries. Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Davidson, just very briefly, please. Mr. Davidson. Yes, I would say to the point earlier about the remain in Mexico pilot program that they are trotting out, there is not a lot of information about it, about the numbers. It is not high, a couple hundred, maybe 300 or so. But the initial reports from that that I have seen is that it is very chaotic and very difficult for people who are remaining in Mexico to even know when their court date is here in the United States and to get here in time for the court date to communicate with attorneys. The idea that we are going to go through like full asylum hearings for all these people that are showing up I think is a losing proposition. Having expedited evaluation of asylum claims at the border or shortly after people come across, empowering CBP or somebody else, Federal agents, along the border to be able to do that in a timely fashion and not have this deal where they are going to have to go through the court system and the backlogs and having them come back and forth across the border multiple times to pursue their asylum claims, I do not see how that is workable. So far it has been very chaotic, and it has been a mess. Senator Carper. Very briefly, Mr. Morgan, please. Same question. Mr. Morgan. I absolutely think it is a good idea, but both in their country of origin and Mexico, I agree there is some chaos. But whenever you are trying something new, there is always some chaos. I think the devil will be in the details. I think we could work that out. But what I see from a law enforcement perspective, being in charge of this issue on the border, what it does is it takes away one of the important elements, the incentive to come here. Again, we have to keep going back to the incentive. If they set one foot on the soil, if they know they are not going to automatically just be allowed in and stay here indefinitely, that is going to reduce the flow. It is a good idea. Senator Carper. Alright. Thanks. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper. While we are on the subject, let me quickly ask, because we talk about asylum in the country. That is really asking for refugee status, correct? Asylum can only be applied for when you are in the country. Or do we have to change that law? Also, isn't there a distinction, too, that you really ought to be claiming asylum in the first safe country? We are kind of the second safe country, which would give us some latitude to change how we deal with asylum with people from Central America that are coming through Mexico? Mr. Morgan. Yes, Chairman, that is--Mexico should be a safe third country. Technically, the way the international asylum laws are supposed to function is you should be claiming asylum in the first country, the first border you come to. You have left your country. That persecution or whatever you are facing is now done. You are in that safe third country. That should also be addressed. Mexico has to get involved in that. Chairman Johnson. OK, but that is something this Committee is going to have to explore. Exactly what are these treaties? What are these laws? To Dr. Selee's point, what can we do to expedite those initial determinations and people that simply do not have the valid asylum claim where, again, a larger percentage of these are really coming as economic migrants, which we fully understand but it does not qualify and those people need to be returned as a consequence. Senator Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN Senator Rosen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony here today. I want to hear your thoughts on the impact of aid cuts or potential aid cuts to the Northern Triangle and some of our South American countries. It has been stated here, of course, it is a significant number of migrants arriving at the border. They are children, they are young adults, many of whom claim a fear of persecution or harm from gang activity, other criminal groups. Last year, I visited the tent city in Tornillo and heard the stories of some of these young adults, just like you have, who fled their home for safety in the United States. So over the last several years, the United States has provided millions of dollars in foreign aid to support community-based crime and violence programs which aim to provide services to youth who are at particular risk, can be victims or recruited, and also to protect women from domestic violence and other types of sexual violence. And so we have done other things and addressed migration, programs like nutrition assistance, training police officers. The International Justice Mission has been working with local authorities in Guatemala to increase the prosecution of child sexual assault with support from a State Department grant. So my question for you, Dr. Selee, is this: How do you feel cutting aid to these programs and other programs like this will impact the situation on the ground, including violence and impunity, and that motivate people to come to the United States? Mr. Selee. I think it is important to note that most of this aid--I mean, very little, if any aid actually goes to governments themselves. This goes primarily to Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and some aid is actually within the U.S. Government, obviously, itself. So the kind of things that we have seen work on the ground--and, again, everything, when we say work, Senator, everything is sort of--you have to take it with a bit of a grain of salt because everything is a moving target. But the things that seem to work, engaging-- particularly in El Salvador, has been engaging young people in activities, both youth employment but also recreational activities, building community policing, for example; investing in agricultural areas in Guatemala and Honduras seems to have had some payoff. Then there is a lot of support for the kinds of prosecutions that you mentioned, and in El Salvador, we have done a lot of work actually with the attorney general's office on prosecution of corruption as well, on technical know-how to be able to prosecute corruption. So my fear is with aid cuts is you see a backsliding. The governments will not be affected in this sense, but communities will be affected, and people who are struggling to make their governments less corrupt will be affected. The institutions and the organizations that have been pushing for better governance are the ones that are affected. Senator Rosen. If we do this, to follow up, and we remove some of our influence in the region, do you think other international actors like China are going to come in and fill this void, making us less safe and possibly increasing reasons for people to come? Mr. Selee. Senator, certainly in El Salvador the Chinese have been pushing in very aggressively to try and do a major development project and to become sort of the substitute for the United States. I think the incoming government is more skeptical about that, but I think that is--obviously, if we withdraw our influence, the other actors will want to be present. We have seen this elsewhere in the hemisphere, right? Both China and Russia have been present in different countries where the United States is less active. Senator Rosen. So you would agree that increasing support, trying to find good ways to support and, of course, measure how that may have an impact, gathering the data after would be a good investment for the United States? Mr. Selee. It would be a good investment, and I think one of the things that has been missing that we should do is actually gather data on what works. Senator Rosen. Right. Mr. Selee. Both tangible and intangible. I mean, it is both the programs that work but also what made it work. I think one of the things that seems to have worked in El Salvador is that you had buy-in from both main parties as well as civil society and business groups at a real local level to make things happen, and we really worked on that governance side. It is harder to do that in Honduras and Guatemala. They are less sort of developed. But those kind of intangible things that make a program stick are as important as the tangible things about whether the program reaches the right young people. You have to measure both of those. Senator Rosen. Do you think we could import programs from other countries around the world that we may have had success in supporting them and import those best practices to the Northern Triangle? Mr. Selee. I think we can do that, but I think we also need to make sure we adapt it to the conditions on the ground. But certainly we have a lot of know-how, and it is not just us in some of these countries. We are also working with the European Union, working with Canada. There are other governments. We tend to be the catalyst, and I do not think we should forget that. I think the U.S., part of our role in the world is not doing everything ourselves, but we are the catalyst to get other people involved. Senator Rosen. Right, and just trying to stop it at the core. Mr. Selee. Yes, exactly. I think if we see that leadership, others are going to also wonder--who have been trying to help out are also going to wonder. But I think bringing in that global knowledge, we could do a lot on the ground. Senator Rosen. The last thing I want to say is, of course, there are always bad actors. We know about the smugglers. You have talked a lot about them. What do you think we could do more to disrupt the smuggling networks? Mr. Morgan. I could take that. I did 20 years in the FBI, and so we have talked a little bit about that, and I think that is a great question, because we can address all these pull factors and incentives, but we have to attack the cartels. What I have been trying to say is we need to attack the cartels, ma'am, with the same intensity, commitment, and ferocity that we have terrorism. We have to. This has to be a whole-of- government approach. This is not a CBP thing. This is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), FBI, our intelligence---- Senator Rosen. Because there is a lot of money involved, so they are going to put everything they have into it. They do not want to lose it. If it is billions of dollars, they do not want to lose that. Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am. They are a multi-billion-dollar industry, and they are a talented organization. Senator Rosen. They are an industry. That is exactly right. Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am. Every time we do something, when law enforcement--we call it techniques, tactics and procedures (TTP). The cartels change. As soon as we do something to get them, they change. They continue to do that and history shows that. So that is a significant issue. As we are talking about these things, that is something from the entire government, a whole-of-government approach, we have to address. I agree with Andrew that, realistically, are we going to totally decimate them? No. But we can hit them hard, and we should. Senator Rosen. This is where we can partner with those countries on both ends to maybe capture them in the middle. Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am. Senator Rosen. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Chairman Johnson. Senator Sinema. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Our Nation faces a critical situation along the Southwest Border with serious security, economic, and humanitarian consequences for my State, Arizona. Today in Arizona, CBP and ICE are releasing asylum seekers fleeing violence and instability into our communities. One way we can protect our communities and uphold our values is by treating these children and families humanely and with dignity. I believe it is vitally important that DHS work with our NGO partners to make this asylum process as smooth as possible. But our ports of entry also face uncertainty and disruption. The decision to transfer officers from Arizona ports threatens our security, including our ability to stop the flow of drugs into the United States, which is why I have asked CBP to reverse its decision and secure our ports of entry. Our border security workforce is also stressed and tired. I have heard stories of officers who are working 16-hour shifts at our ports, leading to attrition and burnout amongst an already overburdened force. As we heard from our witnesses today, the number of migrants from Central American nations coming to our borders and seeking safety is high. So we need to tackle this issue with common-sense solutions. I think Congress must focus on ideas and initiatives that improve our security, strengthen our economy, and uphold our values. I think we should oppose proposals with dangerous and harmful consequences such as closing the entire Southwest Border. I am committed to working in a bipartisan way to finding solutions that keep Arizona families and communities safe and treat migrants humanely. My first question is for Dr. Selee. The most important assets and resources we have at our ports are men and women who are working on the front lines. As I mentioned earlier, I disagree with DHS' recent decisions to remove officers from ports in Arizona. These ports were already struggling with vacancies and are now further understaffed, and I am wondering if you could talk about the impact of long-term and chronic understaffing on security and trade at ports of entry. Mr. Selee. Thank you, Senator. I actually arrived this morning from Phoenix, Arizona, so I was talking with people about the consequence---- Senator Sinema. I am very jealous. Mr. Selee. Yes. Always lovely to be in Arizona, actually, the great State of Arizona. It is a State--I have mentioned a few times because it really is so deeply connected. The border matters. It is 46 percent, I believe, of Arizona's exports that go to---- Senator Sinema. That is right. Mr. Selee. But these are actually, as we were talking earlier, these are really production chains that span across the border where you have things moving back and forth and goods being made across--so I think the chronic understaffing of ports of entry and the lack of technology, which Chief Morgan mentioned earlier, the lack of investment in technology at the ports of entry is a major issue. This is something that we could fix, and it is something that it does not break the budget to try and address it, actually. It would be very well done. I would disagree a little bit with Chief Morgan on one thing, which is the statistics that come out of CBP do indicate that if you take marijuana out of the equation, all other narcotics, overwhelmingly 85 to 90 percent do come through ports of entry. Now, marijuana does tend to move between ports of entry, and there are some other drugs that move between ports of entry, but they are fairly rare. Ports of entry is where the greatest threats are, actually, and it is also where the greatest opportunities are to make our country strong. We really do need to be investing there. I am not saying we should not invest between ports of entry. Clearly, we have urgent needs to do that at this moment right now. But we also really should not forget ports of entry. They tend to get missed, and they are so key to our economy. They are key to our security. Senator Sinema. Thank you. Speaking of that, Chief Morgan, in your testimony you mentioned the need to do better at stopping the flow of drugs between our ports of entry. What type of additional technology or resources do you think that the Border Patrol needs to meet that specific challenge? Mr. Morgan. That is a great question, Senator, and actually I agree that the majority of drugs are coming in in those categories--meth, fentanyl, heroin. It was the marijuana that I said. But here is the thing where I will depart, that the reason my statement is that in between the ports, because 50 percent of the border is wide open and not secure, we do not know what is coming through. At the ports of entry, we get to stop every person, every vehicle, so, of course, we should be interdicting more at the ports. We should really be afraid. The ports, but also in between the ports. The technology that we need, there is a whole list of technology we need. We need fixed and mobile surveillance. We need better surveillance. We need updated surveillance. We need a capability to have that surveillance be interconnected from sector to sector. The list goes on and on. We can use more drones. All this stuff that has been talked about, right? All that technology is absolutely needed, hands down, at the ports and in between the ports. But here is what I will say, Senator, that technology by itself is not the answer, though. You still need infrastructure. Senator Sinema. That is right. Mr. Morgan. You still need some barrier where it makes sense--not sea to shining sea, and there is not an expert on the border who will ever tell you that that is what you need. You need more personnel. We call it the ``multi-layered strategy,'' right? We need infrastructure, the wall, physical barrier. We need technology and a lot of it, and we need personnel where it makes sense. It makes sense in between the ports and at the ports. Senator Sinema. I could not agree more. My next question is actually for both of you gentlemen. As you know, charity organizations such as Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities, along with many others, play a critical role in helping manage the asylees who are entering the United States. In Arizona, sometimes the communication between DHS and these NGO's has not been as effective as it could be. What steps do you suggest that CBP and ICE take to ensure that that coordination and cooperation with the NGO community happens to help prevent these crises? Mr. Morgan. Real quick, I will take this one, if you do not mind. I think that is right. In 2016, I saw it firsthand. I went down there, and I talked to a lot of NGO's, faith-based organizations. They are doing an incredible job, and they are very much an integral part of the solution, right? But where that really goes, it is local. It is. Those organizations are local, so it really is just a proactive--it is support from headquarters, obviously, but it really is coming on to local leaders to really interact with those local faith-based organizations and the resources of the local NGO's to really continue to establish those relationships. What I saw in 2016 overall were really good relationships. That does not mean that they do not need to improve. What I have seen is they are continuing to improve, but I tell you, CBP is drowning, but so are all the faith-based organizations and the NGO's. They are tapped out, too, ma'am. They are all drowning. Senator Sinema. I have invited ICE Director Vitiello to join me next week to have a roundtable meeting with the NGO's to figure out how to better coordinate at least the communication, because what we see happening every day in Tucson, Yuma, and Phoenix are just influxes of these migrants who are waiting sometimes years to get their asylum hearing and showing up at bus stations. So the local communities are overwhelmed, and our NGO's cannot get there fast enough and do not have the resources to help everyone. Mr. Morgan. I think that is a great point, and better communication is always a good thing. I think what is happening is it is a cause and effect. Border Patrol, they get a caravan of 500 in that they did not expect. They are overwhelmed. ICE is overwhelmed, and, ergo, then the faith-based organizations and NGO's, they become overwhelmed. They may at times think there is a lack of communication, and really what it is is just everybody is overwhelmed and doing the best they can to adjust. But more communication is always a good thing. Senator Sinema. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. May I ask Mr. Selee if he wants to respond? Chairman Johnson. Sure. Senator Sinema. Thank you. Mr. Selee. I will be very brief. I think what you are doing with Director Vitiello is exactly the right thing. I think you need to create those channels of communication. I agree with Chief Morgan; everyone is overwhelmed. I mean, we do have a humanitarian crisis. I think we can debate whether it is a national crisis, but it is clearly a humanitarian crisis at the border. Everyone is sort of, trying to figure out--it creates issues of cooperation among agencies, but also civil society. The more you can get people together and try and bridge those communication gaps, it would be incredibly helpful. Senator Sinema. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Sinema. I have about 2 hours' worth of questions, but let us start here. The major blue and red to the right of 2012 represents more than 850,000 people. In terms of the red, the unaccompanied children, I think it is important to note that about 70 percent of those are male, about 70 percent are 15 or older, 15, 16, to 17, certainly the profile of gangs. The question I have is: Where have those 850,000 people gone? What kind of records do we have? They get their notice to appear, which the coyotes call their ``permiso.'' It permits them to go into America. Are they by and large lost? I think they had Operation Matador, a really focused operation on MS-13 gangs. I think the stat was 40 percent of those gang members came in as either part of a family unit, as a minor, or as an unaccompanied child. Where are the 850,000 people? By the way, we talk about Dreamers. I would love to fix that issue. But we understate the number there as well. 700,000 have signed up, 700,000 did not that qualified. There are a couple million that are similar circumstance. They do not in some way, shape, or form qualify. Now we have got 850,000 people here. This situation just continues to grow more and more out of control. People in this country, really no legal status, living in the shadows, potentially being exploited. So anybody who can speak to what do we know about the 850,000 people, where are they, what are they doing, and what is their status? Mr. Morgan. Sir, let me back up even a little more. It starts with when we allow them into the country. There is very little that we actually know about them when we let them in. They either have no documentation whatsoever, or the documentation they have, it is impossible to do true vetting. To a large degree, we again--and I said this before. We do not even know who we are letting in. So that dramatically reduces our ability to keep track of these people when we do not even know who they are. Chairman Johnson. Again, because of Flores, I mean, the length we can really detain and lack of detention facilities, literally CBP does not have the time--as hard as they try to determine is that the father or the sex trafficker, is that his daughter or is that his sex-trafficking victim? Mr. Morgan. Right. They are overwhelmed right now, and so Border Patrol now, instead of giving them to ICE, Border Patrol is releasing them directly because, I think the Commissioner said it accurately. He said 4,000 we are full, 6,000 is a crisis; we are at 13,000. Chairman Johnson. By the way, CBP is not trained to do that, right? I mean, they are trained to hand them off to either ICE or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Mr. Morgan. Correct. Chairman Johnson. Now they are because HHS cannot accept them. Mr. Morgan. Correct. Chairman Johnson. Not the numbers that are coming in. Now CBP is being tasked to do something it was never intended to do and is not particularly trained to do. Mr. Morgan. Correct. We give them that notice to appear, right? That does not mean anything. That does not mean where they stay they are going to go, that they actually go. We have no way of verifying that to the largest degree. Sometimes we give them ankle bracelets. They take them off. They all take them off. We do not know where they are or where they are going or what city they are going to, to a greatest extent. So we talk about stats. That is probably what I should have told you earlier. That is one of the stats that we should be doing a heck of a lot better on, is keeping track of where these people actually are. We do not know, Senator. Chairman Johnson. Mr. Davidson, you spend a lot of time talking to the immigrants themselves. Can you speak to this? Mr. Davidson. I will tell you anecdotally they do take the ankle bracelets off, and it just occurred to me, on your earlier question about data, the ankle bracelet program is a subcontractor with ICE, the company that makes them. Maybe we could get information about how many of these ankle bracelets get cutoff and thrown away. As I said, anecdotally---- Chairman Johnson. We will send out a letter. Mr. Davidson. When you go to the shelters, these people will tell you, if you talk to them long enough, yes, they are going to take it off once they get to where they are going. There are also stories of seeing garbage cans full of these things at bus stations all up and down the border as well. The ankle bracelet does not seem to be an effective alternative to detention. We were discussing earlier the number of people who actually file an asylum claim after they get a notice to appear is half or less than half of those people actually follow through and file that claim. Giving someone a notice to appear and an ankle bracelet does not seem to be doing that much good and does not seem to be very effective. So more data on that would be, I think, revealing about just how common it is for people to ignore their ankle bracelet and abscond. Chairman Johnson. Dr. Selee, I have asked my staff to kind of list for me the different categories of people in this country, again, DACA recipients that signed up, that did not, in similar situations but not eligible for DACA. Do you have information on this? Mr. Selee. We are working on it, actually. That is what I am just looking for here on my phone because I have a bit of breakdown of in absentia rates. But it is incredibly--but that is a subset of that, actually, right? So we do not have good data on this. Let me point out one thing which I think gets missed in the debate, which is sort of interesting. We used to talk--back when we were talking about mostly Mexican men crossing the border in the early 2000s, late 1990s, we were talking about people getting caught and returned, but we were also--and eventually consequence delivery, but we were also talking about people actually getting through into the United States. Very few people probably get through today. I mean, DHS did a study in 2017 where they tried to estimate the number of people who get caught. It is pretty high. It has gone way up, right? We are actually pretty good at detecting people--not perfect, but we have developed the capacity to detect a vast majority of people who are trying to cross illegally. Where people are getting into the country is through here, right? I mean, this is the number, some of whom are legitimately here. Some of these people have filed asylum claims, in which case they are legally present in the United States while they are waiting for their hearing. Those people are, in fact, legally here, and we should treat them as legally here. Other people did not show up. On the other hand, if 40 percent of the people, which I think is about right--I was looking for that number. It is a little hard to figure out in the mix of statistics. If it is 40 percent of people do not show up, 60 percent do. I do not think we should underestimate that people who we see as trying to game the system, most of them actually do try and do the right thing. People who may not even understand our system, most of them do try and do the right--now, do they drop off along the way? I do not know. Do some of them go back? Do people eventually show up and get denied asylum and actually get returned? We are missing a lot of these numbers. Chairman Johnson. There is a lot we do not know. Mr. Selee. There is a lot we do not know. Chairman Johnson. Yale researchers, using some different statistical methods, said somewhere between 16 and 30 million people are in this country illegally, even though everybody uses the 11 to 12 million estimate. Chief Morgan, you are kind of shaking your head there. Mr. Morgan. I am sorry, and, Doctor, with all due respect, I have to agree on something, again, law enforcement on the border. So we just heard the chief of patrol last night on television say that of his 170 linear miles of border that he has to support, he has surveillance and situational awareness of less than 30 percent of that 170 miles. He has inadequate or no physical barrier whatsoever, and he does not have enough personnel to have and defend and have that operational awareness along those 170 linear miles. He says now with the humanitarian crisis, all his resources, personnel, are devoted to that. With all due respect, absolutely we do not have any idea what is going through. To say that we think the numbers of criminal aliens and other people illegally entering that we do not know, that is impossible to quantify. It is impossible to say the numbers are lower than they used to be. Chairman Johnson. Do you have an estimate of how much of the border, however long, 1,700 miles or whatever, is tribal lands? Mr. Morgan. I do not have those exact linear---- Chairman Johnson. But it is true that we cannot put CBP personnel there. Those are completely open, right? Mr. Selee. There is an agreement with tribal authorities. There are CBP personnel. Tohono O'odham is the primary one in Arizona, right, Chief? Mr. Morgan. Yes. Mr. Selee. There are CBP personnel. There are some restrictions. It has to be negotiated with the tribal authorities. Mr. Morgan. But I will tell you, sir, it is all done by interpersonal skills, and I have been down there. I was talking to one of the Border Patrol liaison agents, and the tribal folks just happen to love them. I went and met with the tribal leaders there, and it is a challenging, ongoing, kind of weird dance that is going on there. It is difficult. We do not have all the resources that we need on those tribal lands, though. Chairman Johnson. I am going to let Senator Carper quickly ask a question. Senator Carper. Yes, thanks. Just a quick question. Dr. Selee, revisiting the Flores decision, your wisdom on that, please? Mr. Selee. You could do it, but what Flores gets you is, still a long process if they apply for asylum and detaining unaccompanied children. Fixing the asylum system gets you a process that is decided in months instead of years. It applies to adults, to families, to children. It becomes a much more expedited process. I would go with fixing the asylum system between the two. Senator Carper. Alright. Thanks. Is it possible to do both? Mr. Selee. You could, but it depends on your feelings about detaining children for long periods of time. Senator Carper. OK. Chairman Johnson. Again, define ``long.'' Right now it is 20 days, and you are saying months. Again, nobody wants to detain any people any longer, if we can. As quickly as we can adjudicate that first claim, not allow endless appeals, but fix that, be able to detain them long enough, because if we do not, we are not going to be able to remove them. So it is that combination. I do not know what the right numbers are, but that is what we need to work on in our Committee, and hopefully we can come up with a bipartisan solution there. Mr. Morgan. Sir, if I can just weigh in real quick on that, what I would say is I agree, we need to do both. It is not one or the other. We need to do both, because the challenge is when we have influxes, right? We could have a system of this process where we are going through the immigration process pretty fast, and all of a sudden we get an influx of 5,000 in 1 month. Now that system that works so well is overwhelmed. We have to have the flexibility and ability to detain these people while we are doing the best we can to expedite the process. We need both. We cannot just have this arbitrary deadline, and when it ebbs and flows, it is a crisis mode, and we have to let people into the United States. We need to do both. Mr. Selee. Could I add one more thing, Senator? Chairman Johnson. Sure. Mr. Selee. I think there are two other things we should consider in addition to detention. By the way, detention is always a legitimate option to make sure people get--but the other question is case management systems, not just ankle bracelets, which have been up and down--case management systems where we actually monitor people have been much more effective. They have only been pilot-tested, so we do not have enough data points yet. But they have been very effective so far, about 99 percent effective in getting people to their hearings and actually giving people counsel. Chairman Johnson. That was a very limited study. Mr. Selee. It was a limited study, right, so we have to actually do more study. We should look at ankle bracelets and figure out, at what time do people take these off immediately or does it happen after 6 months when they kind of realize they can get away with it? I mean, if it is a short period of time, does it make a difference? The second thing is actually giving people the right to counsel, especially minors, because there is a lot of evidence that people who have a lawyer are willing to try their day in court. That is a lot cheaper, by the way, than detaining people. So having people who are able to have access to asylum counsel, people will show up and try their luck, actually. Chairman Johnson. Just not that final one. Mr. Selee. Right, and that is the thing to be--again, we need to follow this and see what works. I mean, again, I do not want to say this is an absolute either. What we know is people now who have counsel, there also is selection bias there. People who get counsel often think they have a good case, right? I mean, if you give it to people who do not think they have a good case, will it play out the same way? I do not know. We need to try and study it. Senator Carper. Alright. Thanks to all of you. Thank you very much. Chairman Johnson. Somewhere there are some things we can agree on that will at least improve this. I am all for continuous improvement. Senator Hawley. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morgan, I was struck by something that you said in your written testimony, that every city in the United States is a border city when it comes to narcotics smuggling. That is something, I think, that many people, especially in the media, do not appreciate it, and I just want to amplify that. In my own State of Missouri, in 2017, the State estimated that 760 Missourians just in St. Louis lost their lives to opioids. That is one in every 65 deaths. In 2016 that number was higher. I know from law enforcement in my State where I was recently Attorney General that we are awash with methamphetamine. It is coming over the Southern Border. We have a serious fentanyl problem. It is coming over the border. We have a serious heroin problem. So is it safe to say that even interior States like Missouri are border States for purposes of narcotics smuggling? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. I am a Missourian myself. I was born in Missouri. Absolutely, every single city in this country is a border city. Every single major metropolitan city and other rural are impacted by the crisis at the border. The drugs coming through the Southwest Border are entering every city in this country. That is not hyperbole. That is fact. Seventy- thousand-plus deaths, 90 percent of heroin coming from Southern Border, the Southwest Border crisis is everybody's problem in this country. Senator Hawley. Very well said, and I just want to underscore that it is local communities, often rural communities, as you point out, local law enforcement who are left to pick up the pieces here. The costs really are staggering. Mr. Davidson, let me turn to you. Thank you for your outstanding reporting on this issue over many months. I just want to give you an opportunity to further tell this story here. Put this on the record for us. Who is it who controls the border on the southern side--not on the U.S. side but on the southern side. Who effectively controls that border? Mr. Davidson. Thank you, Senator. This circles back to something we touched on earlier that I wanted to distinguish between. There are smuggling networks, and there are cartels. They are not necessarily the same organizations. The smugglers are paying cartels as part of the package that migrants and migrant families are providing. They have to include this tax, right? But there is no question that the border is secure on the southern side, and vast stretches of the border on the southern side are controlled in an iron-fisted way by cartels and cartel factions, especially when we are talking about the gulf cartels. A lot of these cartels have broken up and fragmented over the past decade or so, especially in the Gulf Region across from the Rio Grande Valley, places like Reynosa and, across the entire area south of there to Monterrey. So it used to be that people would cross the border to work in South Texas. They would literally put their clothes in a garbage bag, swim across the Rio Grande, go to work, and swim back across at the end of the day. That does not happen anymore. Nobody crosses the border unless the cartels say so and unless they get their payment. Senator Hawley. OK. That I think is such a key point, that the cartels effectively control the border, and nobody crosses the border without their buy-in, their payoff, essentially, and this is why you refer to this operation on the southern side as a ``vast money-making machine.'' It is a money-making machine for the cartels and their various spinoffs. Is that correct? Explain that to us just a little bit more. Mr. Davidson. It is a money-making machine for the cartels because they are controlling who crosses, and nobody crosses unless they pay. It is also a money-making machine for the smuggling networks that begin in Central America. They are essentially like travel agents. They are just arranging logistics to get people from locations in Central America across the Guatemala-Mexico border and then transiting through Mexico and paying off different people along the way, local officials, different cartel factions along the way; and then when they arrive to the Northern Border, paying off the right people so they can be allowed to cross the Rio Grande. It is a controlled, intentional system along the Northern Border where cartels are holding people and telling them who is going to go across, how many people, what groups are going to cross where. It is coordinated. It is organized. According to law enforcement, it is also coordinated with other drug-smuggling activities in some areas where they are sending a large group across, tying up all of Border Patrol's resources, and a mile or two down the line sending across drugs or sending across people who are trying to evade detection who have paid a lot more money. If you try to evade detection, you pay more, and they cross you in a different area. Senator Hawley. It is very strategic, is what you are saying. Mr. Davidson. Yes, absolutely. Senator Hawley. You might get the sense from just looking at news footage that, it is sort of chaos, folks who are coming individually of their own accord. Mr. Davidson. It is chaos on our side. Senator Hawley. Right. Mr. Davidson. It is organized on their side. Senator Hawley. On their side. You also say that the cartels are using kids as ``Get into the U.S. free'' cards. Just explain that for us, if you would. Mr. Davidson. It is hard to know for sure, right? A lot of this is anecdotal. But if you have a child with you, you can claim asylum, and people on the south side of the border understand that, and they know that. So not all the minors that are accompanying adults and that are presenting themselves as family units are family units. I am sure Mr. Morgan can speak to that in more detail. But it certainly is known that if you cross with a child, you are going to be treated differently. The smuggling networks, the travel agencies that I mentioned earlier, they understand that, and they are incorporating that into their sales pitch, saying, this is why a lot of people are showing up with just one child where they have a wife and other children back in their home countries that they did not bring with them because they could only afford to bring one. Senator Hawley. Mr. Morgan, do you want to add to that? Mr. Morgan. Everything he just said was correct, and I would say go back to the Chairman's chart,\1\ right? Big blue. That is why you are seeing big blue. A lot of the stuff we are talking about to some degree, with all due respect, it is white noise. Now, I am not saying we do not need to do all this work with Mexico and Northern Triangle countries. Yes, E-Verify, all this stuff needs to be done. But until we fix Flores and until we fix TVPRA, that blue line is going to keep growing and growing because they know, grab a kid, come in, set one foot on American soil, and you are in. If we do not fix that, it is not going to stop. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Mr. Morgan appears in the Appendix on page 86. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Hawley. I just want to make sure that we get crystal clear and that the public understands that what is happening in my home State of Missouri with the drugs that we are facing, with the onslaught that we are facing, is directly tied to the behavior and strategy of these cartels on the border who control effectively the Southern Border, who have a strategy for conducting their business operations and who are making vast sums of money at our expense and at the cost of lives in our home States. Mr. Morgan. I will give you one more quick example. The cartel will actually send in an old military term called observation posts and listening posts (LP/OP). They will actually send smugglers or cartel members miles into the interior of the United States side--miles--with communications, sophisticated communication devices, with surveillance equipment, and they will actually monitor the activities of the Border Patrol. They will actually then use the caravans--and right now you are seeing some of these caravan, sir, actually go to really remote areas. The cartels are forcing them to transverse really adverse terrain. Why? The Border Patrol has to take a long time to get there, and while they are, their LP/ OP says, ``Clear to go to this section,'' and stuff is coming across. Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. First of all, excellent line of questioning. Our compassion is completely being exploited. It is. We know how to secure the border, or somebody knows how to secure the border. It is just not us. It is the drug cartels. I did hear the Secretary--can everybody confirm this?--just recently say that they are breaking up child recycling rings. Apparently we do not take biometrics on children 14 or under 14, and so those children can be sent back over the border to be hooked up with another adult to come in. Does anybody have-- again, I heard the Secretary talk about that, so I am assuming it is true. Mr. Morgan. I do not have any stats, and I do not think they have those stats yet, but, again, anecdotal, absolutely happening. The children are being recycled, and we are seeing-- again, I do not remember the exact stats, sir, but thousands-- Border Patrol has identified thousands of people that are claiming to be a parent or guardian, and it turned out to be completely false. Chairman Johnson. Just real quick, before I turn it over to Senator Peters, the drug cartels for years have been using minors as mules; because they are minors, they do not get prosecuted the same way. That will continue as well, correct? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, absolutely. I would say it is going to expand. Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before my question, I have a statement from Church World Service\1\ that they would like to have in the record, and I would like to enter it into the record by unanimous consent. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The statement referenced by Senator Peters appears in the Appendix on page 87. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Johnson. Without objection. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One thing we have talked about--we have unpacked a lot of issues related to dealing with the situation on the border, but to me, as I listen, it is clear that Mexico is an important player in all this, and I understand, Mr. Morgan, some of your points about other things that we should look at. But, nevertheless, folks, to get to the United States, have to go through Mexico in order to get there. I remember being on the border, actually on the trip that we were on a couple years ago, on the border with Guatemala and Mexico, we walked across the bridge where the officials were and where they had control. But if you looked to your right and if you looked to your left, there was basically a flotilla of boats going back across the borders that were very porous, to say the least. We need to actively engage the Mexican Government in this, and it sounds as if they are, at least based on the testimony we just heard, they are not in control of the Northern Border. It is the cartels that are in charge of the border. Dr. Selee, I would ask your assessment of that. Is Mexico just unable or are they unwilling to address the large number of folks? Or is it a combination of the two? How would you assess the Mexican Government right now? Mr. Selee. I would say two things, actually, on that, and one is, I think we should also be mindful there are sort of two other actors. American consumers of illegal narcotics are also funding the cartels that control. We are actually the financers of some of this. But the other actor that is in the play here is the Mexican Government. It is particularly immigration authorities in Mexico that are often in league with the smugglers. I am sure you have run into this a lot as well. The smugglers, the other people they pay off besides the cartels at the border along the way is the Mexican immigration authorities, both in southern Mexico and at checkpoints along the way. The Mexican Government has said that they want to clean this up. I think there is--at least in some levels of the government, I believe that. I think there are some people they have put in place that have a record of fighting corruption that want to do this. I think it is a big question. It is not the first time I have heard this said in the Mexican Government, however. It is a tough thing to do. I think that is one area where we could actually play a pivotal role in working with the Mexican Government on how you actually begin to clean this up because it goes very deep, and it is part of the business model of how the immigration authority has worked for a long time. Senator Peters. I would like you to do a deeper dive into that statement. What sort of leadership would we need to see from the United States to make that kind of change and to work with the Mexican Government for them to step up their actions? Mr. Selee. I think there are sort of three things that Mexico wants to do. One is to increase their legal pathways, so their asylum system, they need to finance it. We could put in some incentive money, but it is sort of like we heard earlier, sort of you put in one--they put in seven, we put in one. We can help them, but it is their job to do. They want to create work-based visas. They need to do serious enforcement. They have done--Mexico deports more people than we do. I mean, this is to Central America. It is a little-known secret. The Mexican Government actually does deport a lot of people, and they have for years, since 2014. But that said, there is neither a real structure around it to figure out sort of the consequence delivery that we did in the United States, nor is it done with respect for human rights. I mean, on both sides. Neither as an enforcement question nor as a rights question is it great. The third thing is cleaning up corruption, and there, intelligence matters, and also law enforcement experience matters. How do you cleanup an agency? We have a lot of experience in this. How do you deal with a situation where your agents can make three times as much money by being corrupt? How do you actually keep them on the right--what are the sort of incentives that keep people on the right path? How do you recruit the right profile of people? Look, we deal with this all the time at CBP. This is an issue in ICE, right? We actually have a pretty good track record. People have huge incentives to go off the right path, and most people do not do it. Right? I mean, we have figured this out. Mexico has only begun to start figuring--I think that they need to figure this out. A lot of know-how and a little bit of intelligence on what we know, because we know a lot of stuff about where the smugglers are paying people off as well, helping them figure out those specific points that are probably of greatest concern. Senator Peters. In a Judiciary Committee hearing, previously you testified that there were some things that you saw potential. I think you have highlighted a couple right now. Only a few months have passed since that, but give us an assessment. Have you seen them actually taking any action along the lines that you thought had potential a few months ago? Mr. Selee. I think they have not increased funding to the asylum system. They keep talking about doing it, but they have not done it as yet. They have not invested in the Immigration Institute as yet, although I think the person in charge of the Immigration Institute is someone who is serious about cleaning it up. It is someone I have known for a while. I believe, his previous job, he was someone who cleaned up an institution. I think if anyone can do it, he can do it. But I think there is a question mark, and we have not yet seen the kind of efforts that would create work-based visas. But 4 months in, that is probably unrealistic. I mean, the reality is that takes some time to figure out how you are going to do it. Mexico has work-based visas but for higher-skilled individuals. What they do not have is work-based visas for the kind of people that we are talking about in this flow who are lower-skilled. You have to be able to match that where there are actual job opportunities, so you are not creating conflict in parts of Mexico where there really is a job competition. It is probably too early for that. I see some good signs on the corruption side. I see less yet on changing the structure and changing the visa side. Enforcement is on autopilot. I mean, they are not doing less--they did not drop their guard and sort of let people cross the border, and at the same time there has not been a lot of innovation also about how you do enforcement as yet. Senator Peters. But in a sense, active involvement by U.S. officials with the Mexican Government you think is promising? Mr. Selee. Yes, I think it is promising. I think there is a lot of---- Senator Peters. Because we have not seen enough of that or we have not seen nearly enough of that, is your contention? Mr. Selee. Right. Senator, I think there there are some good people there, and there is a willingness to do it. If we partner with them, I think it will get done quicker than if we threaten them. Senator Peters. One final question, Mr. Chairman, and I will let you take the rest here with your questions. You raise an issue that Mexico deports more Central Americans than we would otherwise suspect. Who are they deporting? We are still seeing the flow north to the United States. Have they reduced that flow? Or are they deporting a different set of individuals? Mr. Selee. Mexico deports, I believe it is, about 100,000 Central Americans more or less a year. I mean, it is actually a large number. It is more or less steady. The numbers actually rose in March. I think they deported actually 13,000 people. They apprehended 13,000 people in March. I do not know the deportation statistics--no, actually I do. It was 12,000. It has actually gone up a little bit over the traditional number, but it has sort of been a lag. But it is and Mexico does not actually have some of the same limitations on detaining people. They actually deport them fairly quickly. Now, a lot of people are applying for asylum in Mexico as well. So it has a significant--they are on target of about 50,000 applications this year from Central Americans. Senator Peters. Central Americans see Mexico as the first safe country? Mr. Selee. Increasingly. By the way, I think, something that Chief Morgan said, I do not think Mexico is yet in a position to be a safe third country. But if I were--again, this goes to policy overreach. I mean, we have wanted Mexico to declare itself a safe third country and sign an agreement with us. What would be more productive is actually starting a conversation saying, ``We want you to be a safe third country. Let us think about 5 years from now. How do we get to that point where you meet international standards in terms of the protections you give people? Let us see if we can get there.'' That actually might generate a productive conversation with Mexico, the Mexican Government, about how they get to be a safe third country, basically a country of first asylum, rather than say, ``You have to do it tomorrow,'' because tomorrow, they would throw up their hands and say, ``We cannot do it. We are not in a position to do it. It is not safe for a lot of migrants.'' They are right. But does that have to be the case in 5 years? OK, what are the steps we follow? What do you actually have to have in terms of your own procedures internally? What do you have to have in terms of protections for people who are applying for asylum? That is the kind of thing they could get there. But we should get into that virtuous conversation, virtuous cycle conversation with them. Senator Peters. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Would it be a pretty good assumption that the people that Mexico is deporting are the ones that do not have the money to pay off the officials? Anybody want to chime in on that one? Mr. Selee. I would guess. I would say that is probably the case. You may have some virtuous officials. I would not discount that, and I have been surprised by this again and again with Mexican law enforcement that you actually do have people who do the right thing and people who are in very corrupt structures who turn out to be incredibly law-abiding and actually in it for the right reasons. I think there also may be people who are not bribable, but I would guess it leans heavily toward people who are trying to go on their own rather than people who are organized. Chairman Johnson. Again, I think I am trying to point out again the lucrative nature for the drug cartels who are businesses. They expand their product line into a more profitable and less risky line of business with human trafficking, correct? Mr. Davidson. Sure, absolutely. I was going to add as well that there is some reporting to suggest that what was once the Gulf Cartel, the Zetas Cartel, which has sort of broken up into a bunch of different cartels in Reynosa, across from McAllen, that cartel faction is making more money off of migration now than it is off of drugs, and that has become their chief enterprise in that city, which is a very high-volume area, the Rio Grande Valley, but McAllen in particular. Part of the reason they are able to get people across is because the cities come right up next to each other on the river. It is a matter of minutes after crossing the Rio Grande that you can be in a safe house or you can be in a vehicle on the freeway and gone. It is an opportunity for them to move families that are seeking asylum, but also people who are trying to evade detection who are paying more. It has become very lucrative in the McAllen- Reynosa area. The other thing I would add to the question about Mexico, there is a political problem in northern Mexico. Central American migrants are not very popular there, and there is not a lot of patience for having large numbers of Central American migrants staying in these northern Mexican cities. The incentives for politicians to do things to help migrants or to keep them there is not very high. The incentives go the other way. They want to move them along, either to deport them back to Central America or to get them moving across in the United States. But they do not want them to stay in these places in northern Mexico, in these cities. Chairman Johnson. I met with the Ambassador from Mexico, the new administration here, a couple times. She has brought in government officials. I personally think they seem to be pretty sincere about wanting to work with us because they realize it is a real problem for their country as well. I was struck in my last meeting that they all talked about development dollars, which, again, you have economic opportunity, that reduces the draw. But they never mentioned what I then brought up, the 800-pound gorilla, which is the drug cartels. Part of the problem in terms of enforcement--and, Senator Peters, I think you were with me in Guatemala when I think we heard the story. A new police official in Guatemala gets a little digital versatile disc (DVD) from the drug cartels. It shows his wife and children going to church or children going to school. I am not even going to tell the stories of the horrific abuses in terms of the kind of retributions. Of course, then those drug cartels create such a level of impunity, which I was struck by that. They said, ``We are dealing with two things: corruption and impunity.'' I understand corruption. Impunity is the drug cartels are untouchable because of our insatiable demand for drugs, which we funded. They are untouchable, and that impunity bleeds into the rest of society, which begins the extortionists, the rackets, go to cab drive, $10 a week or we will put a bullet in your brain and we will set the car on fire. I do not see how these individual countries with that level of brutality, that level of threat to any public official--and they have had plenty of examples of people being horrifically murdered--how they can do it on their own. I think the only solution is some kind of multinational task force and an all- out effort across the board. But even that, Chief Morgan, you were with the FBI. These drug kingpins, it is not like they are isolated in a little villa within a peaceful little village. Those villages are dependent, their economies, on those drug kingpins and the drug trade. How can you even--again, it sounds nice that we need to cooperate with Mexico to start disrupting these things. I mean, I look at this as such a horrific problem. Can any of you speak to that? Are my assumptions just wrong? We will start with Chief Morgan. Mr. Morgan. Chairman, you are 100 percent correct, and you started off this hearing by saying long term/short term. What you are talking about, what we are talking about dealing with Mexico, look, I do not want my testimony to be mischaracterized. I am not saying we should not continue to work with them. What I am saying is that is a long-term--to some degree you could make the argument to totally eradicate the cartels is an unrealistic expectation. It does, it needs a massive, whole-of-government approach, multinational approach to target this, and, yes, but that is long term. Chairman Johnson. By the way, we have tried that in Colombia. We have had some success, but the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) still exists. Mr. Morgan. Exactly. That is the point. It took a long time, too. I was attached to CBP in 2014. I know that they have been working with Mexico for a long time. They are working really hard with the Mexican officials. They have been talking about safe third country for years, and we have gotten no traction whatsoever. Yes, we keep doing this, and we keep working this. We target the cartels. That is long term. But guess what? Next month there are probably going to be 115,000 people. Your chart is going to continue to go like this---- Chairman Johnson. Oh, yes, by the end of the year it will be up toward the ceiling. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. It is a crisis. In my law enforcement experience, any crisis or emergency takes immediate need, immediate swift and bold action to address the crisis. While we are talking about all this stuff with Mexico and Northern Triangle, that is great and it sounds good. But, one, in the past it has not come to fruition. Two, that is long term. Three, it is not going to stop the 115,000 coming next month. We need to do something now, and I still stand behind my testimony. A congressional fix of Flores, TVPRA, and we make these individuals wait in Mexico, and we push resources to the border to expedite the asylum process. If we do that, you are going to take the incentives away. Chairman Johnson. Just listening to Mr. Davidson and the control of the Southern Border by the drug cartels and the kind of dollars you are talking about, there are hundreds of millions. What we are going to expend--I mean, I am not suggesting this by any means, but the economics of this, they are controlling the border for a couple hundred million dollars. Mr. Davidson. Yes, absolutely. I think this is in my written testimony. By way of comparison, if you take $800 a person as the tax for the cartels in the Gulf Region, that is, $138, $135 million for fiscal year 2018 that would have gone to the cartel factions in the Gulf Region. The entire amount, I believe, that we have appropriated for the Merida Initiative for Mexico for this fiscal year is $145 million. It is not nearly enough. I would add, too---- Chairman Johnson. But what we are spending trying to get some level of security over our border, with these broken laws, which create the incentive, I mean, we have no hope. Mr. Davidson. It is a drop in the bucket. I would add, too, that this idea that we are going to close the ports of entry if Mexico does not do more is not very productive because we are asking Mexico to do something it cannot do. Mexico does not exercise sovereignty over all of its territory, and we cannot ask the Mexican Government and threaten the Mexican Government with closed ports of entry to do something that it is not able to do, which is to exercise sovereignty over these areas in northern Mexico where sovereignty is effectively being exercised by drug cartels. Chairman Johnson. Again, my point is we have to recognize the true reality, what we can actually accomplish versus what is, if possible, a long way in the future with many speed bumps along the way here. I want to go back to what has happened to the 850,000. What is their legal status? OK, they have claimed asylum. They have a notice to appear. Their court date is sometime way out in the future. What are they doing in the interim? Mr. Davidson, I think you talked about a lot of them already have work, but they are not working in this country legally. I believe it is after 6 months they will get a work permit, but initially for the 6 months, what are they doing? Mr. Davidson. It was mentioned earlier that we are funding the Mexican drug cartel profits. Because there is an appetite for illegal narcotics in this country, there is also an appetite for cheap labor. They are engaged in all kinds of industries in all corners of the country. These folks are going from points on the Texas border, they are going to Florida, they are going to Virginia, they are going to Illinois, to Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington. They are working in agriculture, but they are also working in construction industries all across the country. They are working in service industries all across the country. They are coming here because people are hiring them. Companies in the United States are hiring them and paying them, likely in full knowledge of the fact that they are not here in a legal capacity. So the appetite for narcotics is---- Chairman Johnson. That is how employers can really exploit somebody. ``Oh, I am not paying you enough? Well, complain. I will call ICE.'' Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. It happens all across the country, as far north as--I have seen it personally happen in fish-buying camps in Alaska that employ illegal labor. It is endemic. It has been going on for decades and decades. I think as part of the long-term solution, figuring out a way to get people who want to come here to work, to come here in some legal capacity, if it is a temporary guest worker program of some kind, I think you would see a lot of the people who are in this right-hand column who are coming here to work, but claiming asylum and bringing a kid with them would move into a legal framework where they are coming in legally to work temporarily and go back home at some point. Chairman Johnson. Again, that would be my suggestion. If you have a rapid adjudication, is this going to be a valid asylum claim or not, as soon as you say, OK, it is going to be valid, here is your work permit and we talked about this earlier. I have the guest worker permit governed by the States. Then we actually know where people are going. We can kind of keep track of them. The States would have some responsibility for making sure we keep--so, again, the whole point of this thing is this is out of control. We need to bring this system under some level of control. This is unacceptable for everybody. This is not humane. Senator Portman had a hearing on this, but in Ohio, I think there were some minors that were pretty much put into involuntary servitude on a farm? We have had all this publicity on the sex workers in massage parlors and stuff. These people are being exploited. There is nothing humane or compassionate about that. Mr. Selee. There are two questions--we have not talked about it in these terms, but there are two questions that we need to answer here. One is how you deal with a wave event, right? What essentially is a tipping point where people start coming in large numbers. How do you change that so there is another tipping point and people--and that goes down? The other question is how do you deal with the long-term structural challenge, right? Those things are interrelated, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Malcolm Gladwell has this book, ``Tipping Point,'' where he says multiple things interact to create a wave and then multiple things have to interact to stop that. Clearly, the legal changes is a big part of that. I agree. That is clear. But, also, it makes sense to go after smugglers, right? It makes sense to figure out if Mexico can begin to absorb some people or at least create the expectation that they are about to absorb some people. It makes some sense to see what you do on the ground to give some people hope. Maybe you try a pilot program on asylum or refugees or parole authority in-country, which does not affect a lot of people because it is a pilot, but it creates a hope that maybe you do not have to make the journey. There is not going to be one thing that changes everything. But there could be many things, and then you have to figure out what you do long term. Chairman Johnson. Yes. Again, I think you have to separate out these potential solutions, again, the likelihood of them having an immediate impact on a problem that is at crisis levels right now versus something that in the future this will have an impact, but it is going to take quite some time. In questioning with Senator Hassan, you were talking about some of the actions the Administration has taken could be a signal saying, ``You better get in here quick because'' What was going through my mind and I will make the point now. That is the problem, and this is across all Administrations. There are only limited things you can do administratively. Mr. Selee. Yes. Chairman Johnson. Whether it is the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration, or the Trump administration trying to grapple with this, with what they can do regulatorily, it does not work. It is just simply not effective. We have to change these laws. Again, this is the responsibility of Congress. We have to do the problem-solving process, identify the problem, look at the root cause, identify an achievable solution, separate out immediate effect versus long term, things we need to do long term, but what do we need to do short term? Would people agree with that? Mr. Morgan. I completely agree, and here is a point, Senator. Again, you reverse Flores and give CBP and ICE the ability to detain these people and expedite the immigration process, and you reverse TVPRA so that you apply the same standard to everybody, you are going to end catch-and-release. Congress can do that. Those two things will end catch-and- release, and they will remove the incentive so that immigrants will stop paying the cartels money to come here because they know they are just going to turn around and be removed. The cartels will come up with another scheme and adjust their TTPs to start doing more stuff, more drugs, etc., but you are going to cut that off. I cannot emphasize that enough. Chairman Johnson. That is why I started with Michael Chertoff's example. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Chairman Johnson. A much smaller size problem, but significant, and the impact was almost immediately, and it worked. Mr. Morgan. We are clouding the issue--with receiving 100,000 last month alone, we are clouding the issue with all of this other stuff, when right now reverse Flores, fix TVPRA, and you are going to end catch-and-release dramatically, and you are going to see the numbers go down. That could be done immediately while we are doing everything else that needs to be done. Chairman Johnson. Dr. Selee. Mr. Selee. I would throw in one thing. One thing that Mr. Davidson has mentioned a couple times that I think is worth noting is you were talking about what used to be the Zetas, the groups that are left over from the Zetas and the Gulf Cartel. These were two of the most powerful cartels in Mexico. The Zetas, there was a time not long ago, 7 or 8 years ago when we talked about the Zetas taking over Mexico because they were so fearsome. They are gone. Now, they are gone relatively speaking. There are lots of little groups that are little Zetas hanging out there, and there are lots of little Gulf Cartel groups. It is not perfect. Right? I mean, we did not solve the drug-trafficking problem. We did not solve the question of control. But we did create--and this was Mexico and the United States working together to go after--really targeted the Zetas and the Gulf Cartel at a time they were allied and said: ``This is a group that is getting too powerful. We are going to degrade them to the point where they are a local threat but no longer a national security threat.'' We have never actually looked at this with smugglers in the same way. We do actually have an ability--as much money as there is in this, as much money as they can bribe local officials and so on, there is actually a pretty good track record when the United States and Mexican Governments share intelligence and target to go after--and I am not suggesting, by the way, that we go dismantle all the trafficking groups. I think that is unrealistic, probably unnecessary, but throwing a little bit of deterrence and throwing a little bit of a monkey wrench in what has been a fairly smooth operation for smuggling groups would not be a terrible idea. Chairman Johnson. Again, all for it. Anything we can do to degrade that evil would be good. How distinct are the drug cartels from the human traffickers? Again, I just kind of assumed that they just sort of spun--it is an increase in the product line. Now, maybe they have split off in different divisions. Are these totally separate groups, Chief Morgan. Mr. Morgan. Look, I have been doing investigations for 25 years, and it is all well and good to target the traffickers and smugglers, but you have to go to the head of the snake. Right? If you go after one smuggling entity or one group of traffickers, you eliminate them, and the other one will take their place. You have to cut the head of the snake off, and so you have to go after the leadership of the cartels. But I think John explained it best, that they are like a McDonald's franchise. They are independently operated and owned, but they still belong and still have to pay to the over- governing franchise. Yes, they do not own anything, the smugglers or traffickers. They have to pay for their routes. They have to pay to work in a certain plaza. They have to pay a tax to the cartels to be able to facilitate what they are doing. Chairman Johnson. Mr. Davidson. Mr. Davidson. I would just add to Andrew's comments and to Mark's comments as well. The fracturing of the cartels that happened, the Gulf and the Zetas Cartels, has also created a diversification of what the cartels do, so you are now seeing gas theft on a mass scale throughout Mexico, fishing theft, and then, migration as a source of income as a way to diversify income streams. The legalization of marijuana is part of this in the United States. The profits that they made from selling marijuana have gone down. They have sought to replace those income streams through monetizing migration. Putting pressure on them has these sort of ripple effects that we do not always see. The spike of violence, Reynosa is one of the most violent cities in the world right now, right across from McAllen, Texas. It did not used to be that way, but breaking up the cartels there, ending what they call the ``cartel peace,'' has caused an explosion of violence in Reynosa as cartel factions fight, and fight over income streams and over territory. I have to agree that doing something to reduce the incentives to the customer, to the families who are paying the cartels is--you have to do that. That is not going to solve the cartel problem in Mexico. But it might affect this part of it, which is the monetization of illegal immigration. Chairman Johnson. Right. Until we reduce our demand for drugs, we will still keep funneling billions down there. I believe it is true that we have authorized more CBP officers than we have hired, because it is a real problem. I am all for hiring more CBP officers, but how do you do it? I want to talk to you, Chief. I come from a manufacturing background where we operated 24/7. I am not sure there is any industry in the private sector that operates 24/7 with three shifts. Again, there are 168 hours in a week, and if you divide that by 3, I think that is 56 hours per shift, versus divided by 4 it is 42. And so you do not burn your people out. What has amazed me is--and I think this is a true statement--most government agencies that operate on a 24/7 continuous shift basis do it three shifts. Then they have to work overtime and it fatigues people. It does not lead to, from my standpoint, probably very good job satisfaction. If you like working 56 hours a week--and there are not too many Americans that like that day in and day out. Everybody likes the overtime, but by and large, people kind of like to stick within that 40-some-hour work week. Can you speak to that in terms of your experience with CBP? Mr. Morgan. I think we should be looking at all options to address the issue, because the issue of not hiring enough people, it is real. It was an issue when I was there in 2016, it was an issue before that, and it is an issue now. What I do think is there are a lot of other organic issues that really is the issue. I am not disagreeing with you that this is not something we should take a look at, and this may assist. What I do not believe in my experience, though, is it is going to really adjust the needle to any great degree, CBP's ability to hire people. Chairman Johnson. What is the number one thing we have to do? We did kind of correct the lie detector, which was disqualifying an awful lot of folks. What is the number one thing that you think we need to do to make sure it is an attractive enough job so we can actually hire up to the authorized level? Mr. Morgan. I think they need to continue to do what they started a little bit after I left. We talked about it while I was there. They really have to go out into the interior of the United States, into the Midwest. When I was there, you would go out to the Midwest, and a lot of people had no idea what CBP even was. They were really concentrating on more the border cities and the border areas, and they were really tapped out. I really think if they go into the interior United States--they have been, and I have seen that, and it is being effective. I think they need to continue to do more of that. Chairman Johnson. I just want to thank all of you. I really think really your testimony was excellent. I think this was a great exchange, a lot of good issues brought up by Members. I will give each of you--and I will start with Dr. Selee, just something that you want to get off your chest here that we did not cover or, just kind of summarize what we need to do. Again, right now I am thinking short term. What I want our Committee to concentrate on is let us try and address this short-term crisis as effectively as we can, because we have to change laws and what is that going to look like. If you want to chime in on that, I would be happy to hear your comments. Mr. Selee. I will just repeat what I have said already. If we want to change one thing legislatively, although it could probably be done as a rule change administratively as well, I would change the asylum system adjudication. It is the thing that you can convince people is both fair to people who are asylum seekers, but also tough-minded with people---- Chairman Johnson. Let us drill down on that. Do you think we should have a higher hurdle rate--right now, my understanding, the credible fear, the way that is interpreted by the court is you have about a 10-percent chance of actually proving your asylum claim. Mr. Selee. Yes. Chairman Johnson. If we increase that---- Mr. Selee. About 80 percent---- Chairman Johnson [continuing]. To a different standard, again, I am not a lawyer. These types of things drive me nuts. But, people seeing a significant chance, is that what you are talking about? Mr. Selee. No. I am talking about, I think, that you do not send the cases to the immigration courts at all. You send them straight to an asylum officer. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has asylum officers. We do have to make some investments, although we also have trained officers-- -- Chairman Johnson. Which I think people are happy--do you believe that on a bipartisan basis people would accept the determination of those individuals charged with making that initial determination that would in effect be final? Mr. Selee. Yes. Chairman Johnson. The more people that do not meet that initial bar and we remove them. Mr. Selee. I think you could get a broader consensus around it. I do not think you will get everyone on board. I think you are going to get some people on both the left and the right that will not be comfortable with it. But I think you will get a broad spectrum of people who can agree that it is both fair but tough-minded. It makes our asylum system have integrity. The asylum system should not be used for labor migration. It should be used for protection. That is the right thing to do. So if we do that---- Chairman Johnson. It probably should be pointed out, those people that get returned can always go to the U.S. embassy, claim refugee status, and wait in line as an economic migrant. Mr. Selee. Right. I mean, they could try and, get an agricultural visa or do something else. I think we do need to do some work with Mexico. I think that, frankly, the more the Mexicans can send signals that they are going to try and make their asylum system work and do some labor migration and they do credible enforcement, it helps us. I think the worst thing we could do is sort of pull out of Central America because I think we will add to the wave. Right? I mean, it is a perception thing, but it is also probably a real thing for some people will add to the wave. I think we have to hold the line on that. Chairman Johnson. I have said repeatedly, of all the causes, the number one root cause of our unsecured border is America's insatiable demand for drugs. Mr. Selee. Yes. Chairman Johnson. But taking drugs, it is not a victimless crime. Mr. Selee. No. Chairman Johnson. I tell young people all the time, if you think that, come down with me to Guatemala, and I will show you a shelter for sex-trafficked little girls that is kind of being fueled by the drug trade as well. Mr. Davidson. Mr. Davidson. I agree with everything Andrew said about trying to streamline the asylum process. I cannot emphasize enough how much this is driven by word of mouth. If word gets back to these communities in Central America that you cannot actually get in if you bring a child and you cannot just claim asylum if you do not have a valid claim, that you will be detained and deported, I think it will affect the wave quickly. Chairman Johnson. Can I just point out, 850,000 people that have these and people in Central America have these [indicating phone], so it is not just--it is using technology. Mr. Davidson. That is what I mean. They are in touch with their families and their networks and their communities in Central America. And so word will get back quickly that you cannot, in fact, get in. People are pawning their houses and going into debt to loan sharks to be able to pay the fare to get in, to make it north to the border and to get across. They are not going to do that if they have a strong reason to believe that they are going to get detained or deported. I think, that is the number one thing you can do to address this problem. Chairman Johnson. It is tough love, but it is, I think, something we have to do. Chief Morgan. Mr. Morgan. Just to recap what I have said, I think that, again, I agree actually with everything both these gentlemen said, specifically with streamlining the asylum process. But, again, to reiterate, to fix this problem immediately, we have to remove the incentives. If you do not remove the incentives, in my opinion, everything else is a little bit of white noise. The major things that we can do right now to remove the incentive is to allow the border security experts to detain these individuals, i.e., fix Flores, the Flores Settlement; two, they absolutely need to reverse TVPRA and make sure that it is applied to everybody so we do not have that mandate, because right now, as I have said, grab a kid, enter illegally, one foot on American soil, say the magic words, and you are here indefinitely. If you fix those things, you remove--and you end catch-and-release. The last thing that I will say is that right now what we also need to do to remove those incentives, to remove that perception that once you get here you are going to remain indefinitely, is we need to support and increase ICE enforcement and interior enforcement. Right now we have over 1 million individuals who came here, the majority of them, illegally, filed for asylum, and either in absentia or their claim was denied, have received a deportation order of removal--1 million, yet they still remain in this country illegally. If we start an enforcement operation to remove those individuals, you will also make a huge dent on the incentive. Chairman Johnson. I will repeat, we had a hearing on MS-13, unbelievably vicious gang, and that was pretty revealing. But as I said, I think Operation Matador, 40 percent of those people rounded up in that operation, MS-13, came in as unaccompanied children or an unaccompanied child. Again, I just want to thank all of you. This is exactly what I was kind of hoping this hearing would be. I think we have laid out some realities. I think you have certainly informed this Committee. The next step is to utilize this information to, again, develop--or agree on what is an achievable goal, in particularly the short term, and work on the policy suggestions. Again, I agree with you, Dr. Selee. I think that is the basic, we have to attack that, the way we come to that first conclusion, so if we can do it quickly--and, by the way, if we do that, the number of detention beds we need comes down, the length of time in detention comes down, and we get this all under control. But right now part of the things that offends the American consciousness, because we are an incredibly compassionate Nation, is just these numbers and just kind of what the government is trying to deal with and how they are trying to grapple with it. Of course, just one news story about a child who dies because they come to this country with a 105-degree fever with a large group and CBP just--you cannot save every life. That offends the American public. But if we can get this under control, we will see far fewer stories of that, and I think it will be better for everyone. Again, I just want to thank all of you for your testimony. I want to continue to work with you in the future. The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until April 19 at 5 p.m., for submission of statements and questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FRONTLINE ---------- TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 2019 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Romney Scott, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, Harris, Sinema, and Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I want to welcome all our witnesses. Thank you for your thoughtful testimony. As I said last week, I really encourage all the committee Members, if you have not had a chance, please read the testimony. I think these witnesses, again, have done a very good job of laying out the reality of the crisis that we face on the border. I ask that my written statement be entered in the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 143. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let us quickly put up the chart\2\ that really describes this. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 195. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We do not have final numbers for the final week in March, but again, I am not going to go through the full explanation of this, but only to point out in less than 6 months, we have apprehended more than 240,000 either unaccompanied alien children (UAC) or people coming in this country as family units, individuals who according to testimony last week are part of a process, it is almost a well-oiled machine of the human traffickers, the transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), individuals that are moving people from Central America into this country, completely exploiting our laws, but 240,000 people in less than 6 months, and that compares to 120,000 in 2014, the year that President Obama correctly labeled that a ``humanitarian crisis.'' Again, in less than half a year, we are double the level of 2014. We are going to be hearing from people in the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the folks that are trying to grapple with this growing crisis, how it has completely overwhelmed our system. But, again, this is going to be a very full hearing. We have representatives from the agencies that are grappling with this crisis. I want to thank you, first of all, for your service to this country, for trying to deal with it, but this is up to Congress. We have laws on the books and court decisions that need to be addressed through congressional action, through passing laws. From my standpoint, the goal of this is to reduce, if not stop, the flow of this illegal immigration. That has to be the goal of our policy and recognizing--I tried to make this point in the last hearing as well. We have a short term--it is a long-term problem, but we have a short-term crisis, and we have to address this with short-term measures. I am all for developing and sending dollars and trying to help those nations whose public institutions have been destroyed by an insatiable demand for drugs in Central America, but that is not going to solve this problem anytime soon. We have to enact the laws so we can address this problem right now. We cannot afford to wait any longer. One other chart\1\ I want to quickly put up here, I had my staff take a look at this. If we are going to fix this--and Dr. Selee last week talked about having a more rapid adjudication process for that initial determination of an asylum claim, and the reason that is important is if we do not detain individuals, we only are able to remove about 7 percent. If we detain people and they have an invalid asylum claim, we can remove about 77 percent. So we have to be able to have an adjudication process in a time period where we have the detention facilities so we can actually remove them; otherwise, it is kind of a moot point. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 196. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have to take a look at that initial hurdle in terms of credible fear or a more likelihood that their asylum claim would be viewed as valid. Eighty-five percent of asylum claims are denied. So we have to come to that determination a lot quicker. This chart right here shows what type of facilities we would need based on the number of people coming in this country illegally on a monthly basis versus the number of days to adjudicate that initial claim, and it is pretty shocking. Right now we had about 100,000 individuals is what the estimate is for March, about 100,000 people coming to this country illegally. If it take 45 days--right now it is taking about 40 days I think to get that initial determination--we are looking at needing detention facilities. Somewhere about 125,000 beds is what this chart will show you because you are right between 150- and 100,000 beds, 45 to 30 day adjudication process. 125,000 beds. We got about 50. So this chart also shows you the solution. Reduce the flow. Reduce the number of days to adjudication, and then we will have plenty of detention facilities. Senator Hassan has been talking about this. I do not want to detain people. It costs a lot of money. What I want to do is I want to come to a very rapid conclusion, a rapid determination: This is a valid asylum claim or an invalid one. If it is an invalid asylum claim, we have to remove those individuals back to their home country. We know this works. Secretary Michael Chertoff in 2005 with a surge of Brazilians, about 31,000 in that year came in from Mexico into our Southern Border. He realized that was a problem. So he initiated a process of rapid removal, and the next year, it was 1,400. So we know that works. That is what we need to do, but we have to pass the laws to do it. Again, I will not go on any further, but I am just asking this Committee. I will be proposing legislation, hopefully working with Senator Peters and others on a bipartisan basis to fix this problem. We have to address it, and it is a short-term situation that we have to deal with this. We cannot wait for the long-term fixes. With that, Senator Peters. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\ Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today, and to all of our witnesses, thank you for being here today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the Appendix on page 145. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last Thursday's hearing provided information about the scope and the scale of the challenges that we are now facing on our Southern Border. Important historical context was provided and a chance to examine how we can better work with the governments of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. During my opening statement, just 5 days ago in the hearing that we had last week, I said that securing our borders will take cooperation and credibility from this Administration and not chaos and not confusion. Unfortunately, in the days since, just the 5 days, we have seen nothing but more chaos out of the Administration. Since this first Southern Border hearing concluded, we have seen the Administration withdraw their nominee to be Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a nominee who had a hearing before this Committee last year and was approved during the Committee meeting last month. We have seen the announcement of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen's resignation. We have seen the President fire Secret Service Director Randolph Alles for unknown reasons, creating another senior vacancy at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We have seen reports that the White House is potentially preparing to fire the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It is, in a word, chaos. The problems we face at our Southern Border will not be fixed with high-profile firings or tweets or press conferences. It is going to take leadership, and as I said last week, it is going to take cooperation and credibility. By the end of the week, the Department of Homeland Security will have no Secretary, no Deputy Secretary, no Chief Financial Officer (CFO), nobody leading multiple major bureaus and therefore virtually no accountability to the American people. We are looking at an absence of leadership at the top of the third largest Department in our Federal Government, a Department charged with preventing terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing our immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace, and ensuring resilience to disasters. Fortunately, the men and women of DHS and its component agencies, career public servants, continue to show up to work, and they continue to do their best across the Country in the midst of a very difficult situation on our Southern Border. Last week we heard that it is not just the number but the composition of the migrant groups that is straining our infrastructure. Specifically, the influx of families and children seeking asylum from dangerous conditions in Northern Triangle countries has created an unprecedented challenge for our frontline personnel. There are no easy answers or quick fixes here, but we know that the trauma of detaining young children and separating them from their parents puts these children at risk of irreparable harm. I have asked multiple officials from this Administration who have testified before this committee. I have asked, ``How long is too long to detain a child?'' I have yet to receive a real answer. We must do better. We need to reduce the backlogs in processing asylum claims. Screening interviews are being delayed. The average wait to appear before an immigration court is now over 2 years, and the backlog is quickly approaching 1 million cases. This is simply unacceptable. We need to address root causes of mass migration, take on the violence and impunity that regions across the Northern Triangle experience and disrupt the transnational criminal organizations that cash in on drug trafficking and human smuggling. This will take careful cooperation with regional governments, law enforcement, and civil society, not cutting off existing funding to nonprofit organizations operating in the Northern Triangle. We need Mexico to do more to address the flow of migrants across their Southern Border, but it will take sustained cooperation and American leadership, not baseless threats and disengagement. Finally, we need to secure our Southern Border, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about what is working and what is not. I look forward to hearing how we can replicate your successes and address your challenges, and I look forward to discussing how we can improve the data that Congress and Federal agencies rely on to make thoughtful decisions. Thank you all for being here today. Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Peters. Again, what it will take is legislation, and we need to act now to address this situation. We cannot rely on long-term fixes to address this situation now. Again, that is why I want to work with you. That is why we are holding these hearings is to determine what we need to do now to fix this. So it does require legislation. It is the tradition of this committee to swear in witnesses, so if you all stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Karisch. Yes. Mr. Howe. Yes. Mr. Tubbs. Yes. Mr. White. Yes. Mr. Cherundolo, Yes. Chairman Johnson. Please be seated. Our first witness is Rodolfo Karisch. Mr. Karisch is the Chief Patrol Agent for the U.S. border patrols Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, and Commander of the Joint Task Force-West (JTF-W), South Texas Corridor. He previously served as the Chief Patrol Agent of the Tucson and Del Rio Sectors. He also previously served as CBP Attache to Mexico. Mr. Karisch. TESTIMONY OF RODOLFO KARISCH,\1\ RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR CHIEF PATROL, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Karisch. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the chance to appear before you today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Karisch appears in the Appendix on page 148. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am proud to have served as a Border Patrol Agent for more than 30 years, currently as the Chief Patrol Agent in the Rio Grande Valley Sector, and also have served as the Chief Patrol Agent of the Tucson Sector. In my 30 years as an agent, I have never witnessed the conditions we are currently facing on the Southwest Border. This is not a manufactured crisis created by those of us who live and work in the border area. The U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) continues to apprehend record numbers of people who purposely violate U.S. immigration laws. We are taken advantage of by gaps in our legal framework and that undermine the rule of law. Criminal organizations along the border capitalize on these issues and make tremendous profits at the expense of both migrants and the American people. RGV is responsible for securing 277 miles of border. This is a small fraction of the United States, but it accounts for 38 percent of all illegal immigration along the entire Southwest Border. To put things into perspective, last year agents in RGV made 162,000 apprehensions. We are already at 147,000. At this pace, my sector alone, we will have more than 260,000 apprehensions by the end of the fiscal year (FY). On average, we apprehend more than a thousand people illegally crossing the border every day. That is roughly the capacity of 17 commercial buses. Last week agents in my sector apprehended 1,766 people in a single 24-hour period. We expect the numbers to continue to climb as we enter the summer months, which will undoubtedly place both migrants and our Border Patrol Agents at significant risk. Rescue missions will increase as a result of drawing additional personnel from our frontline law enforcement mission. Much media attention has focused on caravans from Central America, but the fact is that RGV is receiving caravan- equivalent numbers of migrants every 7 days. The majority of people we are apprehending are family units and unaccompanied children from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Many are extremely vulnerable. Consequently, 30 to 40 percent of my daily workforce is doing humanitarian work at any given point in time. This includes processing, care and feeding, hospital watch, and transportation. It also means that at any given point in time, 30 to 40 percent of my workforce is not available to secure the border. An agent who has taken a migrant to a hospital is not available to interdict narcotics, nor are we able to respond to other smuggling events or border intrusions when we encounter and apprehend large groups of people. The bad guys know this. They know our resources are stretched thin in addressing the humanitarian issue, which undermines our border security operations. They direct the movement of large groups into certain border areas as a diversion to facilitate the smuggling of drugs. This is an issue of both national security and officer safety. In addition to the large groups of families and children from Central American, other illegal aliens from all over the world are caught trying to evade arrest. In my sector along, we have encountered people from 50 different countries. That includes Bangladesh, China, Turkey, Egypt, Romania, to name a few. People are traveling across hemispheres to attempt to illegally enter the United States, using the same pathways as the Central Americans. We also encounter known gang members from some of the most violent gangs on earth, including MS-13 and 18th Street. Some of these gang members are fraudulently posing as part of these migrant families. I would like to share with you a translation of a text message that we intercepted from an MS-13 gang member who was part of one of these fraudulent family units. He wrote, ``You should see the amount of Hondurans that are traveling with a child, and they pay less to the smugglers in order to be delivered to the Border Patrol. It is a direct trip. They have them a few days with Border Patrol, and afterwards they are released. There are a lot of people with that law. That is the easiest way right now. Entire families are coming.'' So make no mistake about it. The world is getting out. If you are part of a family, if you bring a child, you will be released. Just last Friday, our agents apprehended an adult Honduran male with a 1-year-old child. After questioning the man, the man admitted the child was not in fact his. Something has to change. The levels of mass migration we are seeing profoundly impacts our ability to control the border and stop dangerous people and drugs from entering the country. I implore Congress to consider legislative action that restores integrity to our immigration system. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Karisch. Again, thank you for your service. Our next witness is Randy Howe. Mr. Howe is the Executive Director of Operations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In this role, he oversees 30 field offices and 328 ports of entry (POE). Mr. Howe. TESTIMONY OF RANDY HOWE,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Howe. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is an honor to appear before you today on behalf of CBP's Office of Field Operations (OFO). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The joint prepared statement of Mr. Howe appears in the Appendix on page 148. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Customs and Border Protection has four priority missions: national security, counter-narcotics, economic security, and the facilitation of lawful trade and travel. We operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year to accomplish those missions. Our job is to move people and cargo through our ports of entry, while inspecting all of those for possible hazards and stopping threats at the border. Our Nation's economy and our national security relies on our vigilance. It is an immense task even in the best circumstances. Our officers report to duty never knowing what challenges they will face or if their lives will be threatened. Factors like port volume, resource constraints, and enforcement activities make every day unpredictable. In recent months, however, we have seen an unprecedented, unsustainable trend in our daily operations. Inadmissible migrants sometimes traveling in large groups are arriving at our ports of entry without proper documentation. The majority are family units, unaccompanied children, and nearly all of them seeking asylum. I would like to give you a snapshot of the daily operations at one of our ports of entry. Just this past Saturday in Nogales, Arizona, our officers made five separate trips transporting migrants to medical facilities, including one trip transporting a family of five. Four unaccompanied alien children from Honduras arrived at our DeConcini Pedestrian Port of Entry. All claimed asylum. A family from Cuba entering the country by commercial bus then claimed asylum. A single vehicle inspection yielded 70 packages of methamphetamine, weighing more than 72 pounds; and a male imposter presenting someone else's documents was encountered as a pedestrian and taken in for processing. Among all this activity, our offices are regularly transporting migrants to coordinating centers or into ICE custody or accepting detainees from other ports of entry to alleviate overcrowding. This is in addition to our work to process the people and cargo with a legitimate need to pass through our ports of entry every day. While the current migration flows have taxed our officers at the ports of entry, the levels of migration between the ports is catastrophic. To support our colleagues in the U.S. Border Patrol, the Office of Field Operations has redirected 545 frontline officers from our southwest border ports of entry to help process and care for the record number of migrants. But these actions are not without consequences. Travelers and shippers are experiencing increased wait times as they approach our Southwest Border ports of entry. This is true across all mods of travel: pedestrian, personal vehicles, and commercial trucks. In El Paso, Texas, just yesterday, passenger vehicle wait times at the Bridge of the Americas were as long as 160 minutes. The peak time last year, same day, was 45 minutes. The situation is even more dire in our cargo processing. Last year wait times for cargo processing in El Paso were less than 15 minutes. Yesterday wait times were as long as 250 minutes. That is about 4 hours. At the end of the day, 63 trucks were not processed. This is the direct result of the 545 CBP officers being reassigned to assist the Border Patrol with the care and custody of the surging numbers of migrants. I cannot overstate the importance of these operations. The border security and humanitarian crisis at the Southwest Border has ripple effects that impact the entire Nation. Suspended services negatively affect the trade community, the supply chain, businesses that rely on these products, and ultimately the consumer. Despite the challenges we face, our officers continue to process migrants claiming asylum, facilitate legitimate trade and travel, and interdict narcotics from entering the United States. I appreciate the support Congress has offered to our men and women of the front lines, and I ask that you consider legislative action that will address this crisis. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Howe. Our next witness is Timothy Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs is the Deputy Special Agent in Charge for the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Laredo, Texas, office, which includes McAllen and Brownsville, Texas. He previously served as the ICE attache to Mexico. Mr. Tubbs. TESTIMONY OF TIMOTHY TUBBS,\1\ DEPUTY SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE- LAREDO, TEXAS, HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Tubbs. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity today to be here to discuss U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations, and our frontline perspective on the sophisticated smuggling threats that we face on the Southwest Border, the approaches that lead up to the border, and some of what we do to address transnational criminal organizations, that threaten border security, homeland security, and public safety by seeking to bring illicit goods, people, and proceeds into the United States. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Tubbs appears in the Appendix on page 157. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- HSI Special Agents use their vast authority to investigate cross-border criminal activity and work in close collaboration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection, our Office of Field Operations, United States Border Patrol, as well as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). We work in a unified effort with domestic and international law enforcement partners to combat that illicit activity. Today I will highlight how HSI since our inception has targeted, investigated, disrupted, dismantled, and brought to justice transnational criminal organizations who threaten our border security, our homeland security, and our public safety through their cross-border illicit activity. HSI is grateful to you for the continued congressional support that enables us to successfully execute our complex investigative mission, both at home and abroad, working with our domestic and international partners. HSI Laredo. So HSI Laredo is my current area of responsibility. It is one of the most active areas of responsibility for my agency. It covers approximately 300 miles of U.S.-Mexico border, and it covers what is the Mexican State of Tamaulipas with the United States border. If you look at the HSI Special Agents that work in that area, they are on the true forefront of what is border security, and they truly live every single day what is border security for we as the U.S. Government and the United States of America. Mexico is the front doorstep for transnational criminal organizations to bring in illicit goods and people to the United States. Mexico is a major source country for the transit and production of illicit drugs destined for the United States, including marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, heroin, and most recently fentanyl. As a result of Mexico's dominant role, both as a source and transit point for illicit drugs destined for the United States, it is also a primary destination for illicit proceeds that the cartel earns through their distribution networks in the United States. Mexico cartels use a variety of techniques to repatriate illicit funds from bulk cash smuggling to sophisticated trade- based money-laundering schemes. Many of these more complex schemes use third-party money launderers. As such, HSI has established an abundance of investigative tools in our arsenal to disrupt and dismantle cartel money-laundering operations. Also, HSI and the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Criminal Division, we have established the Extraterritorial Criminal Travel (ECT) Strike Force Program, which addresses U.S. security risks posed by TCOs that smuggle special-interest aliens, and these special-interest aliens could potentially cause a threat to U.S. national security and public safety. This ECT program is designated to disrupt and dismantle these human-smuggling organizations worldwide through aggressive investigations and criminal prosecutions, both domestically and extraterritorially. HSI works very close with our international partners to disrupt and dismantle TCOs. HSI has 68 offices in 51 countries, and we are positioned to utilize our established relationships with those host-country law enforcement to include the engagement in what we call ``Transnational Criminal Investigative Units (TCIUs). These TCIUs are composed of DHS- trained host-country officials who have the authority to investigate and enforce violations of laws in respective countries. The TCIUs enable both ICE and the host country to conduct joint criminal investigations, joint prosecutions, while meeting the common mission of both the host country and ICE, also respecting the sovereignty of the host country and cultivating that international relationship. These efforts, often thousands of miles away from our U.S. border in countries like the Dominican Republic and Mexico, both of which I have had the opportunity to serve, essentially act as an outer layer of security for our Southwest Border. Mexico specifically, again, where I have served for 3\1/2\ years before going to Laredo, has proven to be an outstanding partner in the right against TCOs, taking down cartel leadership as well as taking down the leadership of these organizations that smuggle special-interest aliens and ultimately working with us cooperatively in efforts to dismantle those organizations. The ICE attache in Mexico is our largest ICE presence outside the United States, and there, we have an established TCIU with the government of Mexico. Through our attache, we work well with the government of Mexico in combating TCOs and combating the transnational drug smuggling, weapons smuggling, human smuggling, and money laundering. The spirit of cooperation and joint efforts between DHS components and our counterparts in Mexico is unprecedented. HSI will continue to work with our law enforcement partners. We will continue to work with them both domestically and foreign to improve our efficiency and effectiveness of information sharing, operational coordination to combat TCOs and their illicit border activity, which ultimately threatens our border security, our national security, and our public safety. I want to thank you for having me here today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you have. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Tubbs. Our next witness is Commander Jonathan White. Commander White serves in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps. He is the Health and Human Services (HHS) Senior Advisor in the Office of Emergency Management and Medical Operations. He previously served as the Deputy Director of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. Commander White. TESTIMONY OF COMMANDER JONATHAN WHITE, PhD,\1\ USPHS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND MEDICAL OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. Mr. White. Good morning. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the Committee, it is my honor to appear today before you on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Commander White appears in the Appendix on page 173. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As the Chairman noted, my name is Jonathan White. I am a career officer in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. I am also a clinical social worker and an emergency manager, and most recently, I have been detailed as HHS's operational lead in the effort to reunify children who were separated from their parents at the Southwest Border. I want to talk to you about the Unaccompanied Alien Children's program in the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in HHS. ORR is responsible for the care and the temporary custody of unaccompanied children referred to ORR by other Federal agencies, and as a reminder, ORR does not apprehend migrants at the border or enforce the immigration laws. HHS is not a law enforcement agency. As defined by the Homeland Security Act (HSA), if a child under the age of 18 with no lawful immigration status is apprehended by another Federal agency and there is no parent or legal guardian with the child or available in the United States to provide care and custody of the child, that child is considered, the legal term, as an ``unaccompanied alien child'' and is transferred to ORR for care and custody. ORR operates shelters nationwide that provide housing, nutrition, routine medical care, mental health services, educational services, and recreational activities, and these provide an environment that has parity with facilities in the child welfare systems that house children here domestically. The facilities are operated by nonprofit grantees who are licensed to provide care to children by State licensing authorities, the same that would regulate such facilities housing domestic children. The one exception is ORR's temporary hard-sided influx care facility on the former U.S. Job Corps site in Homestead, Florida, which is not required to obtain State licensure because it is located on federally owned property. However, children at that location generally receive the same level of care and services as children who are in a State-licensed facility. The UAC program capacity has expanded and contracted over the years, driven by the astonishing fluctuations over time and the number of children referred and the average time children remain in ORR care. Currently, HHS maintains about 14,300 beds nationwide. That is up from 6,500 beds on October 1, 2017, but it is also down from 15,800 beds on November 15, 2018. HHS continues to adjust its bed capacity constantly based on the most recent data, including information from our interagency partners, to help us prepare for changing needs. HHS cares for all of these children until they are released to a suitable sponsor, almost always a parent or close relative, to provide care for them while they await their day in immigration court. These children also leave HHS's care if they return to their home countries pursuant to an immigration judge's order or they turn 18 years of age or they gain legal immigration status. In fiscal 2018, 49,100 children were referred to ORR by DHS. From October through February of this fiscal year, we have received over 24,000 referrals. In fiscal 2019 through February, children were discharged from ORR custody. Ninety-two percent of them were released to individual sponsors, and of those sponsors, 46 percent were parents, 45 percent were close relatives, and 9 percent were more distant relatives or nonrelatives. On June 20, 2018, the President issued Executive Order (EO) 13841, and the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California in Ms. L v. ICE issued its preliminary injunction and class certification orders on June 26. Pursuant to those, Secretary Azar tasked the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response to help us comply with that Executive Order and then subsequently with those judge's orders, and to that end, we stood up an incident management team to reunify children with their parents. If the 2,814 children reported to the Ms. L court, as of this morning we have reunified 2,160 of them with the parent from whom they were separated. Another 595 children have left ORR care through other appropriate discharges, in most cases released to a family member sponsor. There are 16 children still in our care who were separated but cannot be reunified with their parent because we have made a final determination that that parent poses an unacceptable risk to the safety and well-being of that children. There are 32 children still in ORR care whose parents, after consulting with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have waived reunification, and there are 9 children in care whose subsequent review determined had not in fact been separated from their parents but were truly unaccompanied children. As of this week, of the 2,814 children reported to the Ms. L court, there are only two children remaining who might still one day be reunified. We cannot reunify them at this time until the parent conveys their wishes to the ACLU. The UAC program's mission is a child welfare mission. We seek to serve the best interest of each individual child. That has guided us in everything we do, including in our work to have each separated child back in his or her parent's arms or discharged safely to another family member sponsor when that is their parent's wish. We have done, and will continue to do, our best as a Department to achieve that goal. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you have for me about our program. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Commander White. Our final witness is Greg Cherundolo. Mr. Cherundolo is the Chief of Operators for the Drug Enforcement Agency. He leads DEA's 222 domestic offices and 90 foreign offices. Mr. Cherundolo. TESTIMONY OF GREG CHERUNDOLO,\1\ CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. Cherundolo. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is an honor to appear before you today to discuss Mexican cartels, the extent of their influence to manufacture, transport, and distribute illicit narcotics in our efforts to combat this threat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cherundolo appears in the Appendix on page 180. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have had the honor and privilege of serving as a law enforcement official for 27 years, with the last 22 of those years being as a DEA Special Agent. When I reflect on those 27 years of experience, the sophistication and capacity of Mexican cartels is what worries me most. Dangerous and highly sophisticated transnational criminal organizations, or cartels, operating in both Mexico and the United States have been, and will continue to be, the most significant source of illicit narcotics trafficked inside the United States. Whether it is heroin or synthetic opioids, methamphetamine, or marijuana, the Mexican cartels are the primary source of illicit drugs on our streets. Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Mexican cartels has been the confluence of three things: the synthetic drug threat; the epidemic of opioid abuse; and the cartel's attempt to expand their profits by intentionally mixing fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances with heroin, counterfeit prescription drugs, and other illicit drugs, including cocaine and methamphetamine. This is done for one simple reason: greed. This is a national threat and a public health emergency fueled by fentanyl, which is cheap to make, hard to detect, and dangerously potent. Now consider this. Chinese and Mexican nationals are increasingly operating in concert, resulting in an alignment responsible for their proliferation of heroin, fentanyl, and related synthetics coming across our Southwest Border. Couple this with the fact that a kilogram of fentanyl can be purchased for less than $5,000 for China, and potential profits from the sale of that kilogram can exceed $1.5 million. The cartels are deliberately seizing on the suffering of thousands of individuals to generate profit. The same organizations are transporting methamphetamine and cocaine across the Southwest Border at an alarming rate. We cannot afford to lose our focus on cocaine and methamphetamine. The cartels are responsible for record amounts of methamphetamine entering the United States, and recent increases in coca cultivation and cocaine production are particularly troubling, likely foreshadowing an increase in importation and abuse and overdose deaths. DEA anticipates that Mexican cartels, such as the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), as well as others will continue to be the primary networks operating in more than one country to plan and execute their criminal enterprises. These cartels do not observe boundaries or laws in Mexico, the United States, or any other country. As you know, in 2017, Mexico extradited Joaquin ``El Chapo'' Guzman to the United States, and he was just recently convicted in the Eastern District of New York. This is a major milestone, but more work needs to be done. Now what is DEA doing to counter this threat? We recognize this will take persistent efforts across a broad spectrum to include interagency and global partnerships. For decades, we have maintained a worldwide presence to address the source of drugs. In Mexico, DEA continues to synchronize and expand capabilities to combat the growing epidemic. We have developed a bilateral heroin strategy for intelligence sharing, coordination of investigations, training, increased sharing of forensic information, and the control of precursor chemicals. We also participate in the North American Drug Dialogue, which focuses on building a strategy to attack the production, trafficking, consumption, and misuse of illicit narcotics in North America. DEA will continue to aggressively pursue criminals trafficking in illicit drugs. Targeting the world's most dangerous drug traffickers and their criminal organizations is a dynamic and evolving mission, and it comes with a myriad of challenges. Throughout our history, DEA has aggressively met those challenges and produced impressive results. We look forward to continuing our work with you and your Senate colleagues to identify resources and authorities necessary to complete our mission, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee today on this important issue. I look forward to your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Cherundolo. Again, I really appreciate the attendance here by Members, so I will defer my questioning until the end. We do have a vote. We are going to deal with it at 11 o'clock. My intention will be to keep the hearing going. I hope we can get some cooperation by committee Members. With that, I will turn it over to Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again to our witnesses for your testimony today. Mr. Chairman, I also have a letter here from the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) that I would like to submit for the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The letter referenced by Senator Peters appear in the Appendix on page 217. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Johnson. Without objection. Senator Peters. Thank you. A big part of what we have been trying to accomplish in the last hearing and this hearing is trying to get just a sense of what are the facts on the ground that we can all agree on in a bipartisan way, take the rhetoric, push that all aside, and just figure out how we can deal with a significant problem. Related to that, of course, is having good data. You need to have the numbers, and the Chairman is a numbers person, like I am. We want to make sure that we are getting that kind of information and we are getting it on a timely basis, which has not really been happening. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently recommended that the DHS develop and implement a process to systematically review and look at the reliability of the data used in its Border Security Metrics Report and identify any limitations in how it is used. So my question is for all the witnesses. Are there any data points that we are not collecting now that would provide critical insight into these challenges that we are having in the border? I would like to ask all of you if you have anything to share related to what we are not collecting now that you think we should be. Mr. Karisch, do you want to start us off? Mr. Karisch. Senator, we collect a lot of information right now, but I think we also need to go a little further in regards to the finances of what exactly criminal organizations are making. I think that that is key. We all have our ideas on how much money flows into the hands of criminal organizations, whether it is the brush guide, whether it is the transportation cell, the stash house operators. I think we collectively need to get better at sharing that information to attack the finances. I do not think that we are going to be able to interdict our way out of this problem without attacking the finances. So I definitely would think that more financial information in data shared between the different agencies would be helpful. Mr. Howe. I agree with everything that Chief Karisch said. We are an information agency. We collect lots of data points. Everything that we do, the migrants that we are intersecting, the different modes of narcotics that are coming through our border, working with our interagencies, just to continue to work together with our interagencies and sharing information and building on those trends so we continue to target the narcotic threat. Mr. Tubbs. I can tell you specifically for us as Immigration and Customs Environment, Homeland Security Investigations, that is very important to us in everything we do, justifying our operations showing results for the end of the year, staffing, etc., and we are very meticulous about our stats. I can tell you even today, coming forward to be here to testify in front of you, we are very careful about the stats that we report, the information that we report, and we want to make sure that we report that correctly. But we do look very closely at the money laundering, the finances, every criminal investigation that we conduct, whether it is human smuggling. Whether it is narcotics, weapons, child exploitation, child pornography, intellectual property rights, we have specific groups that just look at finances, and that is information that we collect very closely and very carefully. I think that is something we can share with our partners in DHS. And just across DHS as far as sharing of information, if there was a one-DHS information compile and share, I think that would be beneficial to all of us. Thank you. Senator Peters. Great. Thank you. Commander. Mr. White. I do not think we have sort of data points that we are missing. I think the effectiveness of our agency is sometimes challenged by the fact that we are a child welfare agency in a surrounding law enforcement process, and I think there continue to be challenges with exchange of information because of the inherent challenges we have receiving some law enforcement-sensitive information that would enable us to make the safest placement decisions we could for a child, including receiving 213 information on children and those accompanying them. Thank you, sir. Senator Peters. Thank you. Mr. Cherundolo. Senator, I do not think there is a data point that my partners here at the table do not already collect related to the specific border; however, the one data point that we can point to at least from a perspective of Chinese and Mexican trafficking groups trafficking in fentanyl is how the class scheduling of fentanyl and fentanyl analogs has affected--when we look at the data points we look at across our seizures as a result of our investigations, we find that anytime that our Chinese counterparts have controlled fentanyl or fentanyl analogs, it has decreased the number of seizures in us seeing that analog here in the United States. Because those groups are working together to get fentanyl into the United States, I think that has helped us to reduce the amount of fentanyl that is leading to overdoses in the United States. But as far as the border-related data points, I think our partners have covered down well on that, and we continue to share information back and forth as a result of our investigations and what they are doing as well. Senator Peters. Thank you. I have heard all of you talk about sharing of data. My question to you, Commander White, in January the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that the agency faced significant challenges in identifying separated children--and this is a quote--``including the lack of an existing integrated data system to track separated families across HHS and DHS.'' So, Commander, based on your experience as the Federal health coordinating official for the mission and reunifying children who are separated, could you tell us more about that? What are the gaps? What do we need to be doing to make sure that we are able to identify where the separated children are? Mr. White. So, as a reminder, we are able in ORR to tell you for any child who has been in our care to whom we release that child, what the relationship of that person to the child was and the address that they had when we release them. I think this is key, while we now know every child who was in our care on June 26, of those 12,000 children, whether each child was separated or not separated, what we do not know and what HHS OIG correctly documented is that we still do not know how many of the children we had already released to a family member had been separated or referred to us. But the problem is not one of interagency data sharing, per se. The problem is that children were separated and no record was kept of it. That is not a data exchange problem. It is also more fundamentally the problem that the unaccompanied alien children program is designed for unaccompanied children, not separated children, and orderly systems for exchange of data do not undo the harm caused by separating children from their parents. That is the proper focus for all congressional inquiries about separation. What are the legitimate conditions under which a child may be separated from a parent at the border? What are the appropriate systems, including what kind of rights of remedy and appeal does a parent have? How can ORR and DHS have equal power to determine if a child is accompanied or unaccompanied, so that ORR may refuse a referral of a child who is in fact accompanied? The issue is not how well it was tracked; the issue is that it happened at all. Senator Peters. Well said, Commander. Thank you for that testimony. Appreciate it. Chairman Johnson. Commander, as long as we are on this topic, just real quick, reading your testimony, it seemed like a real challenge was complying with a court order in terms of what the definition was of a separated child. There are real legitimate reasons to separate a child from an adult. For example, we heard in testimony that an adult male finally made it with a 1-year-old child who was not his. Could you just speak to that? Mr. White. We have always seen appropriate separations of children, both from parents and from people who claim to be their parents fraudulently, and it is our experience that our colleagues in DHS very honorably attempt to confront a really difficult set of challenges when they apprehend a minor. The real problem is that there is no real legal--there is no statutory guidance when a child may be separated, under what conditions, what is a permissible reason. There will always be some children separated from parents for reasons of the child's safety or the need to immediately criminally prosecute someone with, for example, felony warrants. There will always be children separated from individuals who fraudulently claim to be parents who are not. But that is different from what we saw over the last year. Chairman Johnson. Again, I just want to understand your testimony. Part of the problem and part of the confusion here is for years, we have been doing legitimate separations for a host of reasons, and part of complying with this was trying to figure out exactly what matched the dictates of the court order, correct? Mr. White. The historical norm is that about 0.3 percent of all referrals are separations. In the fall of 2017, that increased tenfold to 3 percent. By the spring, it was much higher than that as a percentage. So the issue is how do we determine what are the reasonable standards for separation, and that is a job for Congress. Chairman Johnson. So, there again, we need some legislation. Senator Portman. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN Senator Portman. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for holding the hearing and for each of you for your service. These are difficult times, are not they? All of you have been in this business for a long time. I looked at your resumes. You probably have never experienced something quite like this, the influx of particularly families and kids. We are in a crisis on the border. We certainly are, and it is worse in terms of families and kids than it was when President Obama called it so, a crisis. So I appreciate what you are doing. I have focused a lot on the pull factors. The push factors are also important, what we do with these Northern Triangle countries--Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras--is incredibly important, but that is going to be a longer-term prospect. Short term, I want to ask, if you do not mind, Mr. Karisch, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Tubbs, do you believe the people who are coming here, family units and otherwise, are coming here primarily for economic reasons and primarily to get a job that pays better for their families? Mr. Karisch. Sir, based on what I have seen out in the field at this point in time, the vast majority are coming here for economic reasons or, of course, for family reunification. I am not saying that there are not credible fear claims or asylum claims out there that are true. Senator Portman. I am not either. I think that number is about 85 percent of those who seek asylum are not getting asylum because they cannot meet the criteria. But my question to you is, Do you think most folks are coming here for economic reasons to get a better job? Mr. Karisch. Yes. Senator Portman. Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe. Agree, Senator, the same. The numbers prove that out, the 85 percent that are being claimed. Senator Portman. Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs. Yes, sir. I would agree that they are coming here for economic reasons. I mean, anytime we look at unaccompanied children or family units, one of the things that we look at specifically is HSI and doing our criminal investigations to ensure that there is no family fraud, to look at the welfare of the child, that there is no case where they are put in a situation for child exploitation. It is also a reason why we have increased our work site enforcement, our interior enforcement, because that really is a pull factor. Senator Portman. Let me focus on that for a second. Would it surprise you to know that under our current E-Verify system, one, it is not mandatory; two, often people can use a fake ID, a fraudulent ID, Social Security card or driver's license? And so we do not have a system that is effective to know who is legal or who is not so that the employer can make that determination. I mean, that is what we have now, correct? Would you support a mandatory E-Verify system so that we can help to reduce the magnet, the pull? Go ahead. Mr. Howe, you came to the mic first. Mr. Howe. Yes. Absolutely, we would support that. Anything that would reduce the pull factor. Senator Portman. Mr. Karisch. Mr. Karisch. Yes, sir. Senator Portman. Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs. Any tool that we get is going to help us greatly. Senator Portman. Yes. We have a bipartisan proposal to do that, and I think that is something that sometimes we miss in this conversation about the border, as important as it is to have a secure border. When you have that kind of a pull factor, that kind of magnet, people find a way, do not they, to get through, over, or around the border? Commander White, you and I kind of know each other. I believe you are a compassionate person, and I think you care a lot for these kids. I think you have been in a very tough situation. You have talked about that today. I know there is now a discussion about reinstating the zero-tolerance policy, which led to the family separations you talked about earlier. What was the effect on ORR last year when the Administration implemented the zero-tolerance policy? Mr. White. So the effect of zero tolerance or of other policies that resulted in separating children from family units, as a reminder, the great majority of children who cross our border each day are accompanied. They are part of family units. Most typically, they are with a parent, and they are accompanied. So the first thing that happened to the program is that the program's capacity was overwhelmed, but to say that sort of understates the severity of the harm because it was overwhelmed with children that we are not prepared to serve easily because ordinarily the great majority of the children that we receive, about 80 percent of them, are teenagers. But when you separate children from their parents, we get babies and toddlers and other very young children. So, as you know, of the 2,814 children, 107 of them were 4 years of age or younger. Our specific capacity that States have licensed to serve what we call tender age under 12 and very young 5-and-under children was exceeded. This puts these children at significant risk, and of course, it also bears repeating that separating children from their parents entails very significant risk of severe psychological harm to those children, and that is an undisputed scientific fact. Senator Portman. Commander, you also have a Ph.D., so you have some credibility in terms of understanding that dynamic. Let me ask you this. If we were to do it again tomorrow, you have said earlier in your testimony there was a systems breakdown. Do we have the infrastructure to handle it? Yes or no. Mr. White. We have made improvements to our tracking. We do not have the capacity to receive that number of children, nor do we have the capacity to serve them, nor is it possible to build a system that would prevent the mass traumatization of children. Senator Portman. OK. Mr. Howe, I think you would agree that your detention facilities are full right now. I am talking about your broader detention facilities, not just for unaccompanied kids or kids who are separated. So we do not have the capacity right now, the infrastructure. Is that accurate? Mr. Howe. At our ports of entry, we do not have long-term detention, but at the end of the process through ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), yes, we are full. Senator Portman. Yep, we are full. By the way, Commander White, has anybody consulted with you about the idea of reinstating the zero-tolerance policy? Mr. White. No. No, sir. Senator Portman. You get about 2 to 300 kids a day now coming in, unaccompanied kids? You have about 12,000 kids in your care. You are working on this court order to try to reunify kids, but I am talking about just unaccompanied kids who come in. Let me ask you just briefly about your problem you have had in getting sponsors. We are very concerned here in this Committee and elsewhere that you were sending kids out to sponsors who were traffickers. In one case in Ohio, as you know, the Marion egg farm case, we had kids who were literally given back to the traffickers who had brought them up from Guatemala, and they abused these kids. There have been, by the way, seven indictments now in that case of traffickers. But let me ask you. How are you doing now with sponsors? I mean, we wanted to be sure that the sponsors were fingerprinted, that there was a way to understand who these people were, so you were not giving kids out to traffickers again. You put that in place. My understanding is there was concern about ICE and others following up with those individuals, and therefore, your sponsorship pretty much dried up. Now you have more sponsors coming back because in the appropriations bill, I guess we said that ICE cannot follow up from an immigration perspective. Is that accurate? So tell us how this is working. Mr. White. So we continually adjust our case management vetting methods to try and find the right balance between safety and discharge and timeliness and discharge. We grossly failed in 2014, those children in that egg farm case, and that led to a revolutionary change inside the program about our standards. Our standards now are not comparable to what they were then. But in 2017, I would submit that we actually pushed safety so far that it broke discharge, and children stayed in care an unprecedented average length of time, and our discharge rate, which is for every 100 children in care, how many get discharged every day, that fell to below 1 percent. This is why the Tornillo Temporary Influx Facility was stood up. That was a direct consequence of the combination of separation and falling discharge rate. By making appropriate changes, including now we only--under our current operational directive, we only do fingerprint background checks. We do all the other kinds of background checks on every sponsor, but we only do fingerprint background checks on parents if there is another red flag, another indication of danger. Our discharge rate is back up to 2 percent. The average length of time of children in care continues. But I want to be clear. We studied every case where we denied a discharge to a parent based on the fingerprints, and we did not find cases where we did that on fingerprint only. We found the identified threats to those children's safety through the numerous other methods that we used at identify verification, relationship verification, and child safety. We are in a different world than we were in 2014, but we will continue to make changes as we need to, to balance safety and timeliness and discharge. Thank you, sir. Senator Portman. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Johnson. As long as we are talking about discharge and sponsors, we just got some information from HHS, and I just want you to confirm this, Commander. Between July 2018 and January 2019, there were a total of 23,445 unaccompanied children or children discharged to a sponsor. 18,459 of those were released, discharged to someone without legal status. Is that a pretty accurate figure? Mr. White. I do not have in front of me the numbers, but those numbers would be consistent with general patterns. The majority of sponsors, individual sponsors, are people without immigration status. Chairman Johnson. I will just ask for consent to enter this into the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The information referenced by Mr. White appears in the Appendix on page 205. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It just shows again how completely out of control this process is right now. Senator Hassan. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for this hearing today. I want to particularly thank our witnesses. Thank you for your service. Thank you as well to all the men and women who you work with each and every day. Before I begin my questions, though, I do also want to express my profound concern about the turmoil at the top most levels of the Department of Homeland Security. The Department is tasked with the vital mission of securing the Nation from the many threats we face, and the type of turnover we are seeing right now presents a direct threat to the ability to effectively carry out that mission. We need to see qualified leaders put forward who have the experience needed to keep Americans safe and who will also stand up to the President, if necessary, to uphold the rule of law and the values that make us strong. I want to turn now to a question to Mr. Howe and Mr. Cherundolo because last Congress we passed--and the President signed--a bill that would provide more technology for border agents to use so that they could detect fentanyl at the border. Last spring when I was at the border, I heard during my visit that the agents still did not have all the access to that equipment. Former Secretary Nielsen stated that this was unacceptable when she testified before this Committee last May. To both of you, can one of you update the Committee on how the International Narcotics Trafficking Emergency Response by Detecting Incoming Contraband with Technology (INTERDICT) Act implementation is going now? Do our agents have the technology they need to keep them safe as they are detecting fentanyl? Mr. Howe. Thank you for the question, Senator. The $564 million that you speak of, the non-instructive inspection (NII) enhancements for FY19, that is going to really change the way we do business on the Southwest Border. It is really going to transform our capability to scan more vehicles and more trucks, considerably more than we are doing today. So it is going to take some time to work with the vendors, the purchase, and to get them into place, but it really is going to transform where we are doing the interdiction. We know that through our mail facilities that we are seeing fentanyl. So the $45 million that we received also in FY19 will allow us to enhance our NII, or non-instructive inspection, technology in both our mail facilities and our express consignments. Senator Hassan. OK. So it is still a work in progress is what you are telling me. That we do not have all the technology that is provided by the funding yet? Mr. Howe. We are working through it. It is going to take some time. Senator Hassan. Mr. Cherundolo, do you have anything to add? Mr. Cherundolo. Senator, the only thing I would add, that any of that is welcome to us because many times those seizures at the border are the start of an investigation---- Senator Hassan. Right. Mr. Cherundolo [continuing]. For both DEA and HSI, but we would support any advanced technology that can be given to our colleagues on the border. But those would not specifically apply to DEA. Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you. I am still concerned that we do not have as much equipment as we need. I am very concerned about the safety of the people on the front lines. Fentanyl, as we all know, is so dangerous even to the touch. So I will look forward to following up with the agency about how we can accelerate this. Commander White, I wanted to follow up a little bit with you on the discussion that you have just been having about the family separation policy and the efforts that your agency has made to reunite families and children. You talked about the numbers in the Ms. L case, that class of individuals represented by the ACLU, but we also know that there are other children--and you just mentioned it in your testimony--who before the policy was announced were apparently separated from their families. When you appeared before this Committee last year and just now, you were very clear about the impact of family separation on children. That children are traumatized and can suffer long- term psychological damage from this kind of separation, and I thank you for your clarity and your honesty on that issue. But that is why I was so troubled to see your statement a few days ago stating that it could take 2 years to identify what could be thousands of children who were separated from their families. Can you tell me why it will take so long and what we can do to speed this up? Mr. White. Yes, Senator. So what the Senator is referring to is my declaration and the plan which I developed and which the government has submitted to Judge Dana Sabraw in the Southern District of California on how we would do that identification. I want to be clear. The 1 to 2 year timeframe is if we reviewed all of the approximately 47,000 children who were referred by DHS starting on July 1, 2017, and had already been discharged to a family member or otherwise appropriately discharged by the date of the court hearing. The plan--and this is in the declaration--is designed to accelerate that process. I do not know that it will, but it represents my personal belief if the best, most effective way to find the children, to identify which of the children that were discharged were separated, and to do so as fast as is possible. But the answer to your question is because it is 47,000 children. They have all been discharged, and there is no list. This is the fundamental reality. The reason that it is challenging now is because there is no list of separated children. We must identify them. So we will use, if the judge approves it, the methods that I have outlined, and if he does not approve it, without getting too much in litigation, then I guess we will all be back to the drawing board. I believe that the plan, which is in my declaration, is the best way to identify who the kids were. That is why. Senator Hassan. Yes or no. Would more staff help you do it faster? Mr. White. I do not believe that staffing is the key variable. Senator Hassan. Would you please commit to submitting to me any recommendations you could make in terms of resources or other things Congress could provide to you that would help you speed that process up? Mr. White. Yes, ma'am. I will make that commitment. As a reminder, this is before the judge currently, and I am awaiting his direction. Senator Hassan. I understand that. Commander White, I just also wanted to again thank you for being clear about the impact of what has been an inhumane and un-American policy of family separation, and I take it from your comments earlier in your exchange with Senator Portman that you do not support reinstating this policy? Mr. White. I would never support the use of family separation, the systematic traumatization of children as a tool of immigration policy, but it is not about what I support. Senator, it is about what you and your colleagues support, and it is up to you to define the conditions under which a child may be separated. Congress has not done that, and you need to. Senator Hassan. Thank you. I appreciate that very much, but I also appreciate that I believe that this Administration should not move forward with family separation. I believe there are other ways we can secure our borders, and I appreciate very much the input and the feedback that you have all provided to us today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Cherundolo, I have a question I will submit to the record for you about southbound trafficking of guns and cash going over from the United States to Mexico. I would like to follow up with you about how we can slow that kind of traffic. Mr. Cherundolo. We would be happy to get you the information, Senator. Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford. I was told that the vote was delayed by about 10 minutes, so we have plenty of time for both you and Senator Romney, if you are sticking around. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD Senator Lankford. We will take it from there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commander White, the children that are being placed in homes, the UACs specifically, you said that vast majority of those, you are placing in homes to someone who is also not legally present in the United States. So this is typically teenagers, and what percentage do you expect are being placed in homes of someone who is not legally present in the United States? Mr. White. I do not know a percentage. I can say only that it is the very great majority. Senator Lankford. So are we talking 80 percent, or are we talking 55 percent? Mr. White. I would assume it would be closer to 80, but I do not have an exact percent. Senator Lankford. OK. How can we get that number? Mr. White. We can work, to the extent that we have it, to provide it to you. Senator Lankford. So you are saying the vast majority, we expect are not legally present or we know are not legally present? Mr. White. I would have to get back to you on that. Senator Lankford. So, in the background check, are we trying to verify if this person is legally present or not or just if they have a criminal record in the United States? Mr. White. The background check in many cases does, indeed, look at immigration issues, subject to what we get from interagency partners. So, in each individual case, we would know the immigration status of the sponsor, but that does not mean that we have ready aggregate reporting. So that is why I do not have all the---- Senator Lankford. OK. Wait. Hold on for a second. Help me understand that. So you do know for each sponsor---- Mr. White. Yes. Senator Lankford [continuing]. If they are legally present or not? Mr. White. Based on the records we receive from other agencies, yes. Senator Lankford. So then could not we just get a percentage, then, of those individuals, the UACs that have been placed, what percentage have been placed in homes of someone who is not legally present? Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford, really quick, in front of you, that is what I just entered in the record. Seventy-nine percent from whatever the dates were, were placed with a sponsor with no legal status. Senator Lankford. Right. Chairman Johnson. I think the other thing to point out is fingerprints only tell you whether they have a criminal record in America. They do not do---- Senator Lankford. Right. Chairman Johnson. OK. Senator Lankford. Right. So that is what I am trying to figure out. So the background check is verifying whether they have a criminal record in the United States. Mr. White. We seek, to the extent we can get it, to also get information on criminal history in the country of origin. Senator Lankford. This is just an ongoing issue because we have parents or relatives that have come to the United States illegally across the border, have worked here for years, who have sent a message back home, and then they are out paying someone to be able to transition then through Mexico to be able to come here. And then we are delivering them the last mile back to their families, to be able to reunite families, in that sense, of someone who is not legally present here and then also with a child that they transited with someone who is a nonrelative through Mexico to get here. Is that the typical story? Mostly teenagers? Mr. White. It is mostly teenagers. I do not have any way of knowing how many of them---- Senator Lankford. Yes, how they got here. Mr. White [continuing]. Were with their parent that did the transition. But the scenario you described would not be uncommon. Senator Lankford. Thank you. In our hearing last week, Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA) and Flores came up as the two biggest issues by far. Mr. Howe, Mr. Karisch, you were very clear to just say Congress needs to act. Last week it was very specific. What we need Congress to do is to address Flores and TVPRA. Is that your opinion of what needs to be addressed? Mr. Howe. Yes. Agree to allow families to stay together through the Flores Agreement and then the TVPRA to allow the repatriation to noncontiguous countries. Senator Lankford. OK. Mr. Karisch. Mr. Karisch. I completely agree. Senator Lankford. How many individuals do we have coming in family groups that are coming from Mexico? Mr. Karisch. Very small number right now, Senator. I mean, the vast majority, 65---- Senator Lankford. Give me a ball-park guess. Is it 2 percent, or is this---- Mr. Karisch. I would have to get those numbers for you, but 65 percent on the Central American families that we are seeing coming across the board, with a very small percentage of Mexicans with families. Senator Lankford. So you are saying 65 percent? Is that what you said? Mr. Karisch. Yes. Senator Lankford. Those are families from Central America? Mr. Karisch. Central America, Triangle countries. Senator Lankford. So the other 35 percent of the folks are coming from where? Mr. Karisch. Mexico, but we are also seeing them from different parts of the world in the people that we apprehend. Senator Lankford. You had mentioned just in your region---- Mr. Karisch. Yes. Senator Lankford [continuing]. There were 50 different nations represented. Mr. Karisch. Yes, sir. Senator Lankford. I did not get the time period on that. Is that this fiscal year? Mr. Karisch. Just for this fiscal year, yes, sir. Senator Lankford. So, in the last 6 months, you have seen 50 different countries---- Mr. Karisch. Yes. Senator Lankford [continuing]. Coming that are family units? Mr. Karisch. Not family units. Single adults who are trying to evade arrest. Senator Lankford. OK. So the question becomes very difficult here on how to be able to manage the personnel. Mr. Howe, you had mentioned before, when you pull people off of the land ports of entries to be able to manage what is happening between ports of entries, it has a real effect--4 hours of wait time for a truck to be able to get in and going all the way through an entire day and there are some trucks that never got processed that go in the next day, makes the next day even harder, obviously, as well to be able to move. What do you see as the snowball effect of having to be able to move people to between ports of entries to what is happening at the land ports of entries for long-term shipping and trade? Mr. Howe. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I think you have stated it, and that is we have pulled 545 frontline officers that normally work cargo and passenger vehicles. What we are seeing is what I mentioned in my opening remarks. We are seeing double the wait times in both privately-owned vehicle (POV) and cargo, and this is an immediate response to the crisis that we are seeing in between the ports of entry. Senator Lankford. Mr. Karisch, the issue of fake families was brought up, individuals that are coming with a child that is not their own and not directly related to. How has that changed in the last year or two in what you have seen? Mr. Karisch. I will tell you that back in 2014, less than 1 percent of the males that were apprehended actually came with a child. Right now it is 50 percent. Senator Lankford. Fifty percent? Mr. Karisch. Fifty percent of the males that are coming into this Country right now have a child with them. They recognize that because of the Flores settlement is that they are not going to be kept in custody. So, I mean, that shows you exactly how they are exploiting the system. Right now because of volume, it is very difficult for us to spend a great deal of time in interviewing every single person. Senator Lankford. So our laws are incentivizing people to be able to travel with a child. In other words, if you get in with a child and put a child through this trauma of all the travel and the transit, then you get a more expedited process when you get here? Mr. Karisch. Yes. Senator Lankford. The question is on a child that is not related to the person or is very distant related to the person they are traveling with. What percentage of people or what kind of numbers are we talking about? Is this 2,000? 3,000? How many have we seen this year? Mr. Karisch. Senator, I will have to take that one back for the record. I do not have that offhand, but I can tell you that we have seen the fraudulent family units. We have seen the recycled children. Senator Lankford. So when you say recycled children, that is a child that has come, somehow they were sent back over, and they are showing up again? Mr. Karisch. Yes. We have also seen--I talked about it earlier in the fact that the criminal organizations are making significant profits out of the smuggling. People that are released with documents from our facilities, meaning that they can travel anywhere in the country, have been found in stash houses in Houston because they still have not paid off the criminal organization. So that shows you just how much control the smuggling organizations have. In RGV, there are four specific areas where all family units are routed to. Every other zone in the sector is reserved for narcotics, so very controlled, very organized, very structured. Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, this is an area that if we do not fix the law, we are continuing to look away from human smuggling, and that is something we should not look away from and should not ignore. What I keep hearing over and over again from every panel is they need Congress to act on these areas, or this never gets better. Chairman Johnson. What I said in the opening statement, this is a problem here and now, and we need to act now. I thought it was interesting. In last week's hearing, the witnesses said that the border is completely controlled on the southern side by the drug cartels. Nobody is moving through there without paying the fee, paying the ransom basically. So we need to recognize this, and we need to act. Senator Romney. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROMNEY Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member, as well for holding this hearing. I want to say thank you to the individuals that you serve with. Your service and their service is a great tribute to our Nation and is critical to our national security and to our commitment to principles of human dignity. I must admit that I am sure, like many people, deeply troubled about the vacancies at the Department of Homeland Security and the transition process that has been carried out with regard to those vacancies. I think it is dangerous, dangerous given what is happening at the border, dangerous given the broad responsibility that the Department of Homeland Security has for protecting our Nation. It is seriously troubling. Let me turn with that, with something specifically that relates to your testimony. If there were no fence, if there were no Border Patrol agents, if there were no ICE, and we just said, ``Hey, anybody that wants to come to this country, come on in,'' my expectation is you would have tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions or more people who would say, ``I would rather live in the United States of America than somewhere else'' and for many reasons. We are certainly not suggesting that, but I do believe that we need to put in place processes and measures legislatively, as the Chairman has indicated, but perhaps other ways as well to make sure that we do secure our border and that we have systems that do not attract people here in such huge numbers. We have legislative fixes that need to come both short term and long term, and like Senator Portman who described the importance of E-Verify, I would underscore at least my personal view that mandatory E-Verify for hiring in this country is essential if we are going to turn off the magnet that draws people into the Country illegally. But the challenges that you have each described today have suggested to me that we do need to have a legislative fix, and I am going to ask you not for data about something with which you have personally familiar, but instead with regards to legislation. What should we do? If you had the opportunity to counsel the entire Congress as to what action we should take to make sure that our border is more secure, that our children that are being separated are given better care, that we resolve this extraordinary challenge that we face? What legislative action do you think is action that we should be taking? I will let you each, whichever order you would like to go in, respond to that question. I may have to leave before all your answers or given because of a vote that is under way that will be over in just a few minutes, but, please, why do not we begin with you, Mr. Karisch. Mr. Karisch. So I think it is addressing Flores. It is addressing TVPRA. But I will also say this. We should have a system in place that for somebody who has a credible fear or asylum, that they walk into an embassy in those Triangle countries. Why not do your claim there? We get them out of this dangerous journey, whether it is come into the borders in Arizona or South Texas. It is to do away with this problem because, unfortunately, right now, as I previously mentioned, criminal organizations are the only ones who are benefiting from what is happening. They are making enormous amounts of money. So we have to establish a process where we are continuing to admit those people that truly have a fear but yet eliminate a lot of the fraud that is going into some of the claims at this time. Senator Romney. Thank you. Mr. Howe. Yes. Adjusting Flores so the families can be held together and the TVPRA in order to allow return directly to noncontiguous countries. Senator Romney. Thank you. Mr. Tubbs. I would absolutely support the same as far as the Flores and the TVPRA. Immigration as a whole, from workers' permits all the way up to obtaining U.S. citizenship, is something the U.S. Government needs to look at, just because of the history of our immigration laws. But I think besides the legislative fix, we also absolutely need to have a secure border. I mean, there is no reason--anything that crosses the border between ports of entry is illegal, and we as a U.S. Government should be able to control the border between the ports of entry. We are always going to facilitate the flow of commerce at the port. We understand that, but between the ports of entry, we should be able to control that, period. Senator Romney. Yes. Thank you. Commander. Mr. White. First, you should in statute define the conditions under which it is permissible to remove a child from a parent, and I would submit to you that that should only be for the safety of the child or if the parent faces criminal charges other than misdemeanor 1325 entry. Second, there needs to be a requirement that there be a process and documentation when children are separated from a parent, and parents need to have a right to appeal that. Third, ORR needs the legal authority along with DHS, equal to DHS, to determine if a child is unaccompanied, so that if a child is referred to us who is truly accompanied and has simply been separated from a parent not for cause, we can refuse that referral. Senator Romney. Thank you. Mr. Cherundolo. Senator, on top of what my partners from DHS have already highlighted, I would say the one single piece of legislation that DEA would say would be very important to us is the class-wide scheduling of fentanyl. We emergency-scheduled that fentanyl last year, and it expires in 2020, which could have a significant impact on not only DEA and our law enforcement partners in prosecuting those analogs, where the chemical makeup of the fentanyl has changed slightly, but it will also affect the Department of Justice prosecuting of those cases and motions going forward if the fentanyl were to come out of a scheduling, the emergency scheduling in 2020. Senator Romney. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am going to go vote. Chairman Johnson. Senator, before you go, I do want to point out that if you claim asylum, if you come to this country legally and you claim asylum, we give you a work permit after 6 months; is that correct? So I mean, E-Verify is, I guess, well and good, but when we are actually granting a work permit for somebody who comes into this country legally after 6 months, it is another one of those rewards that we provide, which I think we ought to seriously consider. Senator Harris. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS Senator Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's hearing takes on new significance, obviously, in the wake of Secretary Nielsen's resignation. As I said in June 2018, I believe the government should be in the business of keeping families together and not tearing them apart. The outgoing Secretary's willingness to implement the Administration's cruel and most counterproductive immigration policies and her willingness to frankly not be honest with Congress when questioned about these policies led me to call back in June 2018 for her resignation. The government should have a commitment to truth and accountability. Under the Secretary's tenure, DHS had a track record of neither. However, she was reportedly forced out because she resisted the White House's desire to embrace even more extreme tactics from defying a court order and reinstating the cruel family separation policy to closing the Southern Border, a political stunt that would cause dire economic consequences to our country. There are reports that even more turnover in DHS's leadership is yet to come. I believe a well-functioning Department of Homeland Security is vital to the safety and security of our Nation. At moments like this, Congress must exercise its duty to provide a check on the Executive Branch through oversight, through the power of the purse, and through our responsibility to provide advice and consent. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together in helping to restore some of the much needed stability to the Department of Homeland Security and to respect and honor the work of the men and women who work there. Commander White, I have some questions for you. Mr. White. Yes, ma'am. Senator Harris. On March 6, CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, now the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, testified before the Judiciary Committee. I questioned him about reports that immigrant children in the custody of HHS and HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement endured sexual harassment and assault. ORR received 4,556 allegations between October 2014 and July 2018, nearly 200 of which included very serious allegations such as staff watching children shower, fondling and kissing them and rape. According to Justice Department data, sexual abuse allegations in shelters skyrocketed at the peak of the family separation crisis last spring and summer. The Acting Secretary said that he was not aware of the allegations and that his colleagues at HHS and ORR are very committed to the children in their care, but when I asked him whether after learning of these allegations he believed he had a duty to voice concern about the safety of the children before transferring them to HHS's custody, he said that doing so was ``the duty of the management and leadership of Health and Human Service.'' Commander White, you are obviously here today representing the management and leadership of HHS. Do you agree with him, and what, if any, concern do you have about the findings? What are you prepared to do about it? Mr. White. So three things. First of all, thank you, Senator. I do want to talk--in fact, we probably should talk much longer than this forum will allow--about the protection of children in our care. Let me start with one thing and be absolutely clear. If even one child is abused in ORR care, we failed that child. Senator Harris. Yes. Mr. White. We failed that child. This is also true of every child welfare system in the United States and every foster care system in every State. Every time a child in care is abused, the system failed that child. I do not excuse it. I do not permit it. Every time it happens, it is a call to do more. Now, the statistics that have been reported do require clarification because we have a strict policy of reporting events, and many of these things that are reported as sexual abuse under our Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) requirements are actually sexually inappropriate conduct by minors. This could include if a minor makes a sexual gesture. That is reportable. If a minor uses a sexually charged insult for another minor, that is reportable. There are, however, also cases at the upper end of the spectrum that include allegations of abuse by minors of each other and in some cases by grantee staff, never Federal staff. Senator Harris. Sir, before you continue, are you describing theoretically what happens in the Department? Are you referring specifically to the 4,556 allegations that occurred between October 2014 and July 2018? I really would be interested and only am interested in the nature of the allegations that occurred during that period of time. Mr. White. Yes, Senator. I am talking about the actual reports, and many of these PREA reports are not in fact allegations of sexual abuse. They are allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior. We have a universal reporting standard for our programs. They must report in writing within 4 hours of every reportable event. These do include some cases which resulted in criminal prosecution because we are required in every case to notify State, local, and Federal law enforcement and licensure authorities for full investigation. Senator Harris. Can you tell me, sir, how many of the allegations involved abuse by HHS employees or other staff or adults working in these facilities whomever employed them? For example, I know you have contractors and private entities that are also handling or working with these children. Mr. White. Yes. There are zero allegations against HHS staff. If you give me just a moment---- Senator Harris. How many allegations are there against adults? Mr. White. There are allegations reported to ORR of staff on minors in fiscal 2018, 49 reports and 6 reports of other adults who were not staff--it could be someone who somehow got in the building or something like that--non-staff adult on minors for a total of 54 allegations in fiscal 2018. These are among the cases that would have been reported to the FBI, OIG---- Senator Harris. So this is 103 in 1 year. How about for the total of those 4 years? How many adults on children allegations are there? Mr. White. No, that is, I believe, 55 in 1 year. Senator Harris. You said 49 plus 54. Mr. White. No. Fifty-four total, 49 and 6, 54 total. Senator Harris. OK. Mr. White. And 53 in fiscal 2017 of allegations of an adult reported to DOJ. These are cases we reported to DOJ. Senator Harris. How many in 2016? Mr. White. In 2016 reported to DOJ, there were 62 allegations of an adult sexual abuse of a minor. Senator Harris. OK. My time is running out. I would like you to report to this Committee how many total allegations were there between that 4-year period against adults, whomever employed them, regardless of whether the case was referred to DOJ or not. I would also ask you right now to tell us whether you informed the Department of Homeland Security that these incidents were taking place in your facilities before or at any time during the course of this family separation policy and obviously because I am curious to know whether the Department of Homeland Security was on notice that these things were happening in your facilities before they transferred the children to your care. Mr. White. So we will be providing a fully detailed accounting that will be forthcoming on our PREA reporting. Second, I do not know whether our PREA reporting was conveyed to leadership at DHS. As a reminder, our programs are still safer than State foster care systems. Senator Harris. Sir, I do not think that we want to compare what you are doing to State foster care systems which are notoriously horrendous conditions for many children. Mr. White. Precisely what I am saying and I say it again is that every time something happens to a child, we have failed that child. Senator Harris. I agree with you. Mr. White. But the traumatization of children by separation does not need any child to have been harmed criminally by an adult. That act of the government entails harm to a child. So these are two important problems, but they are separate problems. Senator Harris. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Senator Harris, you raised the issue of rumors of reinstitution of the zero-tolerance policy. I am not aware of that as a policy. I am aware of the rumors in the press. Let me just state for the record, I would be completely opposed to that. My guess, that is a majority, if not a unanimous view of the Members of this Committee. Let me just cite you some reasons. Commander White, I think you would say that---- Senator Harris. I referred to a family separation policy. Chairman Johnson. Yes, family, zero tolerance, whatever you want to call it, results in family separation. I think you had stated that during April, May, and June when that zero-tolerance policy was in effect, HHS was pretty well overwhelmed by this. Would you say that is true? Mr. White. That is correct. Both our total capacity and specifically our capacity to serve very young children, since separation disproportionately results in our getting babies, toddlers, and young children. Chairman Johnson. So, again, I am hoping members of the Administration, if they are actually considering this or listening to that testimony--and as Senator Peters pointed out, I like numbers. So here are the numbers. During April, May, or June, on average, we apprehended about 9,500 individuals as a family unit, about 9,500. The last 3 months, which again shows the growing crisis at our border, there has been 29,000. So if HHS and CBP were overwhelmed back in April, May, or June 2018 with 9,500 per month, this is three times worse, and my guess is this is going to continue to increase in severity. Again, this is a crisis in the here and now. We need legislation, and I would like this committee to lead in that effort. Certainly, as Chairman, I will be leading and hopefully working with every member of the committee to pass the legislation that actually fixes this problem in the here and now. Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Gentlemen, welcome. Thank you very much for being here, for your work. My colleagues have heard me say this before, so bear with me, but we all have sources that provide us with guidance in our lives and values that we hold and the way we try to behave and act. There is, I believe, a bipartisan Bible study that meets in the U.S. Senate every Thursday, about six or seven of us who need the most help. We meet with the Chaplain of the Senate who is a retired Navy admiral. He was chief of chaplains for the Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). Almost every Thursday when we meet, he reminds us of a passage in the Book of Matthew that deals with the least of these. ``And when I was hungry, when I was thirsty, when I was naked, when I was a stranger in your land, did you welcome me?'' He reminds us of the moral obligation that we have to the least of these, including the stranger in our land. He also reminds us of the greatest commandment of all, and that is the golden rule, treat other people the way we want to be treated, which ironically is in every major religion on the planet, every one in one form of the other. So when I approach a dilemma, a challenge like we have on our border, I try to keep those words in mind going forward. I also am somebody who focuses like a laser on root causes, not on symptoms or problems, but what are the root causes, and as you know, the root causes for a lot of folks coming into our country from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are lack of economic opportunity and hope and Northern Triangle, prevalence of violence and crime in those three countries and also corruption. Those are the three drivers. The reason why we created the Alliance for Prosperity, with those three buckets--lack of economic opportunity and hope, crime and violence, and corruption--is because that is what we gathered from people coming to us saying, ``This is why I am leaving. This is why I do not want to stay in my country.'' Ironically, I was just down in a congressional delegation (CODEL) about 6 weeks ago to see how we are doing with the Alliance for Prosperity, and I was actually pretty encouraged by the work that is being done. I think it is important that we not walk away from it. The President I think is intent on ending funding for those programs, which would be a huge mistake. I have been sitting up here writing some notes to myself about how to reduce the likelihood that people will feel compelled to leave their countries and to come to ours. For me, a big answer is fully execute and execute well the Alliance for Prosperity, modeled after Plan Colombia, which has worked, and I like to say find out what works. Do more of that. The second question I have for people who do leave--and we have been messaging countries on those--leaders in those countries have been messaging to their people about the horrors of transiting Mexico and trying to get into this Country and saying it is not going to work well and kind of discouraging people from coming. That is not working so well because they are coming in ever larger numbers, as you know. So I am trying to figure out what is the most humane way to deal with the families that make it to our borders, and is there a way that we can actually keep the families together, expedite the amount of time, reduce the amount of time that they have to wait to make an initial judgment as to whether or not someone who is seeking asylum, asking for asylum, really is in that kind of danger back in their native land? There is a way to do that, and while we are doing that, quickly, provide for a safe place for these folks, for these families to stay. So let me just start with that. Is that something that we can do, to make that initial decision? Say a hundred families are coming across. Making a decision, I do not think we could do it like that. Maybe we could, but just to say is there really a case for asylum? Are we really convinced maybe upon initial screening that somebody is there really truly because they need asylum or not? If they really and truly need to, they are brought in for a more in-depth screening, and their families are taken care of. We do not separate the kids from the families. Maybe that is something we are doing. I am not aware of it, although I think there is the initial screening, but give me some response to that, Greg. Mr. Cherundolo. Senator, since Title 21 is our sole focus on the enforcement of the drug laws, that probably would not be best for me to answer that. Senator Carper. Yep. Let me go to Commander White. I used to be a commander in the Navy. Mr. White. So I will have to defer to DHS colleagues on family separations. I can tell you that over the years, the reasons that unaccompanied children give when they are in our care for why did you come to the country as astonishingly the same over time, and the top three reasons always are because they feared violence in home country, because they lacked economic and educational opportunities in home country, and because they had parents or their family here in the United States they wanted to be reunified with. This seems to be a standard. But as regards family units, that is something the DHS colleagues would need to speak to. Senator Carper. Mr. Tubbs, any thoughts? Mr. Tubbs. Absolutely. I agree with your statement that we absolutely have to work with our foreign counterparts to work at the root causes of why people are leaving the country. I can also say that in my 24 years of working for Homeland Security and its previous agencies that 9 of those years, I spent foreign-stationed in the Dominican Republic and Mexico. We do need to work at the root cause. We do need to work with our foreign counterparts, but we control a very small portion of that. Despite the help that we give them, we do control everything here in the United States. While we work with our counterparts, I think we also need to focus very close on the laws that we have here and the capabilities that we have to secure our border and we as HSI to conduct our criminal investigations to dismantle those organizations. Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator. Agree we should work to have families stay together. Of course, the Flores Agreement, the longest being held in the 20 days, so adjusting the Flores Agreement allowing those family units to stay together through the entire process is the way to go. Senator Carper. The entire process, I think the backlog is like measured not in days, weeks, months, but actually maybe even years, and that gets to be, as you know, pretty expensive and frankly not very humane. but thank you. Mr. Karisch. Mr. Karisch. Yes. But I will also add, Senator Carper, that when you detain, you are going to expedite a hearing. Ultimately, if the person is granted relief, they are released into the country. If they are not, they are immediately repatriated because at the end of the day, you do need a consequence. Otherwise, you are just going to see that flow increase. During my oral testimony, I read off the claim from the Central American who communicated back to his associated as ``This is the quickest way. Bring children. You are not going to be detained.'' So we have to develop a process that we have done in the past. The Brazilians that were here in the 1990s, 2000s, the way we stopped the problem is detaining families together. You had your opportunity. You have to go before an asylum officer or immigration judge. If you were granted relief, you stayed. If you were not, you were immediately repatriated. We can always improve efficiencies in the government. This is an area for us to do it, but we also need to have that consequence. Senator Carper. Thank you. I talked with the Chairman and the Ranking Member in the last couple of days about the idea of people within these three countries, the Northern Triangle, with asylum claims of being able to bring those asylum claims not in the United States at our border, not in Mexico, but within those three countries. I am going to ask you to respond for the record as to whether or not you think that Secretary Nielsen, has been an advocate of doing that, as you probably know. But I am going to ask you to respond for the record as to whether or not that is an idea that makes sense. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Carper. Senator Sinema. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. During this critical situation on our border, it is important to hear directly from the Federal agencies who protect Arizona's border and our family and community. So I appreciate all of the witnesses for coming and speaking with us today. As I mentioned in our hearing last week, Arizona faces significant security, economic, and humanitarian challenges with these recent migration trends. Congress and the Administration must focus on ideas and initiatives to help improve the situation, and I am glad that the President heeded the calls from me, from border experts, and many other Members of Congress to not close the Southwest Border. But last week, we heard from outside experts about their ideas to secure our ports, improve coordination with local non- governmental organizations (NGOs), deploy critical technology between our ports, and improve workforce morale, and I look forward to hearing more about a frontline perspective on those ideas today. As always, I am committed to working in a bipartisan way to finding solutions that keep families and communities safe in Arizona and to treat migrants humanely and fairly. So my first question today is from Mr. Howe. I do not agree with CBP's decision to transfer officers away from Arizona ports of entry. Our ports have struggled with high vacancy rates in recent years, and that has led to the assignment of temporary duty officers. I understand that CBP faces significant strain on its personnel, but our perspective is that this decision hurts trade. We worry about it impacting security. So I want to know what analysis did CBP conduct regarding removing these temporarily assigned officers from the ports of Arizona. Can you share that analysis with my office? And given that these ports were already understaffed, how does this decision not negatively impact security or flow of trade? Mr. Howe. Thank you for the question. The initial response that we provided, our Border Patrol colleagues, was to support them in this migration crisis. They were overwhelmed, are overwhelmed. So the decision was made to provide them the officers that they could use to put their agents back in their law enforcement activity. So 545 officers from the frontline, a decision was made to address this crisis. We knew there would be impact. When Commissioner McAleenan had his press conference in El Paso, he mentioned that, so 545 frontline officers, 300 from Laredo, 194 from El Paso, and then 51 from San Diego. As you pointed out, we did not pull any from the Tucson field office, but the 75 temporary duty travel (TDYs) that we had identified, we did not send them for assistance. So we know there is going to be impact. We see that every day. We see the backups in both the personal vehicles and the cargo, but this is a crisis that we are addressing with assistance of Border Patrol. Senator Sinema. Last week, we heard about the need for additional surveillance and detection capacity between our ports of entry. We know that the largest drug busts and interdiction occur at our ports of entry, but there is still significant trafficking for narcotics and other threats between our ports of entry. So my question for Mr. Karisch, what type of sensors do you think are most useful for agents in the general patrol duties? Do we need more cameras, more radars? Do we need more unarmed aircraft systems (UAS) or something that I have not mentioned yet? Mr. Karisch. All technology has helped. CBP has made a tremendous investment in technology over the last few years, but we also need to have relocatable technology because traffic patterns will shift from one area to another. We saw it in Arizona where I was previously assigned. It is having technology that is going to help us with greater situational awareness. Right now in South Texas, what I see the problem as is we do not have any technology that is foliage penetrating. So people get into the brush areas. Whether it is the creosote cane, whether it is the sugarcane, whether it is the other brush that is there, it makes it hard to detect. So it is a combination of different systems that we can actually apply on to the border is to act as that force multiplier for us. But, ultimately, no fence, no piece of technology is going to make an arrest or an interdiction. That is going to be done by men and women who are out there. So it is important also as to be able to bring on additional personnel who can actually help us with that. Senator Sinema. My next question is also for you, but I would like to hear the thoughts of other witnesses if they have ideas as well. Last week when we were hearing from experts, they were talking about the importance of local offices forging close connections with the NGO's and local community leaders. As you know, we are facing a struggle in Arizona with the release of migrants and need to improve communication with our local NGO's. So my question is, in your experience, what do you find works best to help build those close relationships at the local level, and are there any tips that we could utilize when I am able to go back to my State in the next 2 weeks to try and figure out a better solution for the crisis we are facing? Mr. Karisch. So I work closely with a lot of the NGO's out there in Arizona at the time, Juanita Molina and a number of other people who I had the privilege of working with, but also even south of the border. During the time when they were speaking about a caravan coming up either to Arizona or to California at the time, it was sitting down with NGO's across the borders to figuring out exactly how many shelters they could open up, how they could help the ports of entry and organizing the number of people that actually showed up at the bridges. So that engagement does happen. We have very strong programs in the Border Patrol, border community liaison agents who get out there and speak to NGO's. We work with them very closely in South Texas. Sister Norma, right now she is helping us with the overflow and the people that we are releasing from Border Patrol custody to the respite centers. So it is working very closely with them to try to figure out how they can help the Federal Government but also expanding that into other areas. Senator Sinema. I would like to follow up with you after this hearing. I will be back home in my State over the next 2 weeks during the spring period and intend to host a meeting to bring NGO's together with our local officers to help provide more close communication. As you know, we have had recent unexpected releases into the community that have been troublesome in Phoenix, Yuma, and in Tucson. If there are others on the panel who have thoughts on this question in particular, I would appreciate it. Mr. Tubbs. I would like to provide a response to your previous question, if I could. Senator Sinema. Yes, that would be great. Mr. Tubbs. I am stationed on the border. I am in Laredo, Texas. Specifically, if you look at what DHS does on the border, it is really a whole-of-DHS effort, and when we look at the transnational criminal organizations that are responsible for bringing aliens and narcotics, weapons across our border, we have our uniform presence that deter, that detect, that do the seizures. I know that you asked what equipment that they might need and what personnel, but what I would ask is Homeland Security Investigations because we do a great job in deterring and detecting. But, ultimately, if we want to dismantle those transnational organizations and criminally prosecute them, criminally detain them, criminally forfeit their illicit proceeds, that whenever you look at providing personnel and equipment to our uniform partners that we work with every day, that you also look at Homeland Security Investigations because ultimately we need to dismantle those organizations and have them pay the ultimate price of prosecution and detention. Senator Sinema. I appreciate that point. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Senator Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN Senator Rosen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for being here today. This weekend, while I was visiting my home State of Nevada, President Trump called the U.S. asylum process a ``scam.'' With respect to immigrants, including asylum seekers, the President said, ``We cannot take you anymore. Our country is full. So turn around.'' Our country is full? Turn around? As a granddaughter of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, I cannot help but think about the time in the middle of the 20th Century when the United States used security concerns as an excuse to turn away thousands of refugees fleeing Europe or about the MS St. Louis ocean liner in 1939 was made to turn around upon reaching American shores. I cannot help to think about the many families today from El Salvador, Honduras, and elsewhere waiting in squalor outside our ports of entry because they are fleeing unimaginable violence and can find safety and freedom coming here to the United States. Yesterday Cable News Network (CNN) reported that the President told agency personnel to close the ports of entry at the Southern Border. The President told border agents in Calexico, California, not to allow any migrants into the country. In my home State of Nevada, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) Immigration Clinic has clients from Central America who are teenage girls, teenage girls recruited as gang girlfriends, as young as 12 and 13, meaning they face gang rape, possible death on a regular basis. Under U.S. law, our women and girls like this who are fleeing violence, they are entitled to protection and to at least apply for asylum. In fact, I know this to be true. A person who can prove she would be persecuted because of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group is entitled to asylum under U.S. law. I assume, gentlemen, that you are aware that just yesterday, a judge in California issued an order blocking the Trump administration from requiring asylum seekers to remain in Mexico. So, Mr. Karisch and Mr. Howe, if the President were to instruct you and your agents to deny entry to people seeking asylum at the border, in your opinion do you think that violates United States law? Mr. Karisch. I will start, Senator Rosen, by saying this. If they cross between the ports of entry, they are violating U.S. immigration law, so they are going to be placed on arrest, but that still will not stop them from making an asylum or credible fear claim. But effecting an entry into the country between the ports of entry, they are in violation of the law, and they will be arrested. Senator Rosen. Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe. If they enter the United States across the boundary line at the port of entry and they claim asylum, we would be bound to hear that asylum claim. Senator Rosen. So my follow up question is, Would you follow instructions like those from the President even knowing, Mr. Howe, that they are going to violate U.S. law? Mr. Howe. We know what the law is, and our attorneys are here to advise us. They work for Customs and Border Protection, DHS, so I will follow the guidance that we receive from our attorneys. Senator Rosen. So knowing that we have this challenge, I guess I will pose this in another way. Can you describe to me the concerns you have with implementing this Administration's current policies? Mr. Karisch. Ma'am, we have taken an oath of office to defend this country. Our officers every day go out there and perform a job. It does not stop them from addressing the asylum, the credible fear, the different things that they have. We are parents. We are grandparents. Our officers do this, our jobs, as humanely as we possibly can, but understanding is that we do have laws in this country. People have to abide by those laws. Otherwise, we stop being a sovereign country. We still feel the heartfelt issues of everyone that we encounter, but we still have to put them through the process. It will not stop them if they do have, in fact, a credible fear. That they will have an opportunity---- Senator Rosen. So you are saying if someone presents themself for asylum, you will take them in, regardless of what the President has instructed you to do? Mr. Karisch. If they enter the United States between the ports of entry, they will be apprehended. That will not stop them from making an asylum claim. Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would like to follow up a little bit. Last year I toured a tent city in Tornillo, Texas, of course, near El Paso, where unaccompanied children and separated children were held. I saw teenage children separated by gender, slept in barrack-like conditions, access to legal services limited, and phone calls to relatives or possible contacts were limited and monitored. So, Mr. Howe, I guess I want to ask you again. Do you have knowledge about the Tornillo facility that it was owned or managed by a for-profit company? Mr. Howe. I think I will defer to the Commander. Senator Rosen. Commander. Mr. White. Yes, ma'am. So the Tornillo Temporary Influx Facility was operated by HHS, by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Temporary Influx Facilities, that one was operated by a nonprofit grantee who also performed services for us operating State-licensed permanent shelters around the country. Temporary Influx shelters, such as the one that is open now in Homestead, are not our first choice. Our first choice is to have State-licensed permanent shelter capacity. The fluctuations that we see---- Senator Rosen. You are saying they are for-profit institutions? Are they for-profit institutions that we are leasing these services out to? Mr. White. The Tornillo site was operated by a not-for- profit grantee. Senator Rosen. In your estimation or according to any knowledge that you have currently, are some of our detainees being held in for-profit institutions? Mr. White. The Homestead facility, the children who are sheltered at Homestead, we are getting staffing services there by a Federal contract, and the entity that won in the contracting process is a for-profit. Senator Rosen. Thank you. I yield back. Chairman Johnson. Thanks, Senator Rosen. Before I start my questions, certainly in my quest, and I think in this Committee's quest, to develop the information required to solve this problem without the reality, one of the questions I have had is, What is asylum law? What is a valid asylum claim? What I would like to do is quickly read from--one of the better explanations for this comes from Congressional Research Service (CRS), a paper written in January of this year, and let me just read it, and I will enter it into the record:\1\ To qualify for asylum, an applicant has the burden of proving past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, member in a particular social group, or a political opinion. The applicant must show that one of these protected grounds ``was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.'' In the absence of past persecution, an applicant can show a well- founded fear by presenting evidence of a reasonable possibility or future persecution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The paper referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 197. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a key point: The applicant must also show persecution by the government or groups that the government is unable or unwilling to control, and for purposes of showing a well-founded fear, that applicant could not reasonably relocate within his country to avoid persecution. Again, we will delve more into this, but I wanted to get that on the record. I am very sympathetic with a lot of people talking about setting up asylum claims in the home country. I just find a disconnect. First of all, from my knowledge, asylum can only be claimed once you are in the asylum country, the safe haven. So if you are asking for protection in your home country, that is refugee status, and we have different laws and controls over a number of refugees. There are no controls in terms of the people we let in in terms of asylum. Also, if you can claim safely asylum in your country and stay there, you are basically not qualifying for asylum because your--the government can protect you enough to have you claim asylum. So I am just trying to figure out the disconnect, what is going to work, what is not going to work, but I think it is extremely important that we understand exactly what these asylum standards are. I would argue this is probably the main reason why 85 percent of the claims are denied. Commander White, you talked about in your testimony three reasons. Feeling violence. There you go. There is a valid asylum claim, but economic opportunity is not. Family unification is not. As sympathetic as we all are for those individuals, it is not a valid asylum claim, and we have a process now that whether it is valid or not, we let you in the country, and those individuals are staying, which is just fueling the crisis. It gives you the numbers. We talked about the 9,500 up to 29,000 over the 2018 period versus the last 3 months. Again, this is a complex problem. The solution for the here-and-now problem is we have to change these laws. We have to reflect the asylum. Again, I agree with Dr. Selee from last week, where if we can rapidly adjudicate and make a determination is this a valid asylum claim or not and then humanely return people, just like we did with Texas Hold 'Em with Brazilians, that will accomplish our short-term goal of reducing that flow and hopefully converting this into a legal process. I come from a position, certainly in Wisconsin, there is not one manufacturer that can find enough workers. From my standpoint, we need more legal immigration tied to work. So, again, I just appreciate--and I will say again on the record--the strong attendance of Members of this Committee, the excellent questions. I think we are getting to the reality of the situation. I think we are hopefully creating a desire to do something about this, certainly a recognition that the Administration cannot do it on their own. They are simply not capable--what executive actions they take are overruled by the court. So this is on our lap. The ball is in our court. We have to fix this, and I am really looking forward to dealing with all the Members of this Committee to start solving the problem. I would like to talk about the well-oiled machine because I think it is really important that we recognize this is not just a group of individuals deciding to wake up one morning and they make their way into--this is a very organized effort. So, Mr. Karisch, can you talk a little bit about your knowledge of that? I will go to Mr. Tubbs because I think you have probably done a lot of investigation on this. Really talk about how well organized this is. You asked one of the pieces of information. I think it was the reporter had done an estimation, thinking it was probably about $440 million worth of profits. That is just a back-of- the-envelope calculation, the fee times the number of people coming in here. And the drug cartels--or I guess it is a split- off business now. Human traffickers kind of flowed from the same process and realizing this is a higher profit in many cases and a lower risk, form of trafficking than even drugs. But can you just talk about the well-organized effort here? Mr. Karisch. So very well organized, reaching back into places like Central America, and of course, Mr. Tubbs will be able to talk with a lot more certainty. But from the brush guides to the people who move individuals up to the border area, from the criminal organizations that are making the tax--we call it ``el piso''- --down on the Southwest Border, long gone are the days where you can simply decide that I am going to cross in Juarez and into El Paso. Now you are told where to cross. You are charged money, and refusal to pay money has consequences, so very orchestrated. I would say that the smuggling of people has even become more lucrative because it is an endless commodity. On the drug side, if it sees it is going to be destroyed, you have to go produce more. They have the abilities to continuously bring more people, also recruiting younger smugglers, juveniles, because they know that the Federal Government cannot prosecute them, so a lot of money going into this. But the cartels have the ability to shut down bridges, to re-divert caravans. That is the type of control that they have on the south end of the border at this time. Chairman Johnson. So you agree with the testimony last week that the Southern Border is completely controlled--or the Southwest Border is completely controlled on the south side of the border, on the Mexican side, basically completely controlled---- Mr. Karisch. Correct. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. By the drug cartels. Mr. Cherundolo, you talked about the enormous profits in fentanyl. I think you said something like $5,000 is worth $1.5 million worth of profit. That kind of profit motive, if there is a demand, there is going to be a supply for it, correct? Mr. Cherundolo. That is correct, Senator. Chairman Johnson. But cannot we almost say the exact same thing of human trafficker as well, where we have a system that is incentivizing and rewarding, that can be so easily exploited by a really well-organized effort, people that understand our laws, know exactly how they are working, setting up a transportation system, using buses, other transportation? As long as this remains profitable, it is going to continue and probably grow, right? I mean, is not every business venture's goal to grow and become more profitable? Mr. Tubbs. Absolutely. Again, as we talked before, these human smuggling organizations are very organized. You have recruiters in the home country. You have transporters in the transit countries. You have the stash houses along the way, the individuals who get them across the border, plus their methods of money remittances, laundering their proceeds as well. And human smuggling has become almost or coming to the point as profitable as narcotic smuggling. We were specifically talking about human smuggling from Central America, but I can tell you specifically in Laredo, Texas, in 2017, we had an issue that Border Patrol had intercepted approximately 200 Bangladeshis, and then in 2018, almost 700, where we as HSI took on those numbers. We investigated that organization, ultimately arrested the leader of that organization in Monterrey, Mexico, the government of Mexico, and returned him and brought him to the United States to face prosecution. There has been zero Bangladeshis since, but they were paying up to $27,000 per alien for Bangladeshis, $2,000 to $7,000 for Central Americans. It is a very profitable business, and they are coming here for a reason. They are coming here because--specifically the Central Americans to work, and that is one of the reasons that we are increasing our work site enforcement on the interior to take away---- Chairman Johnson. I think the one thing, we had former CBP Chief Morgan on our panel last week. You always hear 90 percent of drugs flow through the ports of entry. My question has always been, well, how do we know that? I mean, we do not even know really what is coming through between the ports of entry. And is not it true that when you have, again, over 100, groups of 100 this year--and that is a dramatic increase from prior years. Again, in a very well-organized effort, it just makes sense you use those 100 people as a diversion over here. You overwhelm the system. It requires all kinds of CBP officer to converge and take care of sometimes six children and that type of thing. It makes it pretty easy for somebody to sneak across with either drugs or high-value or a higher-paying customer in terms of human trafficking, correct? Mr. Karisch. Senator, I will add to that. In January of this year, we had a 705-pound seizure of cocaine coming into the United States between the ports of entry. In close proximity to that, there was a group that was sent across with 170 individuals. So that is definitely a tactic and technique that the criminal organizations use. Once again, it is to tie up our resources, and then they exploit the gaps on the line. Chairman Johnson. Final point before I turn it over to Senator Portman who has some more questions is--and I think, Commander White, you talked about the death of any child, the abuse of any child is a tragedy. But I do want to give Mr. Karisch an opportunity to talk about--because I know in your testimony, you talk about the thousands of lives that CBP has saved because that is now your mission as well, and the medical resources were surging to the border. People are coming to the border having taken a very dangerous journey, some of them almost on life support. I just want to give you the opportunity to talk about how much time and attention CBP is putting into saving every person, the humane treatment that you are providing, and again how this is an overwhelming task. Mr. Karisch. I appreciate that, Senator. Every summer especially, but even in the winter, from Brownsville, Texas, all the way to San Diego, Border Patrol agents are deployed into areas to rescue people. I have seen agents in Del Rio jump in the rivers to save children that their mothers had let go because they could not keep up with the currents. I have seen our agents rescue people off of mountaintops in Arizona. I have seen our people rescue people in South Texas. We do that on a regular basis. Our most important thing is the preservation of life. A great man once told me that simply entering the country illegal should not equate to a death sentence. So we provide those resources. We have units of agents who have been out on the border, our Border Patrol Search, Trauma, and Rescue (BORSTAR) units, but we also have Emergency medical technician (EMTs). We deploy a lot of EMTs out there, which is important because during the summers, we will see an increase in the number of rescues that our agents have to make out there, and it is a mission also that we take with great responsibility. But that is in addition to everything else we are doing, and what suffers is the fact that you still have bad people and things that are coming through the border. Fifty-three percent of the marijuana that is intercepted along the entire Southwest Border by Border Patrol is made in RGV. We have had increases in heroin. We have had increases in cocaine. So there are other commodities, illegal substances also that are coming through between the border, but it is just a heavy investment of all of the things that we have to do in securing our border but also preserving life. Chairman Johnson. Does anybody want to just confirm what Mr. Karisch talked about in terms of the efforts of CBP to try and save lives or rebut it? Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe. We are seeing the same thing at our ports of entry. We are seeing the migrants that are claiming asylum that are medically in despair in most cases, and in my oral testimony, we take them to the hospital right away. So we go through great efforts to care for them and to ensure that they are safe. Chairman Johnson. Anybody else want to speak to that? [No response.] Senator Portman. Senator Portman. Thanks. I again want to start by thanking each of you for your service. This is such a rare opportunity to speak to a bunch of experts who are in the trenches every day dealing with these issues that I wanted to come back for a second round, and I appreciate the Chairman allowing me to do that. First, on the drug issue, I did not have a chance to speak to this earlier because there are so many topics, but, Mr. Cherundolo, you talked about the fact that fentanyl is now coming across the border, and we are having more seizures of fentanyl. Typically, as you know, it has been coming from China through the mail. My understanding in talking to Customs and Border Protection, that still is the preferred method for these traffickers. So still most of it is coming in through our own U.S. mail system because we do not have the tracking that the United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx) and others do. We are now putting that in place under the Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention (STOP) Act. I am disappointed it has not been done more quickly, but it is moving to the point where I think we will have about 100 percent from China within the next several months. But do you think there is more fentanyl being shipped now into Mexico then coming across the border, and if so, why is that happening? Why would not they simply do what they have been doing, which is send it to a Post Office box in the United States? Is it partly because of the STOP Act, which now will require the post office to have that data, where it is from, where it is going, what is in the package, on all the packages, which it had not had until now, or is there some other reason that they would want to ship it into Mexico? Again, my presumption is that it is not being produced in Mexico. There were two instances I think where we have found some production of it in the past, but my understanding is both of those have been shut down. So what is going on? Can you give us the dynamics of that, and how can we be more effective in stopping it? Mr. Cherundolo. So, Senator, certainly the STOP Act is a welcome tool, and it has helped. The two primary methods of fentanyl coming into the United States, one are by parcel shipments into the United States, but again coming across the Southwest Borders. Many seizures as a result of the investigations DEA is conducting and the investigations our counterparts are conducting, we are seeing an increase in the number of instances where large seizures of fentanyl are coming across the Southwest Border. The purity levels that we look at differ slightly. What we see coming from China tends to be a more pure form of fentanyl, but certainly everything from the investigations we are conducting indicates that Mexican cartel organizations are increasingly dealing in fentanyl, particularly in the form of making them into counterfeit drugs, into pills. Senator Portman. That has been happening, but are you telling me today that we are now seeing evidence of manufacturing fentanyl, the synthetic opioid in Mexico, or is this being manufactured still as chemical companies in China and then shipped into Mexico? Mr. Cherundolo. We are certainly looking at the production of fentanyl in Mexico and fearful that the transition from production of methamphetamine, which is very prevalent in Mexico, to fentanyl will occur, and that is a---- Senator Portman. You have not seen it yet. You have not proved it yet, but you are concerned about it? Mr. Cherundolo. Certainly, the two instances that you talked about are the instances we see, but the re-tableting and the fentanyl being---- Senator Portman. Making it into a tablet that looks like a prescription drug, an OxyContin or something? Mr. Cherundolo. But the precursor chemical is coming into Mexico too is what we are---- Senator Portman. Yes. Mr. Cherundolo. We specifically started a sensitive investigation unit with our Mexican counterparts that addresses the precursor chemical flow into Mexico for the production of fentanyl. Senator Portman. It is something to keep an eye on because, as we saw, it just overwhelmed us, and it is by far the number one killer now among the opioids. And opioids are the number one killer in the country. In my home State of Ohio, we are getting devastated still by fentanyl. I will say that in a lot of areas of Ohio, we have made progress. We actually have the highest reduction of opioid deaths from overdoses of any State in the Country in the last year. That is not saying much because we started at such a high level, but what we are seeing instead now is crystal meth coming in from Mexico in a very pure form. I was told by a law enforcement official recently, it is less expensive than marijuana by weight on the street in Columbus, Ohio. That crystal meth is coming almost exclusively from Mexico; is that correct? Mr. Cherundolo. That is correct. The production of methamphetamine in the United States is very limited to what we call mom-and-pop or shake-and-bake labs that are lower amounts. The larger seizures of methamphetamine we see coming into the United States as a result of our investigations are coming from labs that are producing the methamphetamine in Mexico. Senator Portman. It is cheaper and more powerful than the stuff that used to be made in the basement or the trailer, and that is what we are seeing in Ohio too. We are not seeing any environmental damage caused by that, but we are seeing a much higher grade, higher quality, more devastating drug, cheaper. Mr. Cherundolo. That is correct. Senator Portman. So what do we do about it? In the appropriations bill, we put unprecedented amount of money into this screening technology to be able to look through a truck, for instance. We have also put in place the INTERDICT Act in addition to the STOP Act. We are trying to get more funding into personnel because the expertise that you guys need to have to be able to identify these products and safely deal with it--how is that going, and what should we be doing? Mr. Cherundolo. Certainly, for all of us at the table--I do not want to speak for everybody, but I think our resources from the personnel standpoint is a critical issue, particularly from the DEA standpoint. We continue to hire to fill vacancies, to have additional agents to do the investigations. But our relationships with our foreign counterparts are critical. The developing relationship, like I said, with the sensitive investigation unit to identify chemicals flows into Mexico, particularly from China and from other countries throughout the world, are critical and key issues for us, but that partnership with our foreign counterparts is critical. And it is ever evolving. With the changeover in the Administration in Mexico, we are still working our way through how our relationships will develop, and continuing to strengthen those relationships is critical for our way forward. Senator Portman. Mr. Howe or Mr. Tubbs, thoughts on this? I mean, my sense is 90 percent of the heroin coming into Ohio comes across the Southern Border, almost 100 percent of the crystal meth now coming in across the border, increasingly more fentanyl, still mostly coming from the mail, but more of it now coming in. What would you do with this funding we have provided? What is the most effective way? As the Chairman said, some of it is coming through the ports of entry, no question about it. The majority has been traditionally because it has been brought through with vehicles, but once that is closed down, my sense is they are now shifting more to places along the border where they can have access between the ports of entry. Is that accurate? Can you give us a rundown on what you are seeing? Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator. Yes, the $564 million, giving us that Multi-Energy drive- through system is going to increase our capability. We will be able to stop the narcotics from coming in. Thank you for the STOP Act. We are seeing improvement in that advance, that information coming from China and other countries. I think as we work to fully implement that and also the money you provided, the $45 million, for NII for our mail facilities and more canines, that is all going to be paying for it. Senator Portman. Excellent. Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs. As I had said prior, as we look at the personnel and the resources that go to CBP for the interdiction, as those interdictions increase, our criminal investigations are going to increase, our responses are going to increase, and we, as HSI--ultimately what we are looking at along with working with our counterparts with DEA is identifying those transnational criminal organizations and working with our foreign counterparts and our Sensitive Investigative Unit (SIUs) and our TCIUs, so we can truly dismantle those organizations. And that is working with our counterparts. Senator Portman. We talked earlier about push and pull factors, and there is no question we need to do more to keep the demand down here in this country because the prevention efforts are ultimately going to be most successful and getting people into treatment and longer-term recovery. We are making progress on that, as indicated, on opioids, but having this interdiction is important too because the cost of this drug on the streets will be higher. Some of it will be stopped, and because of supply and demand, some of it will be higher. That is one of our issues right now is it is not only so powerful, it is so inexpensive relative to what it has been in the past. So we thank you for what you are doing every day. You are saving lives by doing that. Finally, let me just say what you are doing on trafficking is absolutely critical too. My sense is--and, Mr. Tubbs, you see this, I know, coming across Laredo. More and more of these traffickers are trafficking people in addition to drugs, and it is a very lucrative business, just as you talked about earlier about how lucrative the drug business is. So keeping a focus on that is also much appreciated by those of us here on this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Senator Portman, thank you for all the work you have done on the STOP Act. I think we received good news that it sounds like an agreement that President Trump and President Xi had made is going to be implemented in terms of China cracking down on fentanyl. My question for both Mr. Cherundolo and Mr. Tubbs is, how soon are we going to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of that, whether they are actually going to follow through on that, and are we going to be able to notice it? Mr. Cherundolo. So, Senator, my understanding is that May 1 is when the class-wide scheduling goes into effect, and we will monitor the different analogs, the fentanyl analogs. Certainly the groups, the trafficking groups that profit from this are going to continue to produce it, but it has in the instances so far, when they have scheduled analogs, has been a positive thing for us, where we have seen less of those analogs. In your home State of Wisconsin, where they have class-wide schedule fentanyl, we are very positive about that. Again, because of the number of people dying from fentanyl, we felt it was important for us to emergency schedule it. I think, again, only time will tell once we get past May 1 on the reduction in that, but certainly, there is still going to be a black market for organizations, transnational criminal organizations, both Chinese and Mexican, to traffic in fentanyl, but I think anything we can do, any tool that we can be given to strengthen similar to the Stopping Overdoses of Fentanyl Analogues (SOFA) Act that was introduced last year by you would be a helpful tool for law enforcement in prosecuting those because it is not a technicality that the analog gets switched by a slight chemical makeup and it makes it a legal substance rather than a controlled substance. Chairman Johnson. Unfortunately, we were not able to get the SOFA Act across the finish line, even though every Attorney General--I think it is the first time in history--wrote a letter asking us to do that. So your recommendation, please pursue that, and let us get the SOFA Act passed. Mr. Cherundolo. We will be glad to provide as much technical assistance as necessary for that. Chairman Johnson. OK. Appreciate it. Mr. Tubbs, what is your sense of Chinese law enforcement in terms of their effectiveness of cracking down in fentanyl. Are we going to see a dent in that? Mr. Tubbs. I think we should be able to measure that in two ways. One is the number of intercepts that we have at our parcel transport hubs, and if we start seeing fentanyl being produced in Mexico, I think that will be a sure sign for us, for both of those. Chairman Johnson. With my remaining time here, what I would like to do is just kind of close out the hearing, trying to lay out the current reality, because, again, it is a growing crisis. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson was on Microsoft National Broadcasting Company (MSNBC) two Fridays ago and talks about how when he would come into the office, if apprehensions--and this is a paraphrase--were less than 1,000, they could deal with that. Over 1,000, it would be a really bad day. And yet we have seen apprehensions over 4,000 in recent weeks. So, Mr. Karisch, I just really want to talk about what is happening now. I issued a press release saying that through no fault of CBPs, the law enforcement at the border has been reduced to nothing more than a mere speed bump for unaccompanied children and people coming in family units on their path to long-term residency. I think that is a pretty accurate assessment. But just talk about functionally. We have heard reports that HHS is full. The house is full. So HHS cannot accept the flow, and so CBP now, even though they are not set up to do this, CBP is set up to turn, for example, unaccompanied children over to HHS, others to ICE. You are being forced to release people in the general population, correct? Can you just describe what is happening here? Mr. Karisch. Yes. Of course, our facilities were not built for this. We do not have the resources. I mean, we are law enforcement officers who are dealing with a significant challenge with the family units, something we do not want to do. In one week in RGV, we had 7,000 apprehensions in a week. Normally, our in-custody number for short-term housing there is 3,300 in our short-term facilities that we have. Chairman Johnson. Which is still massive. Mr. Karisch. Yes. But I had days actually where I was exceeding over 6,300 people in custody. We cannot keep people. We could not keep people in those conditions. We were not built to hold the families in the---- Chairman Johnson. So what is happening right now? What are you doing? Mr. Karisch. So what we had to do is issue a notice to appear, order of recognizance, which basically they were released with a promise to appear at a court date in the future. So, once again, we are simply feeding a cycle that more than likely people will not show up for a hearing. This is not the way of doing business. If you look at the Southwest Border, over 364,000 apprehensions as of April 1, over 100 percent increase, we are all seeing this. Chairman Johnson. Yes. I want to get in the details. So, first of all, the notice to appear, back after Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), those memoranda were issued, that notice to appear was called by the coyotes, the ``permiso.'' Mr. Karisch. Yes. Chairman Johnson. Again, mis-marketing. DACA applies to none of the--that is about 800,000--850,000 people passed the DACA line there. It did not apply to them, but it was used. So that notice to appear was called a ``permiso.'' Is not that correct? Mr. Karisch. To them, yes, sir. Chairman Johnson. So now CBP issues the notice to appear, and then what happens? What do you do with these individuals? You give them a notice to appear, which the coyotes call them the ``permiso,'' which by and large is their permission to enter the country and stay long term. But what specifically do you do? Mr. Karisch. We right now have worked with the NGO's. We are getting a lot of respite centers in our areas to actually help. Chairman Johnson. NGO's like Catholic Charities. Mr. Karisch. Yes. Chairman Johnson. OK. Then what do you do? Mr. Karisch. Catholic Charities. It is to help them out. Some of them are actually taken right to bus stations, already have relatives or sponsors in this country. We have to rely on the fact is that they are providing us with a genuine address, but we found in certain circumstances that after the fact, we realized that we actually had criminals in our custody that we did not know about at the time. When we tried to look for the, many times those were fictitious addresses. So some of them will be released in our communities, and we will never see them again. Chairman Johnson. Within how many days are--let us say you got an adult male with a child, and you finally got the adult to admit that that was not his 1-year-old child. But how many days are they in your custody before you, CBP--you are not set up to do this, but are releasing these individuals to--it was described last week to the Greyhound bus station. You notified Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities comes over and picks up this group of people, and there are hundreds in a day. Then they have to deal with it, get people on the phone, and then give them a bus ticket--this is Catholic Charities providing that bus ticket--to all points in America. I mean, that is what is happening, right? Mr. Karisch. Yes, sir. Chairman Johnson. So how many days do you have somebody in custody before you deliver them to that Greyhound bus station? Mr. Karisch. Right now because of the overwhelming number of people that we have in custody, as soon as we can get them processed, we are releasing. Chairman Johnson. Which is how many hours or days? Mr. Karisch. It could be a matter of hours. Chairman Johnson. So you really do not have the capacity-- and this is kind of getting to what Senator Lankford was talking about--to determine is that the father or is that a sex trafficker. Is that his daughter, or is that his sexual traffic victim? Mr. Karisch. That is correct. Chairman Johnson. That is a pretty accurate assessment? Mr. Karisch. Yes. Chairman Johnson. Commander White, this is not the way the system is supposed to work, correct? Mr. White. I think it is safe to say that right now, all of the lead Federal agencies in this process--CBP, ICE, and HHS, ORR--are at or close to their operational capacity. I can say that---- Chairman Johnson. I mean, would not you say it is beyond their operation? Mr. White. We are at 97 percent, but the system---- Chairman Johnson. Is it not true--is it not true that---- Mr. White. The system is over capacity. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. HHS is not accepting all the individuals that CBP would like to send your way? Mr. White. That is actually not true, but let me clarify that. We are 97 percent occupancy, and over the last 7 days, we received an average of 279 children a day, and we discharged 267. So over the last 7 days, referrals in have exceeded discharges out, and we are at 97 percent. Chairman Johnson. Again, you would only be getting unaccompanied children, though, at this point in time. Mr. White. We only receive unaccompanied. Chairman Johnson. So the problem is with family units, and is it true, then, that ICE is beyond its capability of accepting the number of people in family units, pretty well forcing CBP into doing the releasing? Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe. We are not releasing from the port of entry. So we will be waiting until ERO has that capacity to take, and oftentimes Border Patrol will assist us. Some of our ports like Hidalgo have the capacity for 30 people, and once we get to that number--and if we get overrun where aliens are crossing the boundary line, then the number could go up to 95 or 100. So then Border Patrol assists us and takes them into custody, and if they meet the criteria, to have them released. Chairman Johnson. A couple of years ago, the stats I had-- and everything is changing, so nothing is static. But, approximately, 20 percent of family units presenting themselves or coming in this country or legally apprehended were headed by a male. The last stats I had--and they are old--about 40 percent. I thought in testimony, you were saying about 50 percent now are headed by a male? Mr. Karisch. Fifty percent in the RGV sector, sir. Chairman Johnson. OK. So, again, what you are seeing is-- and by the way, the kind of average number of people in the family unit is basically two, correct? Mr. Karisch. On average. I mean, we tend to see different groups come in to our custody, but it could be one or two. Yes, sir. Chairman Johnson. To me, that just indicates this is a shifting problem. Gone are the days where you are primarily dealing with a Mexican economic migrant. That was back in 2000 and prior to that. Now you are really dealing with unaccompanied children and people coming in, family units, and they are not trying to avoid apprehension, correct? They are turning themselves in. Mr. Karisch. Yes, sir. Chairman Johnson. When I was down touring with the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley, I remember one story of a large group of families coming in and starting a campfire and then complaining to the CBP officers that it took them an hour to get to their location. Is that an unusual story? Mr. Karisch. No. Because, first of all, anytime you have a large group--we do not have buses staged at every location, so it takes time. But I think our agents actually call it them apprehending us. Chairman Johnson. So, Commander White, real quick, just to confirm also some other stats I have, unaccompanied children, historically about 70 percent have been male. Is that basically true? Mr. White. Prior to 2014, they were about two-thirds male. The proportion that are girls has grown. Chairman Johnson. So what would you estimate now? Mr. White. I could look up the exact number, but over recent years, girls have at times grown to be as much as a third, and among separated children, a larger proportion. Chairman Johnson. OK. A third is still leaving two-thirds, 67 percent, so my stats said about 70 percent, real close, are male, and about 70 percent are 15 or older, correct, 15, 16, and 17? Mr. White. I am sorry. I have the numbers with me. I just have to look them up. The great majority historically have been over 12. Over time, it is trending younger, and those trends come and go. Chairman Johnson. OK. I will give all the witnesses an opportunity. If there is something that you have not been able to make, a point you have not been able to make in response to questions, I will let you do it right now. We will start with Mr. Cherundolo. Mr. Cherundolo. Chairman, the only thing I would point out, circling back around to your question about China, hopefully by June of this year, our law enforcement to law enforcement relationships, we continue to develop those. In June of this year, we are hopeful to open another office in the Guangzhou Province in China. So that relationship and building upon the class scheduling and hopefully being able to provide technical support for our class scheduling is something we continue to work forward on and with our counterparts throughout the world, not just in China. Chairman Johnson. You have seen a great deal of interest on this committee. So we are going to want to be updated on, hopefully, progress. Again, I view this as a really good sign. This is exactly what China needs to do, and I am glad they are. We just have to monitor and verify this is going to be happening. Commander White. Mr. White. Thank you, Senator. So, Senator Johnson, as you have noted, the current levels of migration of migration, including for UACs, are much higher than historical norms. We just completed the biggest march in the history of the program in terms of number of children coming in. This not only speaks to our continuing requirement to expand temporary and permanent capacity so that we have a bed for every child. It also speaks to the imperative of Congress and the Administration working together to prevent future separations of children from family units. The program cannot support that. Chairman Johnson. Again, I stated my thoughts on that for the record. I think if you do take a look at that chart, you can see that the biggest problem right now, the growing problem is people coming as family units. Mr. Tubbs. Mr. Tubbs. Yes, sir. Again, I appreciate you having me here today. For myself as an HSI Special Agent and specifically being one assigned to the border, I can attest to myself and OFO and Border Patrol, our agents work 24/7. I mean, they are at a tax point that we are on the border. They are very passionate about what they do. They are very professional about what they do, and we look forward to continuing support from our legislators and our appropriators, so thank you. Chairman Johnson. Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and thank you for all of the funding that you have provided us to improve our NII capability. I think it is going to really prove to be very worthwhile, and I thank you for your leadership and taking on the necessary legislation changes that we talked about today to fix the crisis. Chairman Johnson. Mr. Karisch. Mr. Karisch. Senator Johnson, thank you for raising awareness in a very important issue to this country. This is not a manufactured crisis. We are living it every day. My men and women are exhausted. They are frustrated, and the fact is they are having to release people, but they also understand that this is a reality of what we are facing today. And this is only a portion. I worry about places like Venezuela in what we might see from immigration from those countries. So it is a very real issue that we are facing, and I appreciate the opportunity today. Chairman Johnson. OK. Again, I want to thank all five of you for your service to this Nation. You should not have to be dealing with this. The ball is squarely in Congress' court. We have to recognize this problem. The first step in solving a problem is admit you have one, and we have a problem in the here and now that requires legislative action. So I want to work with each and every one of you. I want to work with the Administration. I want to work across the aisle. This should be a nonpartisan issue, and we ought to be doing the root-cause analysis. That is exactly what we are trying to do here is lay out the reality, going through the problem- solving process, gathering that information, defining the problem properly, the problem we are trying to solve, defining what is a solvable problem. What is an achievable goal? From my standpoint, that achievable goal is reducing that flow by having a consequence. We have seen time and time again where there is a consequence to illegal activity, it gets reduced, and until we enact that consequence in absolutely humane fashion, this is going to continue to explode. So, again, the ball is in our court. I thank you all for your service, for your testimony. Again, I hope all the Committee members carefully read it, and I am looking forward to working with them. The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until April 24 at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: THE EXPLOITATION OF MIGRANTS THROUGH SMUGGLING, TRAFFICKING, AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2019 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Scott, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, and Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I want to welcome everybody for attending. I want to thank the witnesses, first of all, for your service to this country. The issues we are dealing with here are challenging, to say the least. I was at the opening ceremony with Senator Carper, opening up St. Elizabeth's, and the comment I made there is it is pretty easy, from the dais here, to criticize, take potshots, to detail out what problems are not being addressed as perfectly as we would like to see, but I am thoroughly convinced, from all the contact I have had, quite honestly, the honor and privilege in working with the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I am thoroughly convinced that the men and women are showing a great deal of integrity, dedication, dignity, and courage in trying to deal with this horrific situation. We will talk a little bit more about that. I would ask that my written statement be entered into the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 303. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This hearing, and it is called ``Unprecedented Migration at the U.S. Southern Border: The Exploitation of Migrants through Smuggling, Trafficking, and Involuntary Servitude,'' really started a couple of years ago with Senator Portman holding a hearing through his Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI) on an example of involuntary servitude at an Ohio egg farm. More recent news stories after the Robert Kraft massage parlor scandal, The New York Times wrote a really good investigative story, just laying out the reality of these massage parlors, and often Asian women that had been smuggled, trafficked into this Nation, they come into this country with a $30,000 or $40,000 debt owed to their human traffickers, and, of course, they pay it off through prostitution. Disgusting reality, but that is the reality. My most recent trip to McAllen--I made a couple in the last couple of months with Senator Hassan and Senator Peters--there were a couple of things that got my antenna definitely twitching. First of all, we were briefed and were told about the detection of a number of fraudulent families, and we really do not know how large that is. I have seen different things-- 13, 25, and 33 percent. We just really do not know. We were told about a 3-year-old boy left in a hot cornfield with just a nonworking telephone number and his name supplied, written out. The telephone number was written on his sandal and we saw a picture of that. Senator Hassan, Senator Peters, and I, when we went through the McAllen facility, saw an 18-month-old little girl struggling to get away from, I do not know, a 40-or 50-year-old man. Having just been briefed about fraudulent families, I mean, I do not know the truth there but it did not look like that was the daughter of that man. I could be wrong, but I could not help but wonder what was going to happen to that 18- month-old girl if that was not her father. At the border, the last two trips I have made, I have been surprised in talking to the people who just crossed--women, men, with tender-aged children. None of them are admitting to paying their human traffickers any money, which is a concern for me when you also tack on the evidence that we are seeing of these family units showing up at stash houses. The process is, again, completely out of control, overwhelmed. People are turning themselves in to U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), Border Patrol is overwhelmed in their facilities--I think something like 19,000 people held at border patrol facilities, that according to the now former director of the Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or of Border Patrol, the capacity is only 4,000. But trying to process people as quickly as possible, the largest group on record now, 1,000 people coming in through El Paso, and trying to process them, complete their file, turn them over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). There is a backlog there because ICE does not have enough beds to hold them, and then for unaccompanied alien children (UAC), trying to turn them over to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where there is not enough capacity, or into non-governmental organizations (NGO) to find family members, help them buy tickets to just get dispersed all over America. You would think they would be dispersed all over America but instead, some of them are showing up at some of these stash houses, and of course, in testimony we will hear stories of those people, probably about ready to be put into involuntary servitude, but we have records of people being beaten, videos taken of that, videos sent back down to their home countries, demanding payment. Once we got back from that trip, a story broke in Wisconsin. I am going to read you some excerpts from a story that just ran in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 20. ``Five people were indicted in late May, in a Georgia-based human trafficking scheme that Federal authorities say illegally brought dozens of Mexican workers to work on Wisconsin farms. ``The defendants, through two companies they operated, received U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) approval to bring the Mexican nationals to the United States to work on Georgia farms through a program that allows employers to hire seasonal foreign workers if they cannot find domestic workers to cultivate and harvest crops. Thus, the workers were in the country legally. ``But according to the indictment, the defendants who illegally brought the employees to work on Wisconsin farms gave them false IDs and took away their passports so they could not leave. The workers faced threats and were made to believe they would suffer serious harm if they left. All but one of the workers identified as victims told authorities they had to pay recruiting fees ranging from $200 to more than $600, to be placed on a list to come to work in the United States. Some say they also had to turn over titles to their properties in Mexico, their families' homes or land, as collateral to get the job. ``The workers said they were left without medical attention when they got sick and were forced to work more than 10-hour days without being allowed to take breaks other than lunch. Some workers said they were not always provided water, even on hot days. They were told not to talk with anyone outside the company, not to leave their Wisconsin motel without supervision or permission. Two workers said they were threatened with deportation if they left. Another feared not ever being able to return to work legally in the United States if he was deported.'' Now again, this is the exploitation of migrant workers in the country legally. I have no idea. I was hoping this hearing would give us some sense of how prevalent this is. I do not think we are going to get that. I think we will hear some other examples. Maybe it is not that big of a problem. I have a sense that it is a huge problem. I think we should get our chart up here.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 322. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have all seen this. I have had to turn the piece of paper the long way. Through May, through 8 months of this fiscal year (FY), more than 400,000 unaccompanied children or people coming in as families--generally one adult, one child-- have crossed the border illegally and been apprehended, and processed and basically dispersed. If we are to maintain May's rate, that number would exceed 800,000 by the end of the fiscal year, in just four more months. I think we have seen a slight decline, based on the weekly numbers. It is getting hot. Mexico seems to be doing more, so hopefully we will not hit that 800,000 number. But, I do not see how anybody can take a look at this and not realize, this is a huge problem that must be addressed, and we are simply not addressing it, not effectively. I did not have time to have a picture blown up but we have all seen it, of Oscar Alberto Martinez Ramirez and his 23- month-old daughter, Valeria. Now I realize tragedies occur all over this country, all over the world. I do not want to see another picture like that on the U.S. border. I hope that picture alone will catalyze this Congress, this Senate, this Committee to do something. I called up Senator Peters earlier this morning. I said I had half a mind to canceling this hearing and instead just have a discussion between what I believe are U.S. Senators of good faith, that have sat through 30 or more hearings of this problem on the border, and start coming to some conclusions. What can we agree on to actually start improving this situation? What I have found, in 8\1/2\ years here in the U.S. Senate, there is not much of a problem-solving capability, not for the big ones, not for the big problems. This Committee has actually demonstrated pretty good capacity for solving smaller problems, on a totally nonpartisan basis, quite honestly. I am pretty proud of that. We should all be proud of that. Our staffs ought to be proud of that. Just last week, in our mark-up, we addressed the problem of government shutdowns, and Senator Lankford, Senator Hassan, and I know Senator Portman, Senator Paul had other bills, but we passed a bill to end government shutdown. Hopefully the rest of the Senate will pick that up. Hopefully the House will pass that and we will never have to have another shutdown again. This is a much more difficult problem we are dealing with here. What I proposed to Senator Peters--and again, I appreciate the Senators we have here at the dais, and I am also talking to the other Senators' staffs, and I am dead serious about this. I want to set up our table down there, like a mark- up, but it is not going to be a mark-up, and in a very organized process, an organized fashion, I want to go through a problem-solving process. That is what we have been doing with all these hearings. We have been gathering a lot of information. We still need more information. But I want to have an open and honest and genuine discussion about the scope of the problem, the root causes of this problem, and what we can do to start solving it. Continuous improvement. We are not going to solve this overnight, but we can make some improvement in the situation. We have to start doing something--Congress. The men and women at DHS are doing what you can do, with limited resources. Congress has to act, and it has to start with an honest and open discussion and conversation. We will go back and forth, find the areas of agreement. I do not know if that ends up in an overall piece of legislation or elements that could be tacked onto a piece of legislation that would probably be under some other committee's jurisdiction, but we need to start doing something. It is well past time. And that picture that all Americans woke up this morning looking at, again, should be used as a catalyst for that kind of action. So again, one thing that we are going to try and do--and Senator Peters has been great working with me on this--but hopefully we can sign a letter in support of Operation Safe Return, a pilot program, very small in scope, but a program that is designed to rapidly and more accurately determine those families that clearly do not have a valid asylum claim and safely return them to their home country, as a message to people in Central America--do not indebt yourself to these human traffickers. Do not mortgage your home. Do not pay them a year's worth of salary. Because on a bipartisan basis, we are not going to let the human traffickers exploit our broken system. And then the next step would be to actually start fixing that system. But I think the beauty of the pilot program, Operation Safe Return, is while it is being implemented we are going to be tracking its effectiveness. We are going to find out how many people actually do have a valid asylum claim. We will be giving them interpreters. They will have access to counsel. And that is something, on a bipartisan basis, we can send a strong signal and message that we want to fix this problem. So again, I have yammered on a lot longer than I normally do in an opening statement, but if there was ever a moment that requires that the nonpartisan effort of the Members of this Committee, I would say it is now. And so that is what I am asking for, for every Senator, every Staff member in this Committee. Let's come together. Let's have these discussions. These will be multiple meetings, a number of hours. But I am asking for full involvement and a very open and genuine discussion. With that, Senator Peters. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\ Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I can assure you all of us on this side of the aisle also want to work on this issue. It is an important issue and I think we can hopefully come together and have some solutions to what is a very vexing problem impacting our country and people right now. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the Appendix on page 305. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- But I also want to thank you for convening this particularly hearing here today, and I look forward to discussing with our witnesses how we can combat human trafficking. It is a horrific criminal enterprise that exploits vulnerable people arriving at the Southern Border, and really all across our country. Desperation drives people into the hands of human traffickers, and that same desperation drives some families to attempt a journey to the north on their own. And like the Chairman and, I think, everybody on this Committee--I speak for all of us--we were devastated by the photo showing Oscar Martinez Ramirez and his daughter, Valeria, who drowned clinging together in the final moments as they attempted to cross the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) for asylum here in the United States. No one is more vulnerable than a child, and like most Americans I am heartbroken that migrant children in U.S. custody, including toddlers and infants, have been subjected to unsafe conditions and sometimes denied basic necessities. It is unconscionable that the Administration would argue in court that it should not be required to provide soap and a toothbrush for a child in its custody. Even prisoners of war are provided with soap, under the Geneva Conventions. There is no question that children in Federal custody deserve basic necessities, including warm meals, blankets, and access to medical care. We must prioritize keeping families together and keeping our children safe and healthy. I have made inquiries to the Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to learn more about these reports and the conditions experienced by children in U.S. custody, and I will continue working with my colleagues to ensure that they are treated with dignity and receive appropriate care. We cannot fully address this situation on our Southern Border and keep children safe without disrupting smuggling networks and combating the scourge of human trafficking. Human trafficking is the fastest-growing criminal enterprise in the world, and it is a serious issue along both the Northern as well as the Southern Borders. My home State of Michigan has the sixth-highest number of reported cases of human trafficking in the country, and despite the scope of this problem there is a lot we do not know about the illicit business of human trafficking. We need a better understanding of how transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) operate, finance, and profit from these smuggling rings. We need to work with Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries to address corruption, lawlessness, and other root causes of immigration. We need strong, stable border security policies. Traffickers thrive on chaos and leverage American threats of future crackdowns to induce families to quickly embark on this dangerous journey. We need less chaos. We can all agree that the status quo is both unacceptable and unsustainable. We all share the goal of protecting vulnerable people from human traffickers. That bipartisan support is reflected in the supplemental funding bill the Senate will soon be considering. This legislation was approved last week by the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 30-1. It includes critical resources to help offices like Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) root out smuggling networks. We must provide the right resources in addressing the challenges we face at our Southern Border and we need a full understanding of the facts on the ground to properly align efforts across the Federal Government. Chairman Johnson and I share an appreciation for data- driven discussions. We need to improve the Department of Homeland Security's data analytics in order to better combat transnational criminal organizations, disrupt human trafficking, and deliver long-term solutions to secure our borders to protect vulnerable populations. So I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I look forward to your testimony and hearing more about how we can stamp out human trafficking. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters. It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if you will all stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Hastings. I do. Mr. Howe. I do. Mr. Nevano. I do. Chairman Johnson. Please be seated. Our first witness is Brian Hastings. Mr. Hastings currently serves as the Chief of Law Enforcement Operations in the U.S. Border Patrol Headquarters in Washington, DC. Previously he was the Chief Patrol Agent of the Buffalo Sector Office in New York. Mr. Hastings. TESTIMONY OF BRIAN S. HASTINGS,\1\ CHIEF, LAW ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, U.S. BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Hastings. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the Committee. It is my honor to represent the men and women of the Border Patrol before you today, as they are hard at work addressing the current crisis on the border. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings appear in the Appendix on page 308. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Interdicting illegal aliens, drugs, cash, and weapons at the border is a key component of U.S. border security, and by extension, our national security. Cartels and other transnational criminal organizations, are a threat that requires comprehensive strategy and an aggressive approach across government. I am sorry to report that Border Patrol's contribution to this whole-of-government effort is currently strained, as we are forced to devote 40 to 60 percent of our manpower to the humanitarian flow that serves as a lucrative line of business for smuggling organizations. We are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of apprehensions and cannot conduct in-depth interviews that provide vital intelligence on smuggling and trafficking networks. While agents are distracted with the nearly 200 large groups apprehended this year, trafficking organizations are using these opportunities to move illicit narcotics and aliens seeking to evade apprehension. Simply put, the current humanitarian crisis has forced us to put border security and national security at risk. TCOs conduct their illicit operations without regard to human life. Smugglers control where and how aliens cross our border, putting lives at risk. In the Del Rio Sector alone, Border Patrol rescues have risen from 44 individuals all of last year to over 400 so far this year. Smugglers are often placing children in nothing more than makeshift rafts or on pool toys to cross the dangerous Rio Grande River. On multiple occasions, smugglers have pushed adults and children out of these rafts, knowing that agents would prioritize the preservation of life while the smugglers swam back to Mexico to evade arrest. So far this fiscal year, Border Patrol agents have rescued more than 3,400 people in distress along the border and saved nearly 2,500 people crammed into tractor-trailers. Earlier this month, agents freed 14 people from a locked and unventilated trailer compartment that measured 124 degrees. All of these people paid smugglers to bring them into this country and nearly paid with their lives. Others were not so fortunate. This past weekend, in the Rio Grande Valley, they mounted an extensive search effort when subjects reported that they had left several children who had died just north of the border. Sadly, on Sunday night, agents recovered the bodies of three children and one adult in the thick brush. Unfortunately, I know that these will not be the last tragic deaths that we encounter. Summer temperatures are increasing and we continue to see high volume of families and children cross the border. Border Patrol has apprehended more than 664,000 illegal aliens on our Southwest Border so far this year, a nearly 140 percent increase compared to the same timeframe last year. While June is beginning to show signs of seasonal decline that we expect in the summer months, we are still setting record highs. Just 3 weeks into the month we have already surpassed the apprehension level of every June since 2007. The flow continues to overwhelm resources throughout the immigration system. Border Patrol has made significant investments in humanitarian care, including consumables, soft- sided facilities, medical support, and transportation. We have requested additional funds for this purpose in the supplemental as well. We have been forced to direct manpower away from the border security mission to alien processing, simply to keep pace with the high level of apprehensions. We have detailed agents, we have shut down checkpoints, pulled agents from task forces, canceled leave, canceled training to address this crisis. Since we began direct releasing non-processed criminal family units on March 19, we have significantly reduced the time families spend in our custody after processing. With more than 96,000 family members released so far, this currently represents over 60 percent of the apprehensions but only about 25 percent of those in custody. Together with our partners we have reduced the number of people in Border Patrol custody from the peak of 19,000 in May to 12,000 to 13,000 today. Of significant concern are the single adults and unaccompanied children that are spending extended time in custody. Our facilities simply were not designed for long-term care in custody. I cannot stress enough the immediate impact of funding for ICE and HHS bed space would have on the Border Patrol's in-custody population, for both numbers and the duration. In the immediate term, we need Congress to provide supplemental funds requested by CBP and our partners, but the funding will only do so much without a long-term fix. I urge Congress to pass legislative changes. that we have repeatedly requested, to stop the draw of UACs and families. I thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Chief Hastings. Our next witness is Randy Howe. Mr. Howe is the Executive Director for Operations for U.S. Customs and Border Protection. In this role, he oversees 30 field offices and 328 ports of entry. Mr. Howe. TESTIMONY OF RANDY HOWE,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, OFFICE OF FIELD OPERATIONS, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Howe. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is an honor to appear before you today on behalf of CBP's Office of Field Operations (OFO). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Howe appears in the Appendix on page 308. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- When I last appeared before this Committee in April, I described the challenging conditions at our ports of entry (POEs). I mentioned long wait times for cargo processing and ballooning passenger wait times. I explained the ripple effects that redirecting CBP personnel would have on the trade community, the supply chain, and the American consumer, and I asked that you consider legislation action that would help address this crisis. I wish I could say that conditions at the ports of entry have improved or that our Border Patrol colleagues no longer require additional manpower. I also wish I could say that CBP's Office of Field Operations at our ports of entry were able to dedicate all of its energies toward our priority missions-- national security, counternarcotics, economic security, and the facilitation of lawful trade and travel. But the fact is that the conditions at our ports of entry have not improved. Most every statistic is higher. More inadmissible migrants are at our Southwest ports of entry, long wait times, more detainees in custody, and more officers from our ports of entry have been redirected to assist the Border Patrol. The variables driving this crisis are the same-- unprecedented numbers of family units and unaccompanied children from Central America, many in large groups, and nearly all of them seeking asylum and arriving without proper documentation. And spikes in migration, like the one we are experiencing on the Southwest Border, can both fuel and conceal human trafficking. The International Labor Organization estimates that there are over 40 million victims of human trafficking globally. In terms of population, that is more than the State of California. Seventy-five percent of them are female and a quarter are children. Due to our unique position at our ports of entry, CBP officers play a critical role in our country's efforts to stop human trafficking. Earlier this month, CBP officers and ICE Homeland Security Investigation agents arrested Naason Joaquin Garcia, the leader of an international religious organization at Los Angeles International Airport. He was charged with human trafficking, production of child pornography, and forcible rape of a minor, among other felonies. Because our officers are among the first people travelers encounter when they enter the United States, we are trained to detect the signs of human trafficking. In addition, our interviews are crucial for identifying victims of trafficking because the interview determines the purpose of their travel. For example, in 2017, CBP officers at Dulles Airport interviewed a woman from Spain who had arrived from Paris with her minor child. The woman stated she was a victim of human trafficking and that a Russian criminal organization was forcing her to work as a maid and have sex with men against her will to pay off a debt. The traveler added that the Russian organization had grown impatient at the rate that the debt was being paid off, and were sending her to the United States to earn money more quickly. Alerted by CBP and ICE's Human Trafficking Division, we were able to take the woman and child to a shelter for further processing and interviews. Not every trafficking situation is so straightforward. That is why education is important. In 2013, CBP launched the Blue Lightning Initiative to boost awareness about human trafficking in the airline industry. Together with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Blue Lightning Initiative provides training on how to recognize indicators of trafficking and how to report this suspected trafficking to law enforcement. We do everything we can to recognize and intercept human traffickers and hopefully rescue their victims, but we cannot do it alone. We work closely in collaboration with ICE and other law enforcement partners. I thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Howe. Our final witness is Gregory Nevano. Mr. Nevano is the Assistant Director with Homeland Security Investigations. He previously served as Chief of Staff to the Deputy Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Mr. Nevano. TESTIMONY OF GREGORY NEVANO,\1\ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR INVESTIGATIVE PROGRAMS, HOMELAND SECURITY INVESTIGATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Nevano. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear before you today to represent the more than 8,500 brave men and women from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations to provide an update on our efforts to combat human smuggling and human trafficking and the ongoing security and humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Nevano appears in the Appendix on page 316. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Throughout my nearly three-decade career, I have witnessed firsthand the perils individuals are willing to endure to seek a better life in the United States. There is no better illustration of this than in June 1994, when I encountered 11 remaining stowaways hidden in a container on a vessel in South Boston, Massachusetts. The stowaways spent nearly 2 weeks in the container with limited food and water and only a small hole cut in the side of for them to breathe. As a young officer, this incident made me appreciate the freedoms we often take for granted as well as to treat every person I encounter in the line of duty with dignity and respect. Human smuggling and human trafficking are often conflated as one in the same type of crime. I would like to take a few moments to explain the key differences between them. Human smuggling involves the provision of a service for a fee, typically transportation to an individual who voluntarily seeks to enter a foreign country illegally. In fiscal year 2018, HSI initiated 1,671 cases, made 4,081 criminal arrests, and 2,987 administrative arrests for human smuggling. Human trafficking, however, is a crime involving the exploitation of someone for the purposes of compelled labor or a commercial sex act, either a minor or through the use of fraud, force, or coercion. Often a dream for a better life in the United States starts off as a human smuggling event, where the person is complicit to the act but turns quickly into a human trafficking event. In fiscal year 2018, HSI initiated 849 cases, made 1,588 criminal arrests, and rescued 308 victims of human trafficking. Our intelligence indicates desperate migrants pay smugglers upwards of $8,000 to be smuggled from the Northern Triangle countries and over $70,000 to be smuggled from an Eastern Hemisphere country on their illegal journey. To put this in perspective, consider a kilogram of cocaine is estimated at just about $30,000 U.S. dollars, and therefore it is more lucrative for a transnational criminal organization to smuggle a person than it is narcotics. A key component of HSI's efforts to combat human trafficking is the Victim Assistance Program, which employs a victim-centered approach whereby equal value is placed on the identification, rescue, stabilization of the victims, and on the deterrence, investigation, and prosecution of the trafficker. I would like to thank Congress for appropriating $7.5 million to HSI in February 2019. This funding will be used to enhance our Victim Assistance Program by hiring nearly 60 employees. These employees will significantly assist HSI in dealing with the humanitarian crisis along our Southern Border. In response to this crisis, beginning in April 2019, HSI dedicated over 400 personnel to assist CBP in combating this issue. HSI deployed teams to interview persons suspected of attempting entry by fraud, including as part of a fraudulent family unit. To date, HSI has identified 316 fraudulent families, 599 fraudulent documents, and presented 629 individuals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for various criminal violations. In furtherance of our efforts to combat this crisis, in early May 2019, HSI initiated a rapid Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) pilot program in El Paso and McAllen, Texas. During this operation, a total of 84 family units were DNA tested, after providing consent. Sixteen family units were found to be fraudulent during the testing. About half of the confirmed fraudulent family units were identified prior to DNA testing, when the adult alien recanted their claim of a familial relationship when asked to consent to the test. There is no better case illustration but when a 51-year-old Honduran male confessed prior to testing that he was not the father of the infant child he initially claimed to be his son, and purchased the child for $84. In addition to DNA testing, in early May 2019, HSI and CBP began identifying adult migrants and accompanying children that entered the United States as alleged family units along our Southern Border. However, the children have subsequently departed the United States with unrelated adults via commercial airlines to the Northern Triangle. HSI is currently investigating these incidents to determine if these children are being used and recycled by adult migrants for the purposes of defrauding the United States. HSI is committed to augmenting CBP's resources at our Southern Border to ensure the safety of children and to prevent them from being utilized by criminal enterprises to exploit our immigration laws. However, without additional congressional support we will be unable to sustain this effort. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I look forward to answering your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Nevano. Normally I would throw questions out to our Committee Members right away but I have a couple I want to go over quickly. Mr. Hastings, you talked about current levels, 12,000 to 13,000 being held in CBP custody. John Sanders quoted, in the newspaper today, said the capacity of Border Patrol stations is about 4,000. Is that pretty accurate? Mr. Hastings. Yes, sir. That is accurate, and that is across the entire Southwest Border. So 4,000 is a healthy number. So even though we have brought those levels from 19,000 in May, as I talked about earlier, we are still sitting at 12,000 to 13,000 every day, which is well above the capacity level. Chairman Johnson. Again, that is the capacity of the standard stations, correct? You have put up things like PGA tents, we saw those, other types of military tents, the types used by our military in Iraq, that type of thing. Correct? Is that how you have expanded capacity? Mr. Hastings. That is, sir. So, I mean, you have seen, in multiple areas, primarily RGV in El Paso, where we have been forced to move bodies out, transport them out, because we are over capacity in that location. We have transported them to either Del Rio Sector to process or to Laredo Sector to process. To your point, we have stood up additional soft-sided facilities. We have stood up two at Donna in RGV, and we have stood up one in El Paso as well, to assist, and there is one currently being stood up at Yuma to assist. Chairman Johnson. So talk about the roadblock, because I know Border Patrol, you are trying to process, create the A- file as quickly as possible and then turn them over to ICE. Correct? I mean, that is the process. You apprehend them, develop the--screen them for medical conditions, take them to hospitals, do anything you can to treat them with as much compassion as possible, but your job is really to turn them over to ICE as quickly as possible. Correct? Mr. Hastings. So two things. One, yes, we process the family units and the single adults as quickly as possible, and the job is to turn them over to Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) ICE. The UAC, they are our top priority. We process them first, so we can get them entered into the system to be turned over to HHS. Chairman Johnson. So what is the roadblock in terms of why you are so over capacity? Mr. Hastings. So one is sheer volume. The system is overwhelmed, so just sheer volume alone. If you look back, historically, demographically, 70 to 90 percent of who we arrested we could easily repatriate immediately back to Mexico. Today we are seeing 82 percent of those that we arrest are from other than Mexico, and that population is very difficult to repatriate under the current laws that we have going. Chairman Johnson. So one of the complaints I hear on the border, from Border Patrol, is ICE does not have the capacity, so Border Patrol is saying, ``ICE, take these individuals'' and ICE is saying, ``We do not have the capacity.'' And then, of course, ICE, particularly the children, go to HHS, and we do not have the capacity either. It is just kind of backing them right up to Border Patrol, right? Mr. Hastings. It is. So I think everyone in the system, the entire system, is overwhelmed right now. That is absolutely correct. We are holding these individuals longer than we want to. We do not want to be holding these individuals for longer than 72 hours. If we could get rid of them quicker than that, that would be great as well. But we do not want to be holding kids in detention facilities, our detention facilities, which were not designed for that. If we had zero in custody that would be great. Chairman Johnson. Yes, again, there is no incentive. You are not trying to hold children longer than 72 hours. You would just like to turn them over to ICE and to HHS as quickly as possible. It is just not possible right now. Mr. Hastings. As I understand it, HHS is at max capacity, as is ICE ERO, and they need additional funding for bed spaces. Chairman Johnson. Mr. Nevano, you talked about a case where a child was purchased for $84. Mr. Nevano. That is correct, Senator. Chairman Johnson. You also listed a number of different stats in terms of how many people had been apprehended, the number of fraudulent families, fraudulent documents, that type of thing. In the scheme of things, where you are looking at over 400,000 accompanied children, primarily people coming in as family units, one of the things I was trying to get a sense of in this hearing is how prevalent the human trafficking element, the sex trafficking, the involuntary servitude is within this process. You obviously have limited resources in terms of how many things you can investigate. I mean, I have heard statistics in terms of how many crimes are actually ever detected or prosecuted or arrests made. What is your sense of how prevalent this is? I mean, do you have any sense, whatsoever? Are you as suspicious as I am that there is a lot of this going on? Mr. Nevano. Senator, keep in mind that a lot of times you do not need a border nexus to have human trafficking. So a lot of times it is very difficult for our CBP counterparts at the border to actually identify a human trafficking element or crime. Usually the human trafficking element occurs once they make it into the United States, and that is when we are seeing more of the human trafficking element. So a smuggling event starts off at the border, but once the person gets into the interior, as you mentioned in your opening comments, it often turns into a situation of exploitation where that migrant is then charged, held against their will, their families are exported back home to pay more money to pay off their smuggling debt. Chairman Johnson. So let's go back to the process. Border Patrol apprehends, processes, turns over to ICE. ICE then-- again, when I was, for example, in El Paso--turns them over to an organization like the Annunciation House, who also helps allocate them to other churches to further care for individuals, but try and identify family members or relatives or some place where they can be sent to. People buy plane tickets, buy bus tickets, and these individuals are sent all over the country. Is that basically what is happening? Again, as rapidly as possible. That is occurring within 6, 7, 8, or 9 days, general. Mr. Hastings. Yes, sir, that is occurring very quickly. In March we began releasing non-criminal, processed families, because we were at 19,000. So we began releasing them, working closely with our NGO partners to provide service for them after release. Chairman Johnson. Now when you say you began releasing, Border Patrol began releasing them, right, bypassing the step with ICE, right into non-government organizations. Mr. Hastings. That is correct, sir. Our capacity levels at 19,000 and climbing, for the safety of our officers, our agents, and for those that we detained, we began releasing. Chairman Johnson. So my final point is, in part of that processing, I think the migrants give you an address where they think they are going to go. Correct? Mr. Hastings. Yes, sir. Chairman Johnson. But once you turn them over to non- government organizations you have no idea where they really go. Mr. Hastings. That is correct. They are provided with a change-of-address form, in case they go someplace else, but where they ultimately go after we release them, or on an order of recognizance, we do not control where they go or how they get there. Chairman Johnson. Again, the assumption is they are going to meet up with some relative? A lot of people have come in during the Central American wars from the 1980s, so there are a lot of people they know, and they have social media. But we still are finding families in stash houses. Mr. Hastings. That is correct. Yes, sir. Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know two of our Members, Senator Hassan and Senator Rosen, have a mark-up so I would defer my questioning and defer to Senator Hassan. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Senator Peters, for the courtesy. Thank you to Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Peters for this hearing. Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here to testify as well as for your service to our country, and please thank all the men and women you work with on our behalf as well. We all want to make sure that those of you on the front lines have the resources you need. We also want to make sure that you are doing your jobs consistent with American values, and I think that is something we all share. Mr. Howe, I wanted to start with a question to you. It would be great if we could have a brief update on drug seizures at our land ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. Have we seen an increase in trafficking of any particular narcotic over the past 6 months? Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator, for the question, and thank you for visiting McAllen in May. Our narcotics users are on track to match our numbers from last year. Year to date we have seized more than 39,000 pounds of methamphetamine, which is tracking a little bit higher than normal; 38,000 pounds of cocaine; 3,200 pounds of heroin; and nearly 2,000 pounds of fentanyl. Senator Hassan. Thank you. In particular, have fentanyl seizures increased or decreased over the past 6 months, and what does that tell you about the drug cartels' plans for the trade of fentanyl? Mr. Howe. I think we are seeing less through our mail facilities and is trending up slightly on the Southern Border with the fentanyl. Senator Hassan. Right. Of course, while the size of the seizures of fentanyl that you just recounted sounds smaller than the other drugs, 2,000 pounds of fentanyl is an awful lot of fentanyl, given its lethality. Mr. Howe. Absolutely. Senator Hassan. Mr. Hastings, how do Border Patrol's drug seizure numbers compare with CBP's seizures at ports of entry? Mr. Hastings. Thank you for the question. So we have a noticed the hard narcotics generally trending up, and what I mean specifically, cocaine seizures are up, methamphetamine seizures are up, and heroin seizures are up. Cocaine, about 9,700 pounds of cocaine seized so far this fiscal year between the ports of entry. Senator Hassan. Right. Mr. Hastings. About 9,800 pounds of methamphetamine seized between the ports of entry. Heroin, 448 pounds of heroin seized so far between the ports of entry. Marijuana is slightly down at about 200,000 pounds, and fentanyl, although down a little bit at 149 pounds, still obviously very highly concerning. Senator Hassan. Thank you for the information. Mr. Hastings, I want to turn to another topic. I understand very clearly, from my visits to the border, the one I just did with Senators Johnson and Peters and the one I did last year, that we are facing a humanitarian and security crisis along the Southwestern Border. I agree with you that we need comprehensive immigration reform in order to help relieve some of the flow of migrants into the United States. However, there is absolutely no excuse for the reported conditions at Border Patrol facilities that house child migrants. Outside lawyers recently visited a Border Patrol facility in Clint, Texas, where they reported widespread instances of children living in squalor, being denied the ability to shower for weeks at a time, caring for infants just a few years younger than themselves, and being locked in cages for the vast majority of the day. Similar reports of gross mismanagement and horrible conditions have come to light at the Border Patrol facilities at McAllen and El Paso, as well as a private facility in Homestead, Florida. I truly understand how overwhelmed Border Patrol is. I think you have done a very good job of highlighting it in your testimony. I certainly saw a great deal of it when I was down at the border just last month. I also understand that CBP needs funding to address this crisis. Hopefully we will be able to take action here in the Senate on an emergency aid package in the coming days. However, when dealing with children, your first and foremost priority is to ensure that the children in the Federal Government's custody are treated with the same kind of care, dignity, and support that we would want and expect for any child. To that end, Mr. Hastings, I would like a very clear answer on these questions. First, does CBP have an obligation to provide toothpaste and soap to children in your custody? Yes or no. Mr. Hastings. We are providing that in El Paso, in Clint Station. Senator Hassan. The news reports say otherwise, but you now say you do have an obligation to do that. Mr. Hastings. We have been at the Clint Station, and generally all of our stations across the Southwest Border are provided with a variety of hygiene products. Even though our facilities were not constructed for the demographic we are seeing---- Senator Hassan. I understand that, and my time is limited so I do understand that you are dealing with difficult facilities. I do understand that there is a backup with HHS, which I think HHS could do more to solve. But at the end of the day, what I am hearing you say is that you agree that children should be provided soap and toothbrush if they are in your custody, which is a different position than what the Administration has been saying in court. Mr. Hastings. We are providing those things now. We have been and we will continue to. Senator Hassan. Do you have an obligation to feed, clothe, and clean the children in your custody? Mr. Hastings. We provide three hot meals a day and snacks are unlimited to those in our care. Senator Hassan. You do understand that that is in direct contradiction with the news reports that we have been reading, and from what lawyers who have been visiting these children and interviewing them are telling us. Mr. Hastings. I would ask that you understand that those are the plaintiffs' attorneys who have a case against the government. Senator Hassan. You should understand that I am a member of the bar of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and I hold attorneys to very high standards, and I doubt very strongly that any attorney would be fabricating this information. Mr. Hastings. I understand, ma'am. Senator Hassan. What steps is the Border Patrol taking right now to ensure that the mismanagement of child migrants in Clint, Texas, is not occurring at every other border patrol facility along the Southern Border? Mr. Hastings. So all of the allegations that you have mentioned above that were made have all been reported to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and will be thoroughly investigated. They have also been reported to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) within CBP. They will be thoroughly investigated. Senator Hassan. I am pleased that they will be investigated, but my question is what are you actually doing to make sure that as you are dealing with an unprecedented number of migrant children that you are ensuring that there is enough soap and toothbrushes, that there is enough food and enough time for them to be outside and out of very confined spaces? What I am asking is, what are you operationally doing to change the circumstances? We are hearing reports, not just from one facility, not just from two facilities, not just from one source, that these children are living in terrible conditions that would violate any standard of any institution that we all would expect in this country. What are you doing to actually make sure that children are getting the care and the sanitary conditions and the food that they need? Mr. Hastings. So we have done a great deal. As I mentioned earlier, we have brought in shower facilities just for this population and for others, due to the new demographic and how long we are holding them. We have increased our medical contract across the Southwest Border for medical assessments and medical care. We have increased, as I mentioned in my oral statement, the amount of operational funding that we are spending on consumables, diapers, food, formula, all of those things. If you walk into many of our locations on the Southwest Border, including Clint, you will see an area, a storeroom, that frankly looks like Costco, with these supplies that are available, and when agents are providing these supplies they are documenting what they are providing. So we have those supplies readily available and we are offering and providing those supplies now. Senator Hassan. I am over time. I thank the Chairman for his indulgence. There is a huge disconnect between your testimony and between what we are getting as reports from the facilities. I hope very much that we can just focus on making sure the children are clean, well cared for, safe, and released as quickly as possible. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan, we will work with you to get those answers. One thing I do know that Border Patrol is doing, for example, in El Paso, instead of 28 Border Patrol agents on the border, 25 are caring for children and families and we have 2 or 3 of them over an 11-mile stretch, and we are taking OFO officers from ports of entry and also putting them on the border. Senator Hassan. We saw that at the border. My issue is not with how hard the men and women on the front lines are trying. My issue is what we are doing operationally to change the circumstance on the ground so that these children are well cared for and safe. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Right. Senator Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN Senator Rosen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Peters, for deferring to our committee, and thank you for the service and work that you all do. It is difficult, it is challenging, and oftentimes heartbreaking, so we do appreciate that. And like the Chairman said, we all saw that awful and heartbreaking photo of the toddler who drowned while clutching her father's neck. I cannot even begin to imagine, as a mother, what those last moments for that father and daughter were like, and I believe the mother was on the other side of the river, and I do pray, like the Chairman, that this photo, and what we talk about today, moves this body into action. So let's talk about the Remain in Mexico policy. According to the State Department's Trafficking in Persons June 2019 report, over the past 5 years we know that human traffickers, as was said, have exploited numerous victims in Mexico. We know the vulnerable groups--women, children. The vast majority of foreign victims are forced into labor, sex trafficking, mostly from countries in the Northern Triangle. They are on their way to the United States. But against this backdrop, in January 2019, DHS issued a new policy guidance on Migrant Protection Protocols, known as the Remain in Mexico policy. Under this policy, certain asylum- seekers, including families, are sent back to Mexico to wait in that country for the entire duration of their U.S. immigration court proceedings. That could take months; it could take years. And so we do know that there is a challenge in Federal court, but I am concerned that this policy is going to drive more and more people into the arms of those who wish to exploit them, making the problem worse, and I can tell you that the State Department's own annual report backs me up on this. So my question to you, and I am hoping that you can provide us the numbers if you do not have them, do you know how many individuals seeking asylum, that DHS has returned to Mexico under the Migrant Protocols Policy (MPP)? Any of you? Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I have the numbers for Office of Field Operation, so for the ports of entry we are running MPP in San Diego, and to date we have returned 665; in Calexico, 96; in El Paso, 539. So 1,300. Senator Rosen. How many families were arriving as family unit? Excuse me. Mr. Howe. I will have to get back to you on that number. I do not have that. Senator Rosen. Also, do you know the number of unaccompanied minors? Mr. Howe. Minors would not be a part of the program. They are not considered for MPP. Senator Rosen. To your knowledge, are these programs--are there plans to expand these policies beyond San Isidro, Calexico, and the El Paso ports of entry? Mr. Howe. We are in ongoing discussions internally and with the Mexican authorities on expansion. Senator Rosen. So you do not have a timeline for when---- Mr. Howe. I do not. Senator Rosen. You can report back to us when you do? Mr. Howe. Yes, ma'am. Senator Rosen. Thank you. I also want to say that reports have indicated that DHS has returned to Mexico asylum-seekers who are pregnant or children with neurological disorders. That is despite guidance that clearly states individuals with known medical issues should not be subject to this policy. Have we been investigating these cases? Do you know of any? Mr. Howe. I am not aware of the allegations but we generally do not include migrants that have a known physical or mental illness, if there is any criminality, history of violence. Senator Rosen. What about pregnant women? Mr. Howe. If a migrant is in a long-term pregnancy or there are sensitivities to the pregnancy---- Senator Rosen. They are all long-term pregnancies. They have an end to the term. We know the term of that. Mr. Howe. Yes. They would not be considered. Senator Rosen. Thank you. I have a couple of minutes. I want to go back and talk about metering at the ports of entry. Of course, again, CBP, you have a practice of metering, queue management, as you call it, at the ports of entry all along the U.S.-Mexico border, where asylum-seekers are required to wait for indefinite periods for the opportunity just to be processed. Can you talk to me about why you are employing the process of metering or queue management, and is it happening across all ports of entry? Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator. Yes, it is. It is a discretionary balance used by our port managers to really balance and assess our mission requirements--our counternarcotic, our facilitation of trade and travel, and the processing of migrants, and balancing our resources against that. So putting them in all those different areas, and without focusing them in any one particular area. Senator Rosen. So how could we help? As Congress, how can we help you speed up this process so you do not have to manage this queue and you can get through---- Mr. Howe. I think it is the whole process, Senator. It is our facilities that were not designed to house large groups of individuals, and then ICE ERO is not in a position to be able to take them. So if we did increase and we would be holding them longer, and ERO would have an increased difficulty in finding bed space. So it is a balance that right now, with ERO and HHS's capacity issues, it is adequate. Senator Rosen. So we need to have people talking to each other to increase the flow and the capacity of what we can do, and, of course, to Senator Hassan's point, doing it in a human and kind way. Can you tell me, too, the numbers, quickly before I end here, how many migrants you are processing at CBP daily? Mr. Howe. At our ports of entry? Senator Rosen. Yes. Mr. Howe. It varies across the Southwest Border, based on that balance, as I mentioned, the discretionary balance of what we are---- Senator Rosen. Can you give me a rough estimate? Mr. Howe. Three hundred. Senator Rosen. Do you know how many are currently in line waiting in Mexico? Mr. Howe. That is difficult to nail down because those numbers come from the Mexican authorities. But we have been told in each one of the areas roughly 3,000 to 4,000. Senator Rosen. And so based on what you know, what do you know to be the average time an asylum-seeker will have to wait? Mr. Howe. It has been some time since I have checked with San Diego but what I last heard, a few months ago, was 5 to 6 weeks. Senator Rosen. Five to 6 weeks. I hope that, again, we can do something about this, that we can help. I have so many more questions that I will submit for the record about the conditions for children, young families, and we want to be sure that we stop the exploitation because nothing in my mind is more heartbreaking, and I can only imagine when you opened that trailer what it did to you, and the nightmares you probably have remembering that. So I want that to motivate us to do the right things. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. So, Senator Rosen, because we asked a similar question. I have to respond to get it in the record. Currently, as of June 16 of this year, 11,575 individuals have been returned to remain in Mexico. 1,109 came from the ports of entry, 10,466 came from Border Patrol. So about 10 percent come through the ports of entry and the rest have come into this country illegally and then they are returned. So again, the total number is 11,575. Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to pick up on those questions of Senator Rosen and the numbers. So is that the number of individuals turned away at the port of entry under the current metering practices? If you can give me a number of that, I just want to clarify that, either Mr. Hastings or Mr. Howe? Yes. How many have been turned away because of the metering process? Mr. Howe. That is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to identify the number that are not crossing the boundary line. In many cases, the NGO's are holding them in Mexico or caring for them until there is an opportunity for us to take on more migrants. That is a communication between us, the Mexican authorities, and the NGO. So it is nearly impossible. Senator Peters. There are not folks coming across and you are saying, ``You cannot come across today because of the metering process?'' You are saying you do not know that number? Mr. Howe. We do not. Senator Peters. Obviously the tragic situation we have all talked about, with this father and his young daughter, the story is that he died after attempting to seek asylum at a port of entry and he waited for over 2 months in Mexico. To both Mr. Hastings and Mr. Howe, what do you think is the relationship between the metering at the ports of entry and an increase in families that we are seeing that are trying to cross between ports of entry? Mr. Hastings. Sir, I just know that--I mean, we have seen an increase in the volume of family units continue to build month after month. I am not sure what the result is with the queue management. When we are interviewing these individuals, quite frankly, what they are telling us is ``we have heard on social media or we have heard from folks who are already in the country, bring a child and you will be set free.'' I mean, that is what we are hearing. Senator Peters. That is not my question. My question is what is the relationship? You are metering folks that are coming across the port of entry, so they cannot. We know this gentleman, who tragically died with his daughter, was waiting 2 months and said was turned away from the metering, and so then decided to go not in a port of entry--and we are seeing more and more folks. What is the relationship of people who, if they cannot come through a port of entry they are now trying to cross at other places on the border? Mr. Howe. I think it is difficult for me to speculate, Senator, what numbers that occur. I mean, as I said to Senator Rosen, it is that delicate balance of managing our resources at all our different mission sets and processing migrants is important, but if we were to process more migrants it is going to have to come from something. It is not going to come from our counternarcotic mission. It is not going to come from our international security initiative. So it would have from facilitation. We do not want to have U.S. citizens waiting longer to return to the United States. So that balance is what we are trying to strike. Senator Peters. We are discussing, also, trafficking and smugglers and the problem related to that. Does it make sense that if it is more difficult to come across a port of entry and just present yourself at a port of entry to the legal process, and then you want to go then, or attempt to get into the country a different way? That might actually increase the business for smugglers and cartels who will say, ``We will take care of the situation for you. Just pay us and we will get you in some other way.'' Is there a correlation there? Is there or not? Mr. Howe. Again, I think it is difficult to speculate. We do have smuggling attempts that occur at our ports of entry. We have over 400 a year across the Southwest Border, where migrants are either presenting somebody else's documents or they are hidden in a vehicle. So it is difficult for me to know. Senator Peters. Is there anything being done at the Mexican border to ensure the migrants who are waiting to cross are not being recruited by smugglers at the border, that are being approached to use their services? Are either we or the Mexican government engaged in attempting to disrupt that kind of business connection? Mr. Howe. I do not have first-hand knowledge of that but the Mexican authorities would have that responsibility. Senator Peters. Would we want to know what the Mexican authorities are doing, and wouldn't we encourage them to do something along those lines? Mr. Howe. Absolutely. Senator Peters. Why has that not been done? Mr. Howe. I am sure it has been done at the local level. Senator Peters. Can we find out? Is it possible to get that information? Mr. Howe. Absolutely. Senator Peters. I would appreciate that. CBP has said that between mid-April and June 14, over 1,800 family units were interviewed who presented indications of fraud, with 275 fraudulent families identified, as based on the data that I have. Chief Hastings, how many total migrants crossed the Southern Border during that timeframe? I believe it was roughly over 200,000. Is that accurate? Mr. Hastings. Sir, what was the timeframe again? I am sorry. Senator Peters. Mid-April to June 14, so 2 months. Mr. Hastings. April to June? So we have had a high volume, I think 132,000 last month. I can tell you, for the year, that we have had 5,100 fraudulent claims so far, fraudulent family claims that we know of. Senator Peters. What timeframe is that? Mr. Hastings. That is for the fiscal year. Senator Peters. Oh, fiscal year. Yes, I am looking at a 2- month period here. Mr. Hastings. I do not have that specific information but I think the biggest thing, and one of the most important things is you heard Chief Rodolfo Karisch testify last time, it is due to the volume that we are seeing. It is very difficult to spend time interviewing and getting in-depth with these individuals. Senator Peters. So my question also is, what do you consider--how do you define a fraudulent family? Is a grandmother and a grandson considered a fraudulent family? Or is an aunt or nephew, an adult sibling of a minor sibling? What is a fraudulent family? Mr. Hastings. So by Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) definition it is a parent or a legal guardian or one that is less than 18 years old. Senator Peters. A parent or legal guardian. So a grandmother bringing a grandson would be a fraudulent family. Mr. Hastings. It is not necessarily counted as fraudulent. They are just not a family unit. They will be--in other words-- -- Senator Peters. So it would show a non-family unit as coming across. A grandmother with her grandson or granddaughter would be considered not a family unit---- Mr. Hastings. That is correct. Senator Peters [continuing]. Based on your definition. Mr. Hastings. Yes, sir. Senator Peters. Could you give some examples of the indicators that you would use to warrant them being interviewed as a possible fraudulent family? Mr. Hastings. A lot of times we will see just the sheer reaction between the child and the adult. The agents will see that and notice that, and they will start questioning further to try to determine if, indeed, it looks like there is true familial relationship. We also saw quite a bit of false documentation, specifically from Honduras and Guatemala as well, birth certificates. Senator Peters. Could you also describe the way the CBP officers identified the migrants that participated specifically in the DNA pilot double helix? These were not random sample of families. Is that correct, that these are folks that agents suspected as unlikely to be with a parent before you did the DNA testing? Mr. Nevano. Thank you for your question, Senator. We sent a team down to McAllen and El Paso, Texas, and the referrals were given to us after Border Patrol had an opportunity to interview those individuals. If there were individuals that they had been suspected of being in a fraudulent family unit they would refer it to the team that was down there to conduct the DNA testing. This was after interviews, a review of their documents, and as my colleague stated, if the behaviors did not appear to be in a familial relationship, where there seemed to be some distance between them, they used those factors to refer that family unit over for a DNA test. Senator Peters. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, but just one last question. Do you have an after-action report that you could share with Congress to assess the viability of implementing DNA testing on a wider scale? Mr. Nevano. Senator, we did do an after-action report and we will see about allowing you to see that report. Senator Peters. I would appreciate it if you could get that to me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. A couple of points. Those DNA tests are about $200 a test. If we had 150,000 family units that is about $30 million to do DNA testing. Also, according to the chart,\1\ 93 percent of the family units and UACs have crossed between the ports of entry; 7 percent, 30,000 of those have come through the ports of entry. I mean, the vast volume really is coming illegally between the ports of entry, because that is the easier ticket in. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 322. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I understand the point you are making but I think it is just so widely known that the way to cross is coming across illegally, because within 6, 7, 8 days you will be set free. Senator Scott. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SCOTT Senator Scott. Thank you, Chief, for being here, and thank you for what you are doing. I am disgusted with how Congress has handled all that. I mean, you could not make this up. We know we want a secure border. Then people want to complain that you are not doing your job. I think it is disgusting what people are doing. So Mr. Hastings, what do you need Congress to do to allow you to do the job you were actually hired to do, rather than the job you are having to do today because Congress has not acted? Mr. Hastings. Thank you for the question, sir. So as I said in my opening, first and foremost, short-term, we need additional funding for the supplemental, as do our partners, because, as I mentioned again, the volume of what we have in our custody right now, that 13,000 is primarily unaccompanied alien children, approximately 1,000 today, and then in addition to that it is single adults that we have in custody as well. So HHS and ERO need funding for bed space to get those out of Border Patrol custody and into the care of those who are set up for long-term detention. That is short-term. Long-term, we need a fix that quits allowing this draw for family units and unaccompanied alien children to come to the United States. We have to stop this draw. Senator Scott. Mr. Howe. Mr. Howe. I agree. Thank you, Senator. I agree with everything that Chief Hastings said, but in addition, just to underscore the importance of ICE ERO to get the proper funding and bed space and HHS so that they can relieve our facilities that were not designed for the long-term detention, so we are not in that situation. Senator Scott. OK. Do either of you believe we need to have more border protection? I mean, so far you have talked about supplemental, and the Flores decision, primarily, so what about--do we need any funding to secure the border? I mean, this would not be happening if we had a secure border. Mr. Hastings. Right now I think we absolutely need more funding for border security, but our biggest issue now is pulling away from that 40 to 60 percent of agents that we are pulling off the line to deal with the humanitarian crisis, the families, and the UACs. That is the biggest problem that we have right now, and in the meantime, while we are dealing with that demographic, a large number of single adults are still trying to evade arrest, to your point. A large dynamic of drugs as well, trying to evade. They are using these family units who are trying to cross as a diversion tactic, in a lot of cases, to be able to make money on drugs and single adults trying to evade arrest. Senator Scott. Mr. Nevano, would you like to add anything? Mr. Nevano. Sure. Thank you for your question. We are the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, and the concern that we would have is the more resources we take away from conducting the complex criminal investigation, targeting the transnational criminal organizations that are actually organizing these smuggling loads and human trafficking by putting people on the border to augment the need that CBP has taken away, potentially, from conducting our mission, which is, protecting the homeland via investigations and trying to target these transnational criminal organizations. Senator Scott. Mr. Hastings, how does it make you feel when you get asked questions to suggest that you or your team does not care about these children that you are taking care of? How do you all feel every day when you get up and you read the papers or see the news where somebody suggests that you are not doing your job? Mr. Hastings. So it is disgusting to me and it is hurtful to me because daily, I see our agents doing just the opposite. Yesterday I saw our agents in Carrizo Springs jump out of the water, save a 13-year-old child who was unconscious, give him Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), give him mouth-to-mouth, and essentially bring him back to life. That happened yesterday on our border and that happens quite often, time and time again. Our men and women are out there risking their lives every day to save those migrants that are either put into a bad position by smugglers or put themselves into a bad position. So above and beyond that, our agents go to the maximum to care for these children. You have seen pictures, as well, of our agents holding these children, trying to comfort them. So it is very hurtful for us, for our agents who are out there trying to do the best they can at securing our border and dealing with this humanitarian crisis. Senator Scott. How has it impacted your ability to recruit and retain your team to do this job? Mr. Hastings. So our workforce is doing well right now but they want to see a light at the end of the tunnel, quite frankly, to be able to go back to their primary national security mission, and that is what we are hopeful for, that we go back to a primarily national security mission and we see legislative changes that allow us to do that, that quit the draw for the family units and the unaccompanied alien children. Senator Scott. So do you have concerns when you do your job every day that because of how much time you are having to spend because Congress will not act that we have individuals that are crossing the border that want to harm Americans? Mr. Hastings. I am concerned with that. I am concerned with recruiting individuals in this current state that we are in right now, recruiting good agents to do this in the future, and I am worried when we are diverted by the humanitarian crisis what is coming through our border. The best example I could give is about 2 months ago we had a large group come across in Rio Grande Valley. This was broad daylight. At the same time we had 791 pounds of cocaine a mile away, cross the border in broad daylight. That tells me that there is very little fear in the minds of the smuggling organizations and the narcotics traffickers because they know we are tied up with other things, humanitarian mission. Senator Scott. Anybody else? Mr. Nevano. Senator, I have been around for almost three decades and I have been use to this, via my career, but I would like to put it in perspective. Can you imagine a new agent that has just come on, that just went out and had a very successful day. They seize enough fentanyl that could kill hundreds and millions of people, or they arrested a potential terrorist suspect, or a gang member, or they rescued a child from an exploitation. They get home and they turn on the nightly news, and there is information on the news saying abolish certain agencies. Can you imagine how that agent feels? I know, personally, when I come home I do not even want to watch that because it is very hurtful, as my colleague stated. So it is very hurtful, and the men and women of ICE, HSI, ERO are out there every day trying to make this country safe. Mr. Howe. I will just add, Senator, it is an unnecessary distraction. Our officers want to be mission-focused. They want to be doing what they were hired to do, enforcing our laws and facilitating lawful trade and travel. We do not want to be distracted with processing migrants to the numbers we are. Senator Scott. I have been here 6 months. I am disgusted that we sit here, and you watch on the news, people who are trying to do their jobs are getting attacked and Congress sits here and does not do their job. It is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my entire career, my business career. You would not do this in your business career. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Senator Hawley. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can I just agree with what Senator Scott just said? I mean, the behavior of this Congress is absolutely pathetic. I mean, it is just pathetic. People up here should be apologizing to you for the total dereliction of duty that this Congress has undertaken. I have never seen anything like it in my life. This is, by my count, the sixth hearing, full hearing, I have sat through in 4 months on the border, which is great. I am glad we are paying some attention to it. The problem is this Congress never does anything. This Congress refuses to do anything. We know what the facts are. You have outlined them again today. CBP is over capacity, underfunded, undermanned. ICE, over capacity, underfunded. HHS, over capacity, underfunded. Yet this Congress will do nothing. Meanwhile, the cartels and the smuggling rings, what are they doing? They are lying to vulnerable families, exploiting children in order to turn profits and abuse our broken asylum system. We know it needs to happen. We know we need to reform the asylum system. We know we have to stop the pull factors, as well as address the push factors. We know all that, but this Congress will not do anything. This morning I have heard, just from my colleagues across the aisle this morning I have heard statements like, ``I am heartbroken,'' ``No one is more vulnerable than a child,'' ``The status quo is unacceptable, it is unsustainable,'' but yet we do not do anything to change it. There is no will to change it. Children are being exploited. This morning we woke up to the picture of the man from El Salvador and his young daughter dead, face-down in the water. Why? Because they were exploited. Who knows how much that poor gentleman paid to some smuggling ring who told him that if he just came to the United States, to our border, and claimed asylum he would automatically get in. That was a lie. Who knows what lies he was told? And here he ends up, he and his little baby, dead, and this Congress still refuses to act. It is absolutely unconscionable. We know what needs to be done. Nobody will do it. My view is we can talk and talk and talk, but until this Congress is willing to take some action--I am sorry for what it is you have to deal with. I am sorry that this Congress has left you without the resources you need. I am sorry that this Congress has not done its duty. I am sorry that this Congress has left not only our Southern Border exposed and vulnerable but has left children exploited, day after day after day. And until this wretched Congress decides to do something I do not know why we even bother to have these hearings. I do not know why it even matters, because this Congress will not act. This Congress refuses to act, and it is a complete dereliction of duty. So thank you, gentlemen, for your service. Thank you for what you are doing. I would just say to the President, I would encourage the President to take every action that he possibly can, within the bounds of the law, to address this crisis and secure the border, because it is clear to me that this Congress will not act in any meaningful way. And so long as this Congress refuses to act, the President needs to act. I would urge him and urge the Administration to do everything within their lawful authority to address this crisis, because this Congress is not going to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Senator Hawley, you missed the opening, when I described the process that this Committee is going to undertake. Obviously the reason we hold these hearings it is a problem-solving process to lay out the reality. And so what I proposed, in talking to Senator Peters, and hopefully we can do this, is in as nonpartisan and uninflamed way as possible, but sit down at those tables, like we did last week, where we passed the End Government Shutdown Act, a smaller problem but one that, I think that legislation solves, Senator Lankford's legislation, Senator Hassan's legislation, but start working through this problem in a very organized fashion, have open meetings where we discuss these things, and we talk about what do we need to do? I come from a manufacturing background, continuous improvement--what can we do to start the process? Senator Peters is working right now with me, other Members, on the letter of support of Operation Safe Return, a pilot program where we can gather information, where we can surge resources to--I am not going to repeat it. But, we are working on that. But I am hoping that you will participate, and I hope every Member of this Committee will participate in this process, a number of meetings, hours long, where we thoroughly discuss these problems, the different elements of the problem, and start coming up with solutions. Again, I do not know if that ends up in a complete piece of legislation or in those discussions, in an organized fashion, we come up with different elements that can be tacked onto a piece of legislation. So again, this place does not work. It does not have much of a problem-solving capacity. That is a frustration, Senator Scott, that you are certainly relaying. We all experience it. And so we are going to do something different, do something paradigm-shifting. Again, whether we do accomplish something or not, at least we have had a very, hopefully a thorough discussion. Senator Scott, did you want to---- Senator Scott. I do not believe any of it. I sit here and preside. I sit here and preside this week and I hear people, Democrats, get up there, and all they do is complain about these people. They do not come up there and say, ``We ought to fix the Flores decision.'' They do not come up there and say, ``We ought to secure the border.'' All they do is try to embarrass these individuals sitting here. It is disgusting what they are doing. I watched it yesterday presiding, that somebody did it, for 15 minutes, just sit there and lambast them about what they are doing. I mean, what--Mr. Hastings, how many people have you ever worked with that, ``I do not care about children? I want to do the wrong thing today.'' Mr. Hastings. Just the opposite. I have seen agents, on their own, go out and purchase toys, bring them in for the children to play with. I have personally stopped by and bought meals for those that I had arrested. I have seen agents do the same thing. I have seen agents give up their lunches so people can eat. I mean, I have seen the humane professionalism and outstanding work by our agents since I have been in this agency, and long before that. Chairman Johnson. So Senator Scott---- Senator Scott. Do you know what they are doing today? The people that are going down to debate are going to the Homestead facility just to make news, not to solve a problem. They are not going to appear to solve a problem. They are appearing--how do I make some news? Chairman Johnson. I fully understand that. I am as frustrated as you are with the process. I am hoping this Committee will be different. I am hoping this process will be different. So engage in it. Let's give everybody a chance. So let us get around the table like we did last week and let's see what we can make of this. I mean, again, you have to be tenacious. We have to start moving the football forward, or we can throw up our hands and say we will never fix this problem. I am saying that photograph ought to catalyze us and we ought to try something different and start trying to solve the problem, OK? Senator Lankford. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD Senator Lankford. So I want to join my colleagues in the frustration of this day. I think what we are experiencing today is some pent-up, abject, total frustration. March 28th of this year, at that time Secretary of DHS came to this hearing, and then followed up with a letter, and this was the exact quote from her: ``We now face a system-wide meltdown. DHS facilities are overflowing. Agents and officers are stretched too thin, and the magnitude of arriving and detained aliens has increased the risk of life-threatening incidents.'' Then she said: ``My greatest concern is for the children who are put at high risk by this emergency, who are arriving sicker than ever before after traveling on the treacherous trek.'' But instead of actually providing funding during that time period, this Congress delayed and did not provide the funding, did not engage, did not try to solve it. That same secretary, over and over and over again, said none of this gets better until the Flores agreement is settled. I have had personal conversations with Democrat and Republican Members on this Committee and said at what point do we finally admit the obvious statement that the Obama Administration made, that the Trump administration made, that if we do not resolve the Flores settlement none of this ever gets better because traffickers will continue to move children across our border. The children are currently being used as pawns now on the border, to try to hurt the Trump administration. My Democratic colleagues are trying to identify children that are not getting care at the same time slowing down the process of getting humanitarian aid to try to hurt this Presidential election. These kids are not pawns, and the Administration has said for month after month after month, we need additional humanitarian assistance. But here is what has happened. Nothing happened after that meeting in March. On May 1st, HHS sent us a protracted letter to try to get additional assistance and saying that we are at a crisis moment. On May 17th, they contacted us again and said we are a critical moment. Secretary Alex Azar, from HHS, came back and said, in that same time period, we are at a critical moment. We tried to move a humanitarian relief package with the disaster relief package on May 22, and Leader Schumer came to the floor and made this statement: ``The Democrats are ready to pass the bipartisan disaster relief package that has already been agreed to and written but we should pass disaster agreement as is and return to unrelated issues at a later date.'' ``Unrelated issues'' is this humanitarian issue. To say these unrelated issues are slowing our disaster work so we will put the humanitarian work off until later. And then yesterday Senator Schumer was back on the floor, criticizing the President and criticizing all of these folks and their agencies, saying why aren't you taking better care of the kids? When this Committee has talked about it for months, you all have asked for it for months, and all we have gotten to is we will get to unrelated issues later. Now, I am tired of people calling my office and saying, ``How come you do not care about the kids?'' I am sure you are tired of reading it in the media every day, ``How come you do not care about the kids?'' If 500 people showed up at your house tomorrow and said, ``I am going to stay here for a week,'' would your house be ready to take 500 people? What would you do if 500 people came to your house tomorrow and said, ``I need to stay here?'' You all are having to manage thousands of people showing up at facilities that are not prepared for thousands of people, that never have been, and that are certainly not set up for kids, and the whole time we argue about what are we going to do when everyone knows the issue. It is the Flores settlement. Every smuggler uses that, and we will not acknowledge it, and there has been a dramatic slowdown on trying to actually get humanitarian aid. Now the Senate comes to an agreement, finally, on a humanitarian aid, and the House response with a solely partisan bill, and says, ``No, we are going to try to do a partisan bill,'' and then the conversation this week was, ``We may not get to the humanitarian bill this week, if we do not get a certain vote want on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As Democrats, we may hold off the humanitarian bill and NDAA for 2 weeks from now.'' Yet another delay because it is an unrelated bill. So I do not know if we get the humanitarian vote again this week, because Democratic leadership is postponing, again, while going to the floor, and saying, ``Why isn't the Trump administration doing more about this?'' You cannot have it both ways. This is not about hurting the President and his Presidential election hopes for next year. This is about a group of kids that we need to reduce the incentive for them to be able to come illegally across our border, and we need to take care of the folks that are already here. This is not that hard. But it has become this horrible partisan issue that I think all of us are really frustrated with, to say this has been discussed to death. We have to be able to act on this. So I want to ask just a couple of stats. How many folks are coming across as males at this point and claiming to be 17 years old? Is there a disproportionate amount of males crossing the border and saying ``I am 17?'' Mr. Hastings. Sir, I do not have the exact numbers but I can tell you that we are seeing a higher number of families with fathers as they are the primary parent that is coming across. So we are seeing an increase in fathers with children. I do not have the exact numbers with me. Senator Lankford. How many countries have you seen crossing our border with minors? Mr. Hastings. So 140 different countries that we have seen apprehensions, that we have made, from 140 countries, 52 countries for family units. So we have family units from 52 different countries that have crossed into the United States this fiscal year. Senator Lankford. And that is just this fiscal year, so that would be since October 1 of last year. Mr. Hastings. That is correct, sir. Senator Lankford. Eighty-two percent of the people, you testified, of people that are crossing the border, are coming from countries other than Mexico, at this point. Is that correct? Mr. Hastings. That is correct, sir. Senator Lankford. Guatemalan authorities that I met with this week have stated that DHS has worked very hard with them, and that Guatemalan authorities are continuing to be able to work because, quite frankly, the Guatemalan authorities do not want those kids also making this trek and they are trying to do what they can to be able to slow down the flow from their side as well. They were very appreciative of the work that DHS has done to be able to partner with Guatemala, specifically. Now I am sure if I talked to the Honduran authorities, and the El Salvadoran authorities, they would say the same. But the Guatemalan authorities, this week, were very grateful to our government and the work that they are doing to be able to help not only protect those kids but, quite frankly, they want their kids back home, to be able to be there, and they are a little frustrated by this whole journey as well. As a country, we have put hundreds of millions of dollars into Central America, into the Northern Triangle for quite a while, to help stabilize those governments, and continue to be able to do that, to be able to provide a safe place that is there. So all of this conversation about we are doing nothing to be able to help the issues there really is we are doing a lot of things to be able to help the issues in Central America. What is not being done is dealing with the pull factors here, in the Flores settlement, and frustratingly enough, also not the humanitarian assistance. With that I yield back. Chairman Johnson. Senator Portman. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was here earlier and had the opportunity to hear you, Mr. Hastings, and hear some of the discussion with my colleagues, Senator Johnson, in particular, on what is going on at the border and also from Senator Peters. I think there is now a consensus--I certainly hope so--that we are facing a crisis. It is an immigration crisis. It is also, by the way, a drug crisis, impacting my home State of Ohio and every State represented on this dais. Crystal meth is now coming in in unprecedented numbers, as an example. We already knew that heroin was coming in. Crystal meth is coming in entirely from the Mexican border now, we are told. It is also a humanitarian crisis. There is no question about it. The men and women who you represent are being put in an impossible position, and I hope that every member of this body protects the right of American law enforcement to do their job. It is a tough job, but I think you are doing it in a professional way, and I know it is difficult. I guess what I would like to focus on is solutions. I do think there are some potentially bipartisan solutions, and I want to hear from you on them. One that has always struck me as a reasonable approach that we should be taking, which we have done during the Obama Administration, is to have people apply from their home country. They would apply, technically, as refugees from their home country because you claim asylum when you come into the United States. The criteria are the same. The criteria that have to be met are the same that are eventually adjudicated over here. We are finding about 15 percent of those who apply for asylum actually receive asylum. That number, may not be entirely accurate going forward, but the point is most people who are applying are not receiving it. Why? Because they are deemed, through our judicial system, to be economic refugees, probably, and not meeting the criteria. But what if we set up a system, as was done, again, in the Obama Administration, where people, instead of being told by the traffickers you have to come on this arduous journey, and we are going to mortgage your house for you, and we are going to take your paycheck for the next half year, and we are going to take your kids because if you are a kid, under the Flores decision, then you cannot be held in detention for more than 20 days. Instead, the traffickers had to say, ``You have to apply here. You have to apply from country.'' Now two things would have to happen. One, we would have to raise the cap on refugees, which has been lowered during this Administration, and that should be acknowledged. It would require, specifically, a cap to be raised for Central American countries. Second, we would have to provide the resources, although, as you know, with refugee resettlement, primarily that is done through international bodies, including the United Nation (UN) refugee resettlement operations. So this is something that could be internationalized. I have talked to a number of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle about this. They have not said no. It certainly makes sense, as part of an overall strategy, in my view. The pull factor is the fact that you can misuse our asylum system now. It is also the fact that you can get a job here in America and make 10 to 20 times more than you can make in your home country. If I was in that situation, or you were, you would be tempted to do the same thing. It does not make it right. One way to do this is to have people, instead of being told you have to make this journey up north is to say you have to apply right here. And let's adjudicate these cases. Let us provide the funding for it. Let us use the United Nations and other international bodies. That reduces the flow in a substantial way. I just wondered if any of you, Assistant Director Nevano, you may have some thoughts on this, Mr. Howe, Mr. Hastings, if you had any thoughts on this idea of going back to a system where people apply from their home country. Mr. Nevano. Thank you for your question. I am not as versed in that area, but the argument that you make seems to make sense. I am familiar, back in my younger career, I actually did process refugees, and a lot of Vietnamese, Russians back in the early 1990s, and it was an effective system that worked. So I could see the merits of that system and look forward to working Congress, working with our partners if that is something that is decided to try that out and see if it something that can help stop this crisis. Senator Portman. Yes, and I know you are familiar with this, but the criteria you use to determine whether somebody was eligible for refugee status is the same criteria we used for the asylum status. Mr. Nevano. Yes. It is just a difference of the section of law. I believe it is Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Section 208 of the INA is the difference, but the statutes are very similar, like you mentioned, whether they apply here in the United States or apply outside of the United States. Senator Portman. There is also a requirement, should somebody receive refugee status, that there is assistance provided. Usually it is through a private sector entity, but the Federal Government plays a role. Refugee resettlement we are all familiar with. So it is a little different process but it keeps people from coming up to this border. It keeps the numbers we see here, hundreds a day, thousands a week, hundreds of thousands a month, from coming up to our border. Instead, they are told if you want to apply for this status you have to do it back home. Mr. Howe, Mr. Hastings, any thought on this--is this common sense? Mr. Howe. Senator, I am very intrigued by it. I think, yes, this is probably common sense. It reduces the pull factors. We will let our lawyers work out the details, but if it can be done, if it has been done before, and working with the State Department, and our international partners, it just makes sense. Senator Portman. Mr. Hastings. Mr. Hastings. Thank you, sir. I would welcome anything that allows our Border Patrol agents to get back to their primary mission of securing our borders and reduces the flow. Senator Portman. Yes. Your testimony earlier was striking to me, when you talked about the fact that 40 to 60 percent of your people have been pulled off their jobs, essentially, to deal with the humanitarian crisis. I understand why they are doing it, and they have to do it. We want to be sure that we are providing the emergency care that so many of these migrants need. But that is not their job. And that leads me to my final question, which is about the drug issue. When the Border Patrol is not on the border trying to detect and stop these illegal drugs from coming into our country that are killing the people I represent, that creates a whole other crisis. It is not on the border; it is in Ohio. It is in every State represented on this dais. And maybe, Mr. Nevano, you can talk a little about these transnational trafficking groups that are smuggling people but also smuggling drugs at the same time. What can we do better to be able to detect and stop this poison from coming into our country? Crystal meth--back in the day we had meth labs in our States, people made meth in their basements or their homes, and environmental problems with that, obviously, in addition to this poison being made that was harming our communities. We do not see that anymore. Why? Because the crystal meth from Mexico, pure crystal meth, is so cheap and so powerful. I am told by law enforcement in Columbus, Ohio, it is less expensive than buying marijuana on the streets now. And it is killing people. So, Mr. Nevano, what can we do to stop some of these drugs from coming in, and how are they related to these transnational gangs that also get involved with trafficking people? Mr. Nevano. I had the opportunity to testify before your Committee before about the opioid addiction in the United States, and I know you are very well aware that we initiated a Border Enforcement Security Team (BEST) in the State of Ohio, and I know you were present for. That is a recent occurrence that we are trying to stop the opioid flow into the State of Ohio. But our Border Enforcement Security Teams, we have 65 of them across the country, and those teams are crucial because it takes resources from State, local, and Federal authorities to attack a problem, and the more Border Enforcement Security Teams that we have to tackle the drug problem, I think the better we can identify it. Also, too, continue our capacity-building overseas. We have trained what we call Transnational Criminal Investigative Units (TCIU). We have 16 of those stationed all across the country, and all over the world, and those individuals are dedicated and are eyes and ears overseas to help provide us the intelligence, the information, and execute the laws that we do not have the authority to do so in the Central America area, in Mexico, and the drug-producing countries. So we rely very heavily on our trained partners and our Transnational Criminal Investigative Units. Senator Portman. Thank you for your service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Thanks very much. Normally we just ask questions of our witnesses. I am going to use this as a chance to have a colloquy with two of my colleagues who I have a lot of high regard and affection for. I might ask you questions but I may not. But it seems peculiar to me, as I was putting together a congressional delegation earlier this year, and we looked at the flow of folks coming here from Mexico over the last, I do not know, 15 or 20 years. As you know, there are more Mexicans going back into Mexico these days than there are Mexicans coming into the United States. And getting ready for our CODEL we looked at illegal immigration numbers through the end of last October, and this was about maybe the very beginning of this year. But we looked at immigration numbers through the end of October. My recollection was that in the previous 15 years, illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador had dropped by--actually, illegal immigration across our Southern Border, over this last 15 years, through the end of October, it was down by just a little over 80 percent. I was almost ready to declare victory. In the months since then, 5, 6 months since then--actually, 7, 8 months since then--we have seen this surge, this incredible surge of illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. What has happened with Mexico? Pretty much the same. When I say ``pretty much,'' it has been pretty much what it has been for years. They are not surging from Mexico. There are still, I am told, more Mexicans going back into Mexico than there are Mexican Americans coming into the United States. Why is it these three countries, but we are not seeing this kind of surge from Mexico? They have property there, they have crime there, and so forth. Why aren't they coming? There is a great need for leadership on this issue, and I think it has to come from this Committee. I have heard the Chairman say, any number of times, this Committee has a great record, history of bipartisanship, and frankly, I think this Committee attracts people who like to get things done, work across the aisle, and look to build consensus. We really see an opportunity here. It is a very sad situation but we also see an opportunity to fix it. I would like for us to be the committee that provides that kind of leadership. I am not interested in pointing blame. I could easily say, in response to some of our colleagues at this point that this Administration, point out all of their sins. I am not going to do that. But let's see what we can do to fix this problem. I want to sign up to do that. And, see, I look at the four of us and if the four of us cannot work this out, nobody can. I mean, this is just ripe for our working on it. Do you all have anything else you want to say with that spirit that I have just tried to kindle here? Anything you want to say in response to that? First of all, I just thank you all for what you do with your lives. When I was Chairman of this Committee I used to go to the floor every month and talk about different units of the Department of Homeland Security and praise the men and women for the work that they do. The Chairman and I were just out there for the opening of the new Department of Homeland Security at St. Elizabeth's. It was a very exciting day. But just in the spirit of what I have just said, I would like for you guys to say something. Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator, for what you said and your commitment to work together, to work out legislation or whatever needs to be done to address the crisis. The men and women on the border work hard, they are proud of what they do, and let's mission-focus them on what they need to do. Senator Carper. Alright. Thanks. Anybody else want to say something? Mr. Hastings. Sir, I appreciate it, and again, for the men and women of the Border Patrol we would just ask to work on the legislative fixes, please, to allow them to get back to doing their primary mission. Senator Carper. Mr. Nevano. Mr. Nevano. I would reiterate what my colleague said. Thank you for addressing the issue, whatever you can do to help us out. Again, we want to focus on the transnational criminal organizations and focus on the large criminal networks that are actually exploiting these individuals. Whatever you can do to make us get back to doing that type of work and less dealing with the border crisis, we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much for bringing that up. Senator Carper. The Chairman and I have oftentimes said, in this room, that we have to focus on root causes. It is pull factors and push factors. Some of the situations we have seen in visits down to Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, if we were living down there we would want to get our kids and our families out of there too. Somehow it has gotten a lot easier. People used to have to walk 1,500 miles, in all kinds of bad weather and danger and so forth. They still do it but now they can get in a bus and come on up, an air-conditioned bus, and get dropped off at the border, and a lot of people are doing it. The coyotes, the folks that are running these operations, they are very entrepreneurial. They can find all kinds of ways to make money, including on the bus service business. We have to be smart enough to figure out how to shut down. We cannot do it by ourselves, which the Mexicans--if we are ever going to get this United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) confirmed, I am not going to say that should be one of the conditions, that they work with us to shut down those buses. That would be part of it. There are all kinds of things we could do. The other thing I would say is, we have been working now for about 3 years on Alliance for Prosperity, as you know, and it is not the whole answer. It is part of the answer. I like to say there is no silver bullet. There are a lot of silver BBs and some are bigger than others. I think one of the big BBs is making sure that we address the root causes of why people are trying to get up here--lack of economic opportunity, and crime and violence and corruption. What we are trying to do with the Alliance for Prosperity is to address all three of those. Sadly, when we look at the supplemental--and the President has cutoff that funding to the Alliance for Prosperity, suspended it. When we look at the legislation, the supplemental focuses on the border and illegal immigration, we do not restore it, which I think is a mistake. So we have to be able to--I would like to say walk and chew gum at the same time. We have to address those root causes and we have to address the pull factors as well. I would sign up for doing that, and I suspect my colleagues to my left would do so as well. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. First of all, Senator Carper, let me say I appreciate your willingness to participate in this process, and it is going to be a different kind of process. It is going to take advantage of, I think, the nonpartisan attitude by so many Members of this Committee. We have spent more than 30 hearings gathering information, trying to define the many root causes of this problem. I continue to say the primary root cause is America's insatiable demand for drugs, which has given rise to drug cartels, destroyed these public institutions. But having been a manufacturer, having solved a lot of problems, there is a process you go through, and that is what I want to see this Committee engaged in, not here at the dais but down there, with genuine conversations, and we will do it in a very organized process, trying to address all the complexities of this, but also then trying to find the priorities. What are the things we have to fix now, in the here and now, and what are the longer-term solutions as well? So I am absolutely dedicated to doing this, and it is going to be a completely different process than this Senate has been participating in as long as I have been a Senator. It is going to be genuine conversation, it is going to be, I think, Senators with goodwill who recognize the problem and working toward real solutions. So again, I appreciate that. All you have to do is show up, but we are going to be holding multiple meetings, and they will go on for quite some time. You know how tenacious I am. With that, Senator Sinema. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA Senator Sinema. Thank you, Chairman. Our Nation faces a crisis along the Southern Border. I am committed to continuing our bipartisan work to strengthen border security, stop the flow of migrants to our Southern Border, and ensure fair and humane treatment of the migrants who do come. The situation on the ground in Arizona with our communities, our NGO's, and our border workforce is not sustainable, so I want to make sure that we are working together to develop bipartisan and common-sense solutions. These solutions have to include measures that push back against the human traffickers and the criminal organizations who prey on migrants, and I am pleased that we are having this hearing and I look forward to our discussion. My first question today is for Mr. Nevano. According to recent data, over 590,000 migrants have crossed our borders just this fiscal year, and all along the over 2,000-mile journey from Central America to Arizona migrants are targeted by criminal elements--human traffickers, smugglers who transport migrants through Mexico for a fee, and other criminals who are seeking to hurt these families. Of the migrants who are coming to our border, approximately how many have had some interaction with a criminal element during their journey to the United States, and how many of those migrants received assistance on their journey from smugglers? Mr. Nevano. Senator, thank you for your question. I am not sure that anyone can give you the exact numbers as far as the estimates that you are asking for. However, I would say to make that 1,500-mile journey it is very difficult to do that on your own. These smuggling organizations are recruiting these individuals, making false promises to them about getting into the United States, making a better life, promising them lucrative jobs when they get here, and once they get here the traffickers take over and put them in totally different circumstances. I will say that in order to make that journey a very high percentage of these individuals are seeking assistance, paying upwards of $7,000 to $8,000 for that journey, to make it to the border, thinking they are coming for a better life, only to be exploited once they pass the border, whether it is between ports of entry or through a port of entry. Senator Sinema. Mr. Nevano, regarding these smugglers who are, quote, ``assisting'' individuals to come to this country, do you have any information about how closely linked they are to transnational criminal organizations that work to ship drugs as well as people across the border? Mr. Nevano. Sure. That is a very excellent question. What we term ``illicit pathways,'' these illicit pathways are controlled by the cartels. They are used to bring narcotics through those pathways and they will use them to bring people. Those smugglers, the transnational organizations, criminal organizations, do not care what the product is, whether it is a commodity, whether it is a person. They use those same pathways. The human smugglers may have to pay a fee to the cartels to use those pathways to come up, but there is a direct correlation between the pathways used for smuggling narcotics as those for smuggling persons. Senator Sinema. Thank you. My next question is actually for all of the panel. I would welcome all of your thoughts. It is clear to me, and to many Arizonans, that our Nation faces a direct threat from these smuggling operations, and, of course, they are taking advantage of people in Central America. I would like to hear a little bit more about what our national strategy is to defeat this threat, and what are some of the steps that your agencies are taking to counteract these criminal transnational organizations? Mr. Hastings. Thank you, ma'am. So for the Border Patrol, again, I do not want to sound like a broken record but I will say it is very hard to delve in, to interview, and to follow through with getting the proper intelligence when we are just trying to get the throughput. When we are overwhelmed by the mass amount of UACs and families that are coming into our facilities, it is very difficult to take the time to delve into a smuggling case. We try to the best of our ability but we also are trying to balance that with the humanitarian crisis that we currently have. So it is very difficult, and that is why we would, again, ask for the legislative changes that stop this draw, so we can go back and focus on the smuggling, focus on the trafficking, focus on the DTOs that are bringing thousands of pounds of narcotics into our country through the ports of entry and in between the ports of entry. Mr. Howe. Thank you, Senator. Similar to Chief Hastings, were are in the interdiction phase, so we are identifying the smuggling attempt and stopping it. I mentioned earlier, on average, there are about 400 criminal prosecutions on the Southwest Border, for people that are trying to be smuggled into the United States. We are on that front end of it. The back end, that investigation, really is through our ICE partners, to get into the details of the DTOs. Mr. Nevano. Senator, the paradigm of effective border security starts 1,500 miles out with capacity-building and training foreign police officers to interdict, train them, provide them the equipment, and that is something that Homeland Security is doing to attack the foreign problem. We know that does not always work, and our brothers and sisters at Customs and Border Protection are the interdictors, so there is definitely a border security at our borders. But interior enforcement is equally as part of that three- pronged approach to the paradigm of border security, and that is taking the pull factor, the magnet, away from them, by having an effective worksite enforcement strategy. Because worksite enforcement bleeds several other collateral crimes. These individuals, once they get here, they know they are promised a job, and that is where the human trafficking, the fraudulent documents, the identity benefit fraud, that is where all that happens, the false promise of a job. So it has to be a three-pronged approach to effective border security. Senator Sinema. I appreciate that. A quick follow up question. Director Hastings, you mentioned changing American laws, which I think we could all agree is difficult in our current political climate. What I am looking for, and really am grateful to be working with the Chairman and others on this, is ways to help the Administration improve the credible fear process. That is something that we are working on, to try and figure out how can we do that, given the difficult partisan political climate that we are living in. I am also really interested in figuring out how do we disrupt these smuggling networks, so that they no longer see a financial benefit, and they do not see this as a smart business plan to bring groups to the United States and try to exploit the so-called loophole? Mr. Hastings. So for us, and what we hear in the field, and I shared this earlier, but it is from those who we interview, time and time again, frankly, what we are told is from social media or from a family member here or from a friend here, ``I have heard bring a child and I will be released within 10 to 20 days.'' Until there is something that can address that flow, allow us to keep that family unit together, and allow us to run them through the proper cycle, to allow them to have their due process and due rights, and then return them if there is no credible fear, and apply a consequence. If we are not applying a consequence then we are going to continue to see this issue. Senator Sinema. I am glad you mentioned that. That is the exact issue that we are working on, to try and figure out how do we get folks and families--I am talking about legitimate families, not the illegitimate ones that we see--how do we help process families in a timely manner to address the Flores issue, while also sending a clear message to those Northern Triangle countries that this is not an effective strategy to get into the United States of America. It is going to be difficult, I understand, but that is something that we are very interested in doing, is figuring out how do we help process families and folks faster, to actually get folks back home if they do not qualify for asylum or for some other legal status of entry to our country. Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired. Chairman Johnson. Senator Sinema, first of all, thank you for working and cooperating with me and my staff on Operation Safe Return, along with Senator Peters, so hopefully we can get that letter of support and DHS can implement that, as just a first step, to provide that consequence, with real care and compassion. So thank you for your efforts there. I want to thank, again, the witnesses for just your service to this country. Chief Hastings, thank you for providing that example of a Border Patrol officer pulling somebody out of the river, applying CPR, saving their life. That is just an example of, I am sure, thousands of examples of compassion, the type of care that the Border Patrol, ICE, the DHS really provides people. We saw passion today at the hearing. That is good. It shows that the Members of this Committee are deeply concerned and want to get to a solution. So that will be my job is turn that passion into commitment to actually act. I want to thank all of you for your service. I want to thank Senator Sinema, my colleagues on the Committee, and again, my commitment. We will start holding these meetings where we will have a genuine and robust discussion in that problem-solving process, and it will result in good ideas, areas of agreement, and possibly a full piece of legislation, or, if not, elements, components that can be added to other legislation, that other committees may take up as well. But this Committee has led on this issue. I do not think any committee has held more hearings, gathered more information, shocked to understand this problem and all its complexities more than this Committee has over the last 4\1/2\ years, and now it is time to turn that into action. Again, I think we have the Members of this Committee, Senator Sinema is one of them, that really will come to that table, right here in this committee room, probably starting the week after we return, and have those robust discussions to come to some agreement and start solving this problem. So again, thank you all. The hearing record will remain open for 15 days, until July 11 at 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ROUNDTABLE UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: BIPARTISAN POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2019 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:18 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Scott, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, and Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON\1\ Chairman Johnson. Good morning. I want to call this business roundtable to order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 381. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to thank the participants for taking your time and, first of all, for just working on the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) and, from my perspective, producing a really good report, a really good basis for, hopefully, legislation that we could pass on a bipartisan basis, but prior to that working with us to try and accomplish something to start addressing this tremendous problem. We just keep upping this thing. The top-line number is down a little bit because June is reduced a little bit from May because I was projecting this out based on the most recent month. Based on May's numbers, the total number of individuals coming in here is either an unaccompanied alien child (UAC) but primarily as a family unit. It was over 800,000 projection. Now it is just over 700,000. But one thing I have been pointing out, since 2014, these bars represent currently 5 years, 9 months, 1,086,000 people coming in this country illegally, being apprehended. Most of them are coming as a family unit, about 822,000, and of that 822,000, we have returned a whopping 12,021 individuals, even though I know in your report, you talk about 15 percent of people having a valid asylum claim. So this is a clearly broken system. We are trying to grapple with it. That is what you are trying to do. I am really pleased to have at the roundtable, four individuals who have been working on the Homeland Security Advisory Council. I will quickly read your names and a quick bio here, and then we will just go. Do you want to start with---- Mr. Ahern. Start with Karen. Chairman Johnson. Start with Karen? OK. So you have it all worked out, and again, take the time you need, but we have Karen Tandy. By the way, the reason we do this in a roundtable too is it is just a more free flow of information. Feel free to interrupt, but I want to stay on the same theme. If you do it in a hearing form, it is one Senator, 7 minutes, and they kind of go through their own questions. And you just get disjointed. I just think this is a better way of opening up the discussion here. But we have Karen Tandy, who formerly served as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Ms. Tandy also is a former Associate Deputy Attorney General (AG) for the Department of Justice (DOJ). Sitting to her right is Jay Ahern. Mr. Ahern is Principal and Head of the Security Services at The Chertoff Group. Mr. Ahern also served as a former Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Sitting to the left of Ms. Tandy is Dr. Sharon Cooper, a development and forensic pediatrician at the Womack Army Medical Center. Dr. Cooper also holds faculty positions at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Department of Pediatrics and the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. And then last but not least, Leon Fresco. Mr. Fresco is a partner and immigration attorney at Holland & Knight law firm. Mr. Fresco also served as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Immigration and Litigation at the Department of Justice Civil Division. My final comment is the Homeland Security Advisory Council literally is a bipartisan group. I think you have members-- first of all, policy experts in a variety of areas but also spans the political spectrum, and you have come together and produced a solid product. So, with that, I will turn it over to Ms. Tandy. Oh, I am sorry. Gary, do you have any comments? Senator Peters. No, that is fine. Chairman Johnson. Are you sure? Senator Peters. Yes. Let us hear from the panel. Chairman Johnson. OK. TESTIMONY OF HONORABLE KAREN TANDY, CHAIR, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION FAMILIES AND CHILDREN CARE PANEL, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL Ms. Tandy. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and Senators of the Committee. We are grateful for the opportunity to share our interim report\1\ and to have that discussion today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The interim report referenced by Ms. Tandy appears in the Appendix on page 388. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have before you 4 members of the 10-member Homeland Security Advisory Panel that was created in October 2018. At that time, the 10 of us were given direction by then Secretary Nielsen of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to make findings and recommendations on CBP's care of families and children at the border, recommendations on best practices, training, policy changes, and any legal changes that were needed for the care of families and children at the border. From December through March, this panel went to multiple places along the Southwest Border. We spent multiple days on each trip. We went to every State along the Southwest Border and to six of the nine Border Patrol sectors. That included 10 U.S. Border Patrol stations, four ports of entry (POE), as well as a variety of facilities where children were being cared for. Over the period of our work leading from October up to April, we received briefings from 109 subject-matter experts. We reviewed a prodigious amount of material and data and spoke to non-government organizations (NGOs), medical professionals, government officials, and a variety of other experts. Very early on, this panel certainly drew the conclusion that the immigration system is overwhelmed and fractured at every critical point. The tender-age children, especially children below the age of 12, are at the heart of this crisis. The primary issue that was clear to this panel was the result of a shift in immigration, one that went from what was predominantly single males and processing and facilities for predominantly single males that completely shifted to a more than 600 percent increase of children, and family units. Typically, a family unit would be one adult and a tender-age child, 12 and under. That is a family unit. The shift was for these family units and unaccompanied children to come from Central America. That was the critical stage of what became the ultimate major stress in the immigration system and our crisis at the border. What happened was children were endangered. They were endangered during the 1,200 to 2,000 mile journey to our Country. They were endangered during the crossing, and children were preyed upon. They were preyed upon by smuggling organizations. They were preyed upon by drug trafficking organizations and by others who were benefiting and making money off of their attempt to get into the country. The overwhelmed DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) capacity to care for these children was another result of the fractured system. Customs and Border Protection exercised and continues to exercise valiant efforts to deal with this crisis. It is outside of their training. The humanitarian piece of this is outside of their training. It is beyond the capacity of their facilities and until recently beyond their funding. As a result, our national security has been endangered with, at any given time, as many as 4 out of 10 Border Patrol agents who are no longer performing their border law enforcement mission. They are instead doing the things they were not trained to do, which is providing the humanitarian relief to the best of their capacity. At this time, if I could have the graph presented?\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Ms. Tandy appears in the Appendix on page 426. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think this depicts, more closely than anything, the crisis. This is a graph of family units that were apprehended by Border Patrol. When this panel started in October, there were less than 17,000 family units apprehended at the border, and I am talking about between the ports of entry, the remote areas of the border, the uninhabited parts of the border. That went from October to April, instead of less than 17,000 family units that were apprehended, we were now up to 58,000 a month that were apprehended. By the next month, it was peaking at 84,000. Why that graph is so important is that it shows you how the crisis escalated and the surge of these family units that require such special care and attention. You can see currently in June, the numbers have actually dropped. Even at the June numbers, if is at the same level as when this panel filed our report in April, and we deemed it an emergency then. This is not our final report. We did not plan to file an interim report. We were so alarmed at what we saw at the border, the conditions at the border, that we determined an emergency report was required. During this fiscal year (FY)--again, the number of children who are apprehended between the ports of entry in these remote areas was 266,657. These children have illegally crossed the border in between the ports of entry. That is a staggering number and why this is so important that changes are made, and made quickly. This panel, all 10 of us, parked our politics at the door. We are bipartisan, as the Chairman pointed out. We parked our politics and unanimously arrived at our recommendations in this report. Each recommendation is integrated with the others, and standing alone, any one of them is not a panacea to turning this crisis around. But we do urge the Congress to take action. We are pleased that Congress took action on supplemental funding at the end of June. It was critical, and now we urge Congress to make the other changes that we recommended in the report. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Karen. Who is going to go next? Jay. My recommendation is just bring that microphone a little bit closer to you, and then you can turn them off because I think only so many work at the same time. TESTIMONY OF JAYSON AHERN, VICE CHAIR, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION FAMILIES AND CHILDREN CARE PANEL, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr. Ahern. Got it. I may not be quite as soft-spoken as Madam Chair. Ms. Tandy. Oh, I have never been accused of that. Mr. Ahern. But thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning. I have the opportunity and the pleasure to serve as Karen's vice chair of this panel and was appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Committee by Secretary Nielsen almost a year ago. I come from perhaps a different perspective than many others on our panel. I actually served in Customs and Border Protection for 33 years and predecessor organizations as well. When I look back over the 33 years that I actually spent in government before I ended up leading the agency for the last 4 years as the Deputy Commissioner, then as the Acting Commissioner at the end of the Bush Administration and through the first full year of the Obama Administration, I must say that I am just very stunned and very concerned about the transformation that happened at our border. When I take a look back at what we used to deal with years ago, starting in the mid-70s when I first came on board, we were confronted with challenging environments of dealing with people who try to escape and evade and avoid apprehension. Today we are seeing people that are rushing to the first person they see in a uniform to surrender themselves. You have to ask yourself why is that. Why is that? I think the answer is pretty obvious. It is because of the broken immigration system that we have to go ahead and deal with today that need some other changes. When you take a look at some of the family units that we have seen and unaccompanied children--by the way, I have not seen the recent numbers, but they are well into the 4- and 5,000 range of unaccompanied children who have actually been recycled by smuggling organizations for the purpose of being able to be conveyed across the border so that they will have an advantage in the process to be able to go ahead and be put into quick release proceedings, to be able to set up for a hearing that may happen years later. That is a concern. When you take a look at the challenges that many of these families have as they are making their way to the border and all the challenges and all the horror stories that have actually been conveyed, I think those are certainly significant issues that need to be addressed, and we will talk about some of those things on the push factors that are occurring in some of those countries where we will have an opportunity to go in a couple of weeks to spend a few days in each one of the Northern Triangle countries. But we have dealt with some of these challenges in the past. We have dealt with immigration surges over the years, whether it be some of the Cuban migration issues in South Florida with the Mariel Boatlift right at 1980, or some of the challenges we had when I was still working over 10 year ago in government with the Brazilian crisis, when we were surging in the amount of Brazilians that were trying to gain entry illegally in the United States. It kind of shifted from the traditional Mexican population of people trying to gain entry to a group of Brazilians, and some of the same expedited removal proceedings and return-to- Mexico proceedings that were allowed under law at the time were not the same for people from other than Mexico and dealing with the Brazilian population. There needed to be swift action to go ahead and put them in removal proceedings, and guess what? It stopped. I think those types of circumstances, we need to consider today because the challenges that we focus on today, unfortunately, are the things that get characterized in the media every night, and there are some very tragic circumstances. You can see each one of those, but unfortunately, the agency I had the opportunity to lead for many years gets judged by the one-off circumstances that occur, not the daily circumstances and the challenges they have to deal with on a daily basis. Some of those things are very important, and that is where I get very concerned about the mission of Homeland Security. I had the pleasure and the honor to serve with Tom Ridge and Governor Hutchinson when we started to stand up the Department of Homeland Security, right after the President signed the Homeland Security Act in 2002, and we had all of 4\1/2\ months to stand it up on March 1, 2003. It is still maturing years later, but it was brought about to go ahead and secure the homeland. What deeply troubles me today is that it has actually turned into the immigration agency of this Country, and that is a concern. It should be a concern for all the Members of Congress, both sides of the House and both parties, because what deeply concerns me is what is happening to the rest of the mission. I really applaud a lot of the efforts that are going on with the frontline officers and agents securing the homeland as best they can but having to consume their time dealing with the humanitarian crisis that is right in their face and they have to deal with. But what else is happening? We saw when we were there, right at the shift change, where migrant families were coming in surges to go ahead and distract the Border Patrol from the drug interdiction mission, as the cartel members, who also are profiting by moving these people across the border, take advantage of that surging and capitalizing on the agents being consumed with having to manage that with them running their drugs right to the left and to the right. We cannot let that happen as a country. We have to continue to focus on all aspects of the mission. There are still bad people trying to get into this country. Many of them do come across the Southwest Border. It is not all people from the Northern Triangle countries. These are issues we need to deal with as a body, whether it be the administrative branch, the legislative branch, and certainly, we need to make sure that those who are charged with setting the laws and executing those laws have the best capabilities they have to be successful. Ms. Tandy mentioned that the supplemental was certainly very helpful. I would say it came too late. The agencies within DHS and many within DOJ and HHS had to exhaust their budgets just to be able to keep up with some of the challenges that they needed to be able to procure things for people. They are hundreds of millions of dollars in debt before the supplemental, and I hope that it actually helps recover some of the budget so that none of them are anti-deficient. As an agency head, that is the last thing you ever want to have happen, but there was the challenges they were doing to deal with the mission. That was first and foremost for them. When you see and hear the stories of they are given warmed- up burritos in a microwave, why is that? The procurement laws, that they had to go and acquire things, and the budget was not there to support what they needed for the mission, and the frontline people actually went out and procured it with their own funds, with their own capabilities to be able to do the best they could, given the circumstances they had. The processing facilities at a border patrol station--for those of you that are here, you know that; for those that are listening and watching here in the audience--think of it as a police station. There are cells to do immediate processing after somebody has been arrested, not for long-term detention, but given the entire process, take a look at it as a continuum or as a supply chain is broken because every step of that process needs to be reevaluated, reassessed, and improved. So, yes, it is a process improvement, but also legislative change needs to occur to be able to make it better. It is not just what happens at the Border Patrol station with the intake and they have up to 72 hours, but as you take a look at then when one moves into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention and then all the other things that have to happen with HHS housing for family units or the administrative judges that need to provide the hearings, this system just backs up tremendously. The most obvious point and the visible point is at those Border Patrol stations and then at the ICE detention facilities. Every step of this process needs to have review, and it is not just more about adding more Border Patrol agents or building a wall or things of that nature. It is taking a look at the entire process end to end, giving them laws to be able to be effective, giving the appropriate level of support for the administrative judges, the bed space that is needed to be able to house people throughout the entire process, but also evaluating what is the cause and effect here. The push factors are very important. As we have looked at intelligence reports and some of the data from people that have actually been interviewed upon arrival, it is not for fear of persecution. I am sure there are many people that are, but we have had intelligence briefings from people that are involved with doing deep study and analysis. The murder rates, the violence rates have not changed that dramatically in the last 5 years. The agricultural situation because of the drought has. The economic situation has because of corrupt governments in those Northern Triangle countries where people have lost complete confidence in their country, and they are looking to go ahead and find better opportunities elsewhere. When you flip to then the interviews of why here, education, medical, the opportunity to be reunited with family that is already here illegally, and also more confidence in our government. Building the capacity and the trust and confidence in those locations where they live and where they likely want to be, if it were not for those other circumstances, is a key part of this going forward, but at the same time, we got to fix some of the push, the pull factors on our end. That is the legal system, and that is some of the things that required statutory change. So I will end there. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Jay. TESTIMONY OF LEON FRESCO, MEMBER, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION FAMILIES AND CHILDREN CARE PANEL, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr. Fresco. You want me? OK. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, everybody. I will just be very brief and just say I think I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues, and this was a bipartisan report. I think one of the key things to focus on moving forward into how we get to actual solutions is to say I think we need to define the problem. I think people are disagreeing on what the problem is, and it is valid to disagree because depending on how you view this, there could be three different problems. Problem one could be I want to eliminate the total number of crossings, period, through the border. I do not care what the purpose is of the person who is crossing. I just want it to all go away. That is one way to define the problem. A second way to define the problem would be I want to take the group that is coming into the United States and successfully vet who is coming here as a refugee, and if you are a legitimate refugee, allow you to come and enter the United States, or if you are not a legitimate refugee, then remove you from the United States. So that would be a second way of defining this. A third way would be it does not matter to me why you are coming. I just want that bad things do not happen to you when you arrive in our custody, and that is it. That is a third way of looking at this. And so at least from my point of view, I was working with my colleagues to try to come up with this second option of how we successfully vet people in a manner where people who are coming with legitimate refugee claims can come in a very quick fashion, be assessed. We know who is coming for the purposes that the law permits and who is coming for the purposes the law does not permit, and that they are treated compassionately while that vetting process is occurring. I think if you have that as your goal, it is easiest to get to a bipartisan consensus. Whereas, if your goals are the others, this is where it becomes a more problematic formulation. So that is the frame of approach that at least if people want to ask me questions where I am coming from on this, it is how do we take the population that is coming, make sure that they are treated in a compassionate manner while we vet, to decide if the reasons they are coming are reasons permitted under our law or reasons not permitted under our law. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Leon. Doctor, again, get the microphone as closest as you can. There you go. TESTIMONY OF SHARON W. COOPER, M.D., FAAP, MEMBER, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION FAMILIES AND CHILDREN CARE PANEL, HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISORY COUNCIL Dr. Cooper. Thank you very much. As a pediatrician of now more than 40 years and who worked first as a military officer retiring from Fort Bragg, where we have the largest pediatric population in the Army, it was an honor to serve with this Committee. I must say that the challenges for children are severe and significant. At this particular time, there are more than 67,000 minors who have been present at the CBP station and have come across the border in that manner. As our report reflects, many of these challenges reflect the fact that there are communicable diseases, which can be fatal and have been fatal for several of the children who have come across the border. Whenever you have children that are in groups such as this, the risk for influenza, for example, which has been one of the primary causes of death for many of the children who have come across the border, has been very difficult and great. I think it is very relevant that in reviewing the mortality cases that we have already seen, the overwhelming majority of these children were seen at medical treatment facilities and were sent back to the border stations and unfortunately succumbed to diagnoses that were not clear when they were seen by medical treatment facilities. Another part of our report has to do with the identification of these children as being biologically related to the parents, the individuals who are cited as parents when they come in as a family unit. Having appropriate biometrics was a real challenge in our discussion as a committee because of some of the existing restrictions with respect to facial photographs and things of that nature. So we have made some recommendations in our report on trying to make sure that the children who are going to be coming across the border and released to the interior are going to, in fact, be children who are going to be cared for. The issue of recycling of children brings us to the risk for sex trafficking and labor trafficking of children and trafficking in general. Because I am a forensic pediatrician, I work quite a bit with trafficking victims and circumstances of that nature, and that was one of my greatest concerns, which was affirmed when we had our first meetings regarding the risk of children who would be brought into the United States and then sent back to Central America to come back into the United States with different people posing as their parents. That kind of stress and trauma for children is untenable and will have, without a doubt, far-reaching psychological impact over the time that they are going to be continuing through their childhood. Finally, I would want to say that the recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are excellent. They are relevant. They are available to any health care provider, free on the Internet, on all of the different medical problems and means of surveillance that should be taken, and that is really very helpful. What we would really like to see as was recommended in our report, that there be onsite health care providers, rather than individuals who are not versed in the care of young children and adolescents. Because of the nature of the concentration of these children in these settings, it is very important that they not only be screened within the first 24 hours by a health care provider upon arrival, but also may require rescreening, sometimes daily, if there are soft signs of potential infectious problems that we see in order to make sure that they can survive this last part of the journey that they have taken. Thank you very much. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Doctor. Just real quick on the point of health professionals, pediatricians at the border, both Senator Peters and I talked to Dr. Sally Goza, who is the incoming head of that organization, and I had talked to Mark Morgan that same day or the day after about facilitating whatever professionals want to get down there are willing to serve in that capacity to get that done. The Acting CBP Commissioner was very open to trying to work within the rules and laws, and who knows what bureaucratic hurdles may exist on that? But, again, very receptive to getting those pediatricians and those types of medical experts down there at the border to help alleviate or mitigate some of the problems. Dr. Cooper. Yes. You are quite correct about that, and thank you very much. One thing that I noticed--and we made recommendations for-- was that initially in the smaller CBP stations, there was not really a location that was available for the right kinds of equipment, etc, but I think that that can be modified very readily. In fact, when we got to the Clint Station, there was already a contract provider who had been hired to help facilitate evaluation of patients. Chairman Johnson. Great. Again, I want this pretty free flowing, but the order was Peters, Scott, Hassan, Rosen, Portman, Carper, Hawley. I really do want this free flowing because I totally schlepped over Senator Peters' opening. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS Senator Peters. That is all right. Chairman Johnson. I will just turn it over to you. If you want to make any comments or state the questioning, go ahead. Senator Peters. Just the questioning. I want to pick up on, Dr. Cooper, your comments. The question I have been asking at all these hearings of folks is really how long is too long to detain a child, and I have never gotten a straightforward answer. What is your view, and what is the view of the folks here? Dr. Cooper. The American Academy of Pediatrics feels and states that no time is a good time---- Senator Peters. Right. Dr. Cooper [continuing]. As far as detention is concerned. Senator Peters. Do you agree with that? Dr. Cooper. My feeling is that you have to make sure once children have crossed the border that there is going to be a safe place for them to land. You want to make sure that they are not going to be a risk of still being under the power and control of smugglers, for example, or people who are falsifying their identifications to increase the risk for these children. So once that has been ascertained, it would be very good not to have them in the herd circumstance, that you have within detention because it will really foster a higher risk for infectious disease complications. Chairman Johnson. Do you not have to define detention, though? What is harmful depends on what the facility is, right? Dr. Cooper. Yes. Let me respond to that. I have visited two detention settings. In one particular detention setting, the setting was with families, family and children, and what we found was that at that particular setting, which was in Dilley, Texas, it was an extraordinarily excellent location. These families had their own individual apartments, if you will. There was a dining facility with very excellent food. There was education, a school situation from kindergarten to 12th grade, provided for them. There was recreational space for them, and there was also medical care, extremely good medical care that was provided by the United States Public Health Service onsite. That is a setting that would be the most ideal. Senator Peters. But that is not typical what folks are confronting right now. Dr. Cooper. No, that has not been what we have seen in---- Senator Peters. What I have seen looks very different from what you just described. Dr. Cooper. Right. The Inspector General's (IG) report certainly revealed that that was not the typical, but that would be the desired type of setting. Senator Peters. That has to be the goal. You talk about screening of folks, which is important to have professionals there onsite. Dr. Cooper. Yes. Senator Peters. I know the report talks about telemedicine as a possibility, but talk to me about that. There has to be some limitations to telemedicine. Dr. Cooper. Yes. Senator Peters. We need to have professionals actually onsite not doing it via telemedicine. I have some concerns about that, what I read in the report. Dr. Cooper. So telehealth is a very acceptable method of care, depending upon the condition. If you are looking at a child with respect to a potential infectious disease problem, your telehealth capability has to be very good because many of these children present with rashes, for example, that will indicate that there is an infectious problem, such as measles or they may have mumps, etc., but influenza, which is our greatest concern, is going to only be diagnosed by febrile reaction and soft symptoms, even softer the younger the child. So those children by definition need not to remain in a detention setting nor should they remain in a CBP setting. They need to be taken to a medical treatment facility without doubt. Other types of telehealth capability will offer itself as long as you have a good health care provider to describe what is going on or a para health professional extender, such as a nurse or a paramedic who can give other information; for example, trauma injuries that may have occurred to a child. Some of the other children who have died--at least one child died from really severe congenital heart disease, and in that situation, telehealth will not be beneficial, except to affirm the need for immediate transfer for a patient like that. Senator Rosen. Can I ask a question about this? So we know that health screenings are supposed to go on, but right now they are going on by CBP officers instead of health professionals. Dr. Cooper. Definitely not the right outcome. Senator Rosen. So is not a medical professional what we need to provide these screenings as often as they need to be done on a daily basis? I can tell you I am suffering from a summer cold. Two days ago, I did not have it, and today I am taking all kinds of medication and trying not to spread my germs. Chairman Johnson. Josh, if you want to move---- [Laughter.] Senator Rosen. Right. So we know how rapidly. How quickly do you think the American Academy of Pediatrics--I had them in my office. We know that we have health care professionals willing to go down, willing to go to the border, willing to volunteer their time at these facilities. What do we need to do to facilitate that for the safety of our children? Dr. Cooper. Absolutely, Senator Rosen. I agree with you 100 percent. To have a pediatrician would be the very best recommendation that I could make, and you are absolutely right. Daily evaluation of children is indicated because they are in a high-risk setting. Senator Rosen. Keeping them in these crowded conditions is not something that is safe, even for the CBP workers that are working there. Dr. Cooper. But especially for the very young children, you do not want to have them---- Senator Rosen. Right. Dr. Cooper [continuing]. In that setting. You would like to get them out of those settings, and you would like to make sure that you are going to have health care providers who can see them on a regular basis. Chairman Johnson. Real quick, when we were down at the border, it was the Coast Guard corpsmen that were doing the initial testing. Is that your evaluation as well? Is that what you saw? Mr. Ahern. Yes. Chairman Johnson. Not the attritions, but their---- Mr. Ahern. Right. It is a mix, and depending as far as what facilities you are talking about, there are certainly some variances. I think, again, making the distinction between a Border Patrol station where the initial arrest processing, before they go into detention facilities, there are distinctions and differences that need to be recognized, like the particular type of stage or facility--and stage in the process. I think I would also point to one of the key recommendations of our report, which is the regional processing centers, where you have the ability to have the right kind of facility with first, the right type of caregivers available to be able to have a triage upon entry into it by medical professionals, who would be stationed there, all the way through the court and the hearing procedures and second, the provisions for providing attorneys for people who need to go and appear before an immigration judge. Being able to have that all in one concentrated location and probably three or four locations along the border and one in Guatemala is what we recommended. Senator Rosen. How quickly do you think that you can ramp up and do this? Because we have children suffering now, tender- age children, that they will suffer for the rest of their lives because of this, who came here--we cannot let children suffer because of whatever we may think of how they got there, who brought them here, or why they brought them here. The fact is they are here, especially the tender-age ones, not of their own choice, and so while all of the adults--we want to work together. We can talk about policy and procedure and all those things, but in the meantime, how quickly can we do something to protect these children who---- Mr. Ahern. It takes funding, and I would just ask you all to look at how long it took to get the supplemental funding approved. Those were months that were lost. Senator Rosen. But we did not have the funding because these children are risk. Senator Carper. But they did not. Senator Hassan. Right. But can I wanted to take a step back, and first of all, thank you all for being here and for your work. I appreciate the work that the panel has done, and I understand as well that the Administration wants the ability to indefinitely detain families, and that the CBP Families and Children Care Panel prioritized that as a recommendation. Doctor, I understand the concern about vetting families and making sure children are, in fact, related to the adults they come with, but let us just start with a fundamental proposition. Do you believe that the indefinite detention of children is harmful to children? And let us just go right down the line, all four of you. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Indefinite detention, I do not think would be any of our goals. Senator Hassan. Yes or no. Is indefinite---- Mr. Fresco. Yes. Indefinite detention is harmful to children. Senator Hassan [continuing]. Detention is harmful to children? Yes or no. Mr. Ahern. Certainly, it would. Senator Hassan. OK. Ma'am? Ms. Tandy. We did not recommend indefinite detention. Senator Hassan. What I am trying to get is a shared set of values and understanding that we can then have a discussion based on, because if you lift the Flores limit, you are talking about the possibility of indefinite detention. So is it or is it not? I am not just talking about exposure to communicable diseases here. Is it or is it not harmful to children? Ms. Tandy. This panel found that a period of detention in the proper setting--which is not the current setting--was an important balance of the Nation's security, Customs and Border Protection's processing requirements, and the care of these children who arrive often ill and traumatized and---- Senator Hassan. I understand that, but---- Ms. Tandy [continuing]. Being provided with health facilities and health care in a center that could be a detention center, but it is not parked in a detention center. Senator Hassan. So I would like to submit, Mr. Chair, for the record, a letter that a group of medical and child advocacy organizations led by the American Academy for Pediatrics sent to the panel.\1\ The letter from these child health experts expresses strong opposition to the panel's recommendation to allow for the indefinite detention of children. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The letter referenced by Senator Hassan appears in the Appendix on page 383. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is what the letter said. This is just a quote: ``Detention of children for even brief periods causes known and well-documented developmental, physical, and psychological harm. These impacts may be particularly pronounced for asylum seekers who have frequently fled severe violence and trauma in their countries of origin. Detention also poses significant barriers to accessing legal counsel to assist families in preparing and presenting their claims for legal protection.'' So what is the response to this medical advice, and why does not your report reflect those findings? That is the question. I will also say this is not an either/or. We can be secure and not harm children by indefinite detention, and both are really important priorities. This is a security issue and a humanitarian one. Chairman Johnson. Let me first ask because I think---- Senator Hassan. Yes. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. It is incredibly important to make this point again. I do not know what definition ``detention'' that group is---- Senator Hassan. Exactly. Chairman Johnson. If they are looking at the Border Patrol stations, absolutely. I do not think anybody would say that that is not going to create harm, but if you are talking about Dilley, if you are talking about Donna facility, where you have the families there, that is a different type of situation. Senator Hassan. Senator, that is---- Chairman Johnson. But, anyway, we will enter that in the record. Senator Hassan. Detention of children, indefinite detention, putting them in an institutional facility, period, according to pediatricians and experts, causes them harm. It does not matter--obviously, better conditions are better, but it does not undo the harm. That is why in this country, unless we find an adolescent who has committed a crime or is harmful to themselves or others, we do not detain them because any detention is harmful. What I am concerned about is we keep presenting this as either we have to detain kids or we are not going to have secure borders, and that is a polarity I reject and I think the U.S. Government could easily address. Senator Portman. Senator Hassan, can I speak briefly? Senator Hassan. Yes. Senator Portman. I just got back from the border on Friday, and I know that you are looking for a practical solution here. Senator Hassan. Right. Senator Portman. But I think what we are missing is why these children are coming in the first place, and under Flores, which is the recommendation---- Senator Hassan. Right. Senator Portman [continuing]. You think Flores should still apply to unaccompanied children but not to the families with children. It is definitely an incentive to come to America, and so you are--frankly, if you are focused on having a solution to the long-term detention, you should be focused on keeping these children from coming in the first place. Senator Hassan. Right. Senator Portman. There is no good solution here. Senator Hassan. Actually, there are---- Senator Rosen. But what about the children who are there now? Senator Portman. Wait. Let me finish. Let me finish because you had a long time to talk. Senator Hassan. Right. Senator Portman. There is no good solution here unless you deal with the incentives because you are encouraging these children to leave their homes in Central America and to join traffickers to come to our border, or you are encouraging children--this report has said 4- to 5,000 kids have been recycled already. When I was down at the border, they had numbers that were higher than that. They know who these kids are because they process them, and they process them again and process them again. So I could not agree with you more. We do not want kids to be detained at all. That is not good for kids. Senator Hassan. Right. Senator Portman. But what is really bad for the kids is the U.S. Congress refusing to do the things that we all know that should be done--and I know you know should be done--to discourage them from making this long and dangerous journey in the first place, and that is what this report is getting at is as long as you have this notion that under Flores that a 20-day limit is place, and as long as you have a situation now where partly because they are overwhelmed, there is no way you can process these children or families within those 20 days. They are simply permitted to go into the United States. They go to a nonprofit. The nonprofit gets them on a bus or an airplane, and they are in New Hampshire. They are in Ohio. Again, 15 percent at the end of the day according to this report and according to all the data we have are getting their asylum claims granted, if they do claim asylum. It is on average over 2 years, but really, as the report indicates, it is 4 to 5 years. The report also indicates that very few people are ever removed. That is what you said in your report. So if you are a trafficker, this provides you the perfect opportunity to say to these kids and families, ``If you pay me $5,000 or $10,000,'' somewhere in between there, ``we will take you up to the border and, frankly, just dump you at the border.'' As we know, 30 percent of the women and girls, based on the best data we have, are sexually assaulted during that journey. I mean, this is the problem. So we can talk about detention, and I could not agree with you more. We do not want to detain anybody, but the real issue is how do you keep these kids from making this dangerous journey in the first place. Senator Hassan. That is right. Chairman Johnson. You want to detain them to prevent them from going to a stash house or getting put in a sex trade situation or the egg farm. One of the alternates of detention is teaming back up with the human traffickers, who they have not paid their debt to, who are controlling their families down in Central America. So we have not focused enough on the human trafficking element and the danger these children are in if we do not try and protect them in some form. Senator Hassan. There are other solutions. There is short- term detention, which we process them through, and I do not want to dominate the discussion. But I do feel a couple of things that I want to clarify. One is I would not say that it is the children themselves who are being incentivized to make these decisions. They are being exploited by a lot of different people, a lot of different conditions. So let us focus on---- Senator Portman. But it is the laws and the rules. Senator Hassan. Let us focus on the incentives. Senator Portman. It is the laws and the rules. Senator Hassan. Let us focus on the incentives to the adults who then bring the children. Second, the notion that the only way, then, to deal with this is to extend the Flores limit beyond 20 days or to let them go is a false choice. There are other recommendations that other groups have made that indicate that we could in fact keep track of these families. We could case manage these families. We could surge our capacity so that the hearings could be held within 20 days. Those are all things we are capable of doing if we will provide the resources to do it, and that is my concern. Chairman Johnson. Of course, that rapid adjudication is the whole goal of Operation Safe Return. Mr. Fresco. Right. Chairman Johnson. But I would like to turn it over to Leon because you actually are an immigration lawyer. I think your proposed solution as part of this was that rapid adjudication, but we are also being told too that--and Operation Safe Return is only going to evaluate based on a credible fear standard because we do not have the time in 20 days to do the full adjudication process. Can you just talk about it? Mr. Fresco. Right. Chairman Johnson. Also, talk about the basic asylum law and asylum standard. Mr. Fresco. So what is complicated is there are two completely different case tracks. There is what is called an ``expedited removal track,'' and there is a ``normal track.'' So the attempts to solve this problem have all been geared currently around the expedited removal track, which is where the government, if you do not express a credible fear, can immediately remove you. The issue is most people express a fear of removal. So then you have to make this adjudication. Is that fear credible? And if it is, you can stay, and if it is not, then you can be removed. The question that our panel had put to ICE--because this had been tried, both in the Obama Administration and in this Administration. We asked has any family, not 20, 30, or 1,000. Has any family been removed that has been placed in the expedited removal process? And their answer that they gave us was no. I mean, I do not know if you guys remember that question. Chairman Johnson. Let me quickly give you the numbers. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Chairman Johnson. So since 2014, 822,000 individuals coming in as a family member, we have removed 12,021. That is 15 percent. Mr. Fresco. Yes. That is after they were--I am talking about through---- Chairman Johnson. It could be voluntary. Mr. Fresco [continuing]. Context of what they used the Family Removal Centers that they are using now. So what we started to think about when we were thinking about that is, well, then what you are doing is if you are detaining anybody for any amount of time, you are wasting the time because you are not actually accomplishing a removal. The whole point of a detention would be to accomplish a removal in that situation, and you are not accomplishing a removal. Why are you doing the detention? So there are two alternatives. You can either make changes to the expedited removal system, which I am not a big fan of-- others are--or you can actually move people toward the real removal system, and it is my belief that the biggest delays you have in the normal removal system are you have to give people time to find counsel, which takes many months. And that is why you blow through all of these time limits, and you have to give people opportunities to get documents, which a lot of times they cannot get because they are fleeing their country. In my view, if you give the people counsel on day one and you expedite the hearing and you establish the courts right there on the site and you say, ``Unless the claim sounds incredible, we will deem it as credible. You do not need to get these documents,'' because the underlying theory is that a lot of these cases do not qualify legally anyway for asylum. Then you can actually get these proceedings done in 20 or 30 days. That is why when you say Flores extended, we will not saying extended from 20 days to 1,000 days. The question is if it will take 24 days, 26 days, something like that to get the proceeding done and you are holding someone in a facility that we can all agree is a facility that will meet whatever standards the policymakers thinks are good standards, then a lot of people will get asylum and will be able to stay in. A lot of people will not get asylum and---- Senator Rosen. Can I ask one question? This is about adults. Who does the credible fear screening for minors, especially those tender-age minors? Mr. Fresco. The same U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officer who does the family, they do the whole family. Senator Rosen. But if they are unaccompanied? Mr. Fresco. Oh. If the child is unaccompanied, they cannot be put in expedited removal proceedings at all. Senator Rosen. So they are just held in these conditions? Mr. Fresco. No. What happens is they then go through the normal regular proceeding that I have talked about, which means CBP can only hold them for 72 hours, and after those 72 hours, they have a legal obligation to send them into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services until that Department can find an adult who is capable of being their custodian. And then the removal proceeding that I have just spoken about, the second track, will play out, and either they will win and they will be able to stay, or they will lose and they will be ordered---- Chairman Johnson. But they almost all stay. Because I want to drill down this while we are on it. Talk about the disparity between the vast majority being granted the credible fear versus your report saying about 15 percent actually have a valid asylum claim and really would be subject to removal, although we are removing none. Just talk about that disparity and how that plays out in the few cases that actually are adjudicated, where it is not granted asylum. Mr. Fresco. Do you want me to? Ms. Tandy. Go for it, Leon. Mr. Fresco. OK. So the problem is, you have different legal standards, and so the standard for achieving a credible fear standard, which is what you have to establish to get yourself out of expedited removal and into the normal removal process, is that there is a significant possibility that you have an asylum claim. Asylum is defined, although in dicta, but in dicta that people talk about all the time in the Supreme Court law, about having a 10 percent chance you will be persecuted. So what you have to show is you have a significant possibility of having a 10 percent chance of being persecuted, so it is a generous standard. Chairman Johnson. Basically, you say, ``I am afraid to go home'' and---- Mr. Fresco. It is a generous standard because that is the standard that was written. I mean, you can do that. Chairman Johnson. I understand. So that is why they call it ``credible fear.'' They say, ``Hey, I am afraid to go home.'' OK, that is credible. Now you are into the process. Mr. Fresco. That is correct. Chairman Johnson. How long is it, and what kind of evidence? What do they have to provide, and then why then at the very tail end only 15 percent would be granted asylum? Mr. Fresco. Let me say this. Having come from the Department of Justice where we were constantly having to re- correct our statistics in court, I am a little suspect on all of our statistics. Chairman Johnson. I agree. Mr. Fresco. So let us just say I do not know what the statistics are, and if anybody claims to know what the statistics are. Chairman Johnson. You are correct. Mr. Fresco. So we do not know what we do not know, but having said that, let me just say that it is a fair point that there are a large number of asylum claims that once presented do not meet the standard, and the problem is because we do not know what the standard is currently being adjudicated in the courts right now. It is unclear. We have no idea. The Supreme Court will eventually decide this. Chairman Johnson. Just lay out the basic premise. Mr. Fresco. The basic premise is that people are making claims right now that they are going to be persecuted in their home country because of domestic violence concerns or gang concerns that their country is--and that is a different two. So it is not clear whether those claims qualify or not for asylum. That is being worked on right now. Chairman Johnson. That is what is being---- Mr. Fresco. Yes. Chairman Johnson. There are five basic---- Mr. Fresco. Right. The five basic ways of getting asylum are race, religion, national origin, social group, or political opinion. Chairman Johnson. As a social group, it is the---- Mr. Fresco. Social group is the one that they are claiming, correct. Chairman Johnson. Contentious one. I want to just lay this thing out. Senator Portman. One thing just quickly. Again, being down there on Friday, I learned something I guess I should have known, which is I talked to five or six families. At one point, I worked down along the border, so I used the best Spanish I had, and it was exactly what you would expect. People are saying they cannot get a job in Central America, the drought. Most of them were working in agricultural. One was not. A mechanic. One was in the tourist business. But they were saying they want a better life for their kids. Not a single family was saying anything about a credible fear. I probed a little bit, and they did not. But I am told--and I guess I should realize this--that along the process--so these families will all be released within a couple of days of being in the processing center. I mean, there were a thousand families there. This was at Donna. They will be released on their own recognizance. Along the process here, they can claim asylum at different points. So if they do get counsel, 6 months from now, they can claim asylum. Mr. Fresco. You would hope in every area where you have an officer of the court who is bound by law, not to produce fake asylum claims that they would not be producing--that a lawyer would not help someone to make---- Senator Portman. Right. Mr. Fresco [continuing]. A fake asylum claim. Senator Portman. But is it true that some of them do claim asylum later in the process? Mr. Fresco. Well, you can. So here is what is complicated, what people do not realize about the expedited removal process. It is in order to use the expedited removal process, you actually have to have detention capability and USCIS officers who can do the credible fear screening. We do not have sufficient of either of those right now, which is what you are describing when people are released without even having the credible fear screening. They are released to do what I called ``track two,'' the normal removal hearing. When you have a normal removal hearing, at that point, the system does not know anything about you. It asks you, ``OK. Do you concede to removal or not?'' and if you say, ``No,'' they ask you what is your defense to removal. At that point, you could introduce a defense of asylum. Senator Portman. Which is at what time during the process? Mr. Fresco. That would be whenever you get that hearing. It could be 2 months or 3 months later. Chairman Johnson. But, the process is so overwhelmed. Senator Portman. Is it typically 2 or 3 months later? Mr. Fresco. Yes, for the first hearing. Senator Portman. OK. That is what I thought. Mr. Fresco. And then depending on when the next trial is-- -- Senator Rosen. Can I interject here, though? It seems to me we have two different issues. We have an immediate issue with all these children---- Mr. Fresco. Sure. Senator Rosen [continuing]. At the border detained, whether you want to say cages or holding areas, whatever your definition is. Chairman Johnson. There are 200 right now in Border Patrol stations, 200. Senator Rosen. That is the total number of children that are detained. Chairman Johnson. Once they finally got the funding, it went from 2,000 down to a couple hundred, and again, they turned them--I just want to ask you. Do you have an average number of days in those Border Patrol facilities? And they are trying to do it in a couple of days, right? Ms. Tandy. It is very hard to get a correct answer to that. The standard is 72 hours. If it is children, it should be 24 hours. Senator Rosen. So children are moved out of these cages in 24 hours? Ms. Tandy. No. Mr. Fresco. No. That is the law. The law is 72 hours, and their goal is 24 hours. Yes. Ms. Tandy. But bear with me in terms of the reality. Forget the standards because that is not what is happening. Senator Hassan. Right. Ms. Tandy. What is happening is the surges of these people who are coming across, principally family units and children, have overwhelmed a facility meant to keep people for hours, not days, not weeks, and longer. But what has happened is to move people out of these facilities. It is very difficult for Border Patrol to do full processing that they should be doing. They are attempting and they are trying very hard. But what is typically happening is that these people are given notices to appear (NTA). And they are released. What used to happen is that, first of all, every part of the chain had the funding and space requirements to meet their obligations. So they did move in 24 and 72 hours, a year ago. What happened now is that it is backed up. HHS does not have the bed space. ICE cannot take the people from Border Patrol unless they have someplace to put them through HHS. Previously, there were travel plans that were actually accomplished by ICE. They would determine where the people were going. They would confirm the receiving entity at the other end. Senator Rosen. No, I appreciate it, but you are actually making my point that we have an immediate issue with children and families, how they are being held, and then we have a long- term policy issue of what we do going forward, either to deter it or to take care of them or to move it. So there are two different issues, one very immediate for the health, safety, and care particularly of tender-age children and families, and then we have the long-term policy issues that are---- Chairman Johnson. But what you are describing is that health care is all about the overwhelming nature of the flow. You have so many people---- Senator Rosen. But you are not going to stop the flow in a day, Senator. So we have to get through what we are doing now to take care of--they are not these people. They are human beings. Chairman Johnson. That is their recommendations. Jay. Mr. Ahern. I think that is the point. You cannot disassociate the two. There is no one who would argue they do not need to do a better job in handling the kids within that first 24 hours, without question. But the capacity of the system is so exceeded by the surge of people that have occurred because of the broken immigration this country allows to continue to happen. That becomes the focus that people want to look at, and not looking at what actually is happening in a Central American location. What happens in the interior of the United States? Senator Rosen. So even if we put a law in place today---- Mr. Ahern. In the interior of the United States, one of the things again---- Senator Rosen. There is a backup. Mr. Ahern [continuing]. This body would be questioning ICE is if they were releasing kids to sponsors here in the United States who were using them for sex trafficking or human trafficking. Senator Hassan. Right. Mr. Ahern. There is a very deliberate exercise that goes on to make sure that they are not putting them back into the hands of those who are going to create more concern and more exploitation for these kids in the country. No one is satisfied with the processing time. We can understand all the different influencing factors here that are causing challenges. Chairman Johnson. But we were told these families are showing up at stash houses, and they are being beaten. The videotapes are being taken---- Senator Hassan. Some of them, yes. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. Down to Central America for ransom. Mr. Fresco. That is why we recommend these regional processing centers. That would have, in the short term, the medical, the legal, everything in there. So you could move them out of these CBP facilities. That is why we recommended that we stand up these large regional processing centers as soon as possible to get people out of CBP and start moving the rest of this process. Senator Hassan. Which---- Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, can I jump in with a quick statement as well? Chairman Johnson. Yes. Senator Lankford. So reading through your recommendations on the Flores issue. Did you all have any conversation about what to do with 17 year old males? Because the highest number of people coming in right now as far as percentage are single males that are coming across the border claiming to be 17. I assume that they have been coached that if you claim you are 17, you will be treated differently. There is no papers or documentation, we do not know if they are 25 or if they are 17. They just come across and say they are 17. Did you all have any conversation on that? And then I have one more follow-up question on that as well. Ms. Tandy. We had some. But the emergency nature of our report focused on fixing the biggest problem, which is the family units---- Senator Lankford. Right. Ms. Tandy [continuing]. Not the unaccompanied, and 17-year- olds would be in the mix. So, we had some recommendations. Our final report will address those types of concerns. Senator Lankford. So the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), when I talked to foreign ministers and leaders in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, they all say the same thing to me, ``We want our kids back.'' It is a very odd statement to say--these kids cross the border, and if we had an American that entered into Guatemala, Americans would demand their child back. We have a child from El Salvador that comes, and we say, ``No, we are going to keep them.'' Salvadoran minister was in my office yesterday saying, ``We would like our kids back.'' If they are an unaccompanied child from El Salvador, why cannot the Salvadoran government say, ``Send them back to us. We will then repatriate them with their families''? We actually created a barrier on that instead of allowing them to be able to return back to their own country. Did you all have any conversation about that? Ms. Tandy. The subject of one of our recommendations was to amend the TVPRA---- Senator Lankford. Right. Ms. Tandy [continuing]. To permit---- Senator Lankford. I saw it, but it had a parent to be able to---- Ms. Tandy. The United States to send them back to the custodial parent or a parent in their home country who wants them back. Senator Lankford. Right. But what about the country itself as far as their embassy, there as a national entity to be able to say please send the child back? It is the same thing we would do. If a parent was here, a parent was not here, we would reach out to another country and say, ``Send that American child back to us. We will take care of it.'' Dr. Cooper. But would not you have to make sure that child was going to be safe? If a child says the reason they are not there in the first place is because they are not safe, certainly we would not want to send them back. Senator Hassan. If a gang is coercing the parent to requesting the child back. Chairman Johnson. We are not ensuring they are safe here in America. We release about 79 percent of unaccompanied children to an undocumented person in America. Dr. Cooper. But I would venture to say that our laws are such that they would be more likely to be safe. Chairman Johnson. Oh, I completely agree, but I am saying this is no guarantee here in terms of what is happening. Senator Lankford. It is just a strange anomaly that if a country says we want our child back, we basically tell them no at this point. Mr. Fresco. The complication, Senator Lankford, is the question is whether you are doing this systemically or individually, and what I mean by that is if you are doing it individually, what you have is you have a child presenting themselves individually saying, ``I cannot go back to my family's home because my dad beats me''---- Senator Lankford. Right. Mr. Fresco [continuing]. ``And it is an unsafe home.'' So even if the government is saying, ``I want the child back,'' well, OK, government. Where are you going to put this child if we send them back to you? And so that is the problem. How do you deal with that individual claim versus how do you deal with a systemic claim? I am not giving a recommendation. I am just going to say what the law says now is you have to then do a proceeding on what is in the best interest of that child. Is it to remain here with a guardian, or is it to be removed back? Mr. Ahern. You will get a different answer from a foreign minister versus a parent who is kind of encouraging some of the kids to come north. Senator Lankford. To come because they have a brother that is already here. Mr. Ahern. The reasons to come north are for education opportunity, better health care, and whatnot. Also, one of the other reasons for why, there is an awful lot of kids, thousands who are going back, is because sometimes as many as four or five kids at a time come north in the hands of a smuggler. Senator Hassan. Right. Mr. Ahern [continuing]. These kids go back, then put at the starting line, and then brought back to the country again. Senator Lankford. To come back again. Senator Hassan. Yes. Mr. Ahern. That is unconscionable. Senator Hassan. Yes. Mr. Ahern [continuing]. That is something we cannot let continue to happen in our country. Senator Hassan. That is true. Chairman Johnson. So just real quick, Leon, when you made your opening statement, you defined the problem, and to a certain extent, you were kind of defining solutions. The way I continue to talk about this is the problem is in the chart,\1\ OK? From my standpoint, the initial--and this is the first step. The initial goal should be to reduce the illegal flow, to dis-incentivize families and children taking that dangerous journey. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 382. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- What I am trying to do with Operation Safe Return is, first of all, tell human smugglers, on a bipartisan basis, ``We are not going to allow you to exploit our laws anymore. It is going to take some time, but here is the initial first step.'' The message to Central American families is ``Do not. Please do not indebt yourself to the human smugglers. Do not mortgage your house. Do not pay them a year's worth of salary.'' When I talk about indebting, one thing, we had the same conversation with the families on the border, and I was surprised at how many--and, again, you do not know what they are being told by the human traffickers, but I have not paid a human trafficker anything, which is a little concerning because they will have to pay, which is why they end up at stash houses, and they are going to have to work out their debt. We had the Robert Kraft, the massage parlor story. The New York Times did a great job talking about Asian women, $30,000 to $40,000 indebted to human traffickers, and how are they paying it off? In the sex business. So from my standpoint, the goal of our policy initially, the first step is we need to reduce that flow, and that is where I go to your recommendations in terms of how do we do that. Is that kind of what you are saying is the first step and why this is an emergency in your report? Ms. Tandy. Absolutely, Senator. Integrated in all of our recommendations is to stem the flow so that these children are not placed in danger to begin with. Part of the recommendation to stem the flow is to give them a safe place to assert their claims in Central America, in Guatemala at a processing center. If they continue to flow to the border and move with a notice to appear, if they file their claims, we may not see them again for years. So if that continues, it will just continue to pull these families in. So we want them to be able to assert their claims and to do it in a humane setting. The best place to do that is in a safe place down there that we establish with international cooperation like Guatemala. So that we can save them from a terrible journey and terrible crossing into this country. Chairman Johnson. Gary. Senator Peters. Yes. I want to pursue that because, obviously, we do not want to send folks back, children back to an unsafe place, they are fleeing. But now you are saying, ``You have to stay in that place that you are fleeing while we process your claims,'' which could take a long time. Tell me more about the international effort to put them someplace. You are talking about a refugee camp in Guatemala for folks? Because if they believe that they are being persecuted, attacked, or threatened by drug cartels, we have to keep them safe while we go through this process, I would think. Ms. Tandy. So one of the panel members is a former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico in the Clinton Administration, and he was one of the principal proponents of establishing such a center. It does no good for the center to be on unsafe ground in Guatemala. So it has to be a center where there is an agreement with the government of Guatemala, where there is security provided, and where you would have all of the other types of support such as medical, security, welfare, asylum officers who would do the processing, judges, additional judges who would take care of the back end of the claim. All of that would have to be a concentrated effort. Such a center does not exist, but there is a belief that it could exist with an international agreement with the government of Guatemala. It could be created, and it could stop the danger to these kids who are going through Mexico to get up here and then all of the ills that we have talked about that happened to them. Mr. Ahern. Just to add to that, I think one of the things that, again, we get so focused on is what is happening at the initial Border Patrol station during that first 72 hours; whether it be 24 hours for children or 72 hours for adults, in the time they spend in ICE detention centers or before they go off to the HHS family centers. We lose sight of the fact, first, the conditions that they lived with before they started this trek to the United States, and second, the horrific stories we have heard and seen from people along the way. Those things are really of concern. While certainly somebody could be cared for better, I do not agree with any of the current standards, and I think they all need to be improved. Senator Hassan. Yes. Mr. Ahern. But let us not lose sight of the fact of what is happening in transit and the exploitation. We cannot scoff at that. That is something we have to go ahead and look at. Chairman Johnson. I have never published on our website the folders I have of the dead, desiccated animal-chewed bodies---- Senator Peters. We all understand that, that is horrible. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. In counties both in Texas and---- Mr. Ahern. So what can we do to go ahead and stop the flow? What can we do to stop the push factors that occurred? Senator Peters. Right. Mr. Ahern. That is going to take more patience than oftentimes the U.S. Government tends to show because that is an effort of capacity building. Senator Hassan. I think some of this is a discussion about capacity building--former Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Juliette Kayyem wrote a piece yesterday saying you meet a surge with a surge. Now, it does not mean that we do not also work on the pull factors and the push factors, which are important. It does not mean we also do not fix our immigration standards. But I will go back to Flores for a second, not because I want to beat a dead horse here, but because I think it is important. I was a Governor. I ran a number of systems. My own view is that every time you give human beings deadlines and limits, they go right up to them, and then they go a little past them and a little past them. So my concern is not--I am not critical of the personnel trying to do their best at the border, given how overwhelmed they are and the fact that those time limits are very hard for us to meet right now, given the lack of capacity at the border on our side and the numbers that are coming to our border. My concern is instead of changing the standard, we change it to 25 days, because it is human nature, now it is going to be 28 days or 35 days before kids get out. If you instead change the focus to the capacity of what we need at the border as the United States of America to keep children safe within the standards we already have--that is the surge capacity that I would like to see us focus on--while we are fixing the long-term problems, I think there is a lot of agreement for it at this table. Chairman Johnson. The problem is we do not know what capacities--is it from the last 3 years, or is it this year? And is next year going to be even worse? There was a study done in Guatemala that said a third of Guatemalans intend to migrate to the United States. That would be 5.8 million people. If they start coming through quickly, we will not have anywhere near enough facilities. Ms. Tandy. If I could just address---- Senator Rosen. I understand that work on legislation that will stop the push or the pull, and so if you do them both simultaneously---- Chairman Johnson. That is a long-term solution. We have a problem in the here and now. Ms. Tandy. If I could just address, Senator Hassan, your points that this panel only recommended a change in Flores for children who are accompanied by a parent. We did not recommend changing any of the time limits that Flores applied originally in 1997. The extension of those time limits a few years ago by the Flores courts to push that into the family units is where this crisis really took off. Senator Hassan. Right. I understand that, and I have the footnote with your recommendation on Flores in front of me because I wanted to reread it before we had this discussion. But the issue is this. We know separating children from families is not only wrong but unacceptable to Americans everywhere, on all sides of the aisle, and we know that detention of children is harmful. What I have been trying to focus on is just our capacity as a country, the greatest country on earth, with more resources than any country on earth, to do the right things by kids, which I believe we have the ability to do while we are working on these other issues. I understand why the recommendation is there. I just think we are seeing it as a false choice, and I think we can do better. I would look forward to continuing to have that conversation with all of you because I know you are trying to do your best by kids too. Dr. Cooper. Senator Hassan, if I could respond to what you said about building capacity at the border or wherever these either unaccompanied children or children with families are going to be, from a medical perspective, there needs to be a fixed location at every border station separate from the border detention environment, so that health care providers can humanely evaluate and treat children and monitor them, even keep them overnight if necessary in a safe and appropriate manner. That would be a very achievable and not extraordinarily expensive intervention that I think should be present at every one of those sites. Senator Hassan. Thank you very much. Senator Peters. So part of--and I want to get back to, Leon, your point about the choice, the number two choice where you try to process quickly. So that was part of the aspects of your report is to have this rocket docket at the regional center where you bring folks together. I guess my question is, How realistic is it to actually get the kind of due process necessary to do it in 20 or 30 days? I know the Acting Secretary said 20 days is not enough. I mean, what are the practical aspects associated with it? How many immigration judges are you going to need? You said the difficulties of getting documents, of really getting full. Mr. Fresco. Sure. Senator Peters. Give me some substance behind that. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Under the current system, it could not work because under the current system, if you are not providing people with counsel, you have to give them time. If you are not providing people with an opportunity to get documents, you have to give them time. Senator Peters. So you are recommending that counsel be provided? Mr. Fresco. I am recommending you give them counsel on day one, so you are not spending a lot of time with people saying, ``I need time to find counsel,'' because you already have it. Senator Peters. So they get it. On day one, they get counsel provided to them. Mr. Fresco. Yes, exactly. The issue of the documents was something that was just added in the Real ID Act in, I think 2004. Before, if you had a claim that sounded credible, then what the court would do is they would decide, ``Does this claim sound credible?'' If you say, ``I flew on a magic unicorn here,'' that is not a credible-sounding claim. But if you give a claim that sounds credible, they used to not make you corroborate that with documents because it wasted a lot of time. This is what happens now, and what you do is you can just plug in the legal factor. Is this still a cognizable asylum claim? There is a lot of people who are making the assertion that this is not a value social group, and other people say it is a valid social group. Let us get to those claims without wasting all the time. The entire waste of the asylum hearing is forcing people to go get documents that they do not have already because they fled the country, and they are not going to be able to get those documents. If you take those two things out of it and just move to the nuts and bolts of the adjudication, you can in fact do it very quickly. Senator Peters. In 20 days. Mr. Fresco. In 20 days if you had a significant number of judges that you added to the courts and you gave people counsel. Senator Peters. What would we need? Did you do any analysis on how many? Chairman Johnson. It depends on what the flow is. Senator Peters. Yes. But, I mean, per person. Ms. Tandy. When in April, Senator, we recommended doubling the current number of judges--so that would be, at that time, an additional 30 judges, who in a way, the last in/first out (LIFO), so that the judges would have no other docket except for the border surge. And they would address that first instead of the entire backlog of these asylum claims. Mr. Ahern. Which actually is the right way to do them because, with the current number, if you can believe the number as being accurate, it is somewhere around 800,000 cases currently backlogged before Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). Senator Peters. Right. Mr. Ahern. So if you just put the most recent one at the end of that list, the individuals coming here, if their objective is economic interest, they are going to achieve that over the several years it will take before they actually get their appearance notice to come before a judge for a hearing. So the last in, first out is a critical component. Chairman Johnson. The system is tracking people---- Mr. Ahern. That is right. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. Which is why the numbers are growing. Mr. Ahern. That is right. Mr. Fresco. Many times, the lawyer will advise the person, in my view, if the whole system is running the way it is supposed to, ethically, ``Sir or ma'am, you are not articulating an asylum claim. You have to concede to removability here,'' if they are not. If they are a genuine refugee, then they will say, ``OK. You can move forward in this situation.'' Chairman Johnson. So I am still trying to twist these two Senator arms to help sign the letter of support for Operation Safe Return. As imperfect as that is, I still believe--because you are talking about changing the law, and I am not seeing that happen anytime soon, unfortunately. We may be able to pass something in Senate, but again, I think we still have a pretty high hurdle in the House. So, again, my assumption is we are not going to be changing any law anytime soon. So within existing authorities, the letter of support for Operation Safe Return would use authorities in use as of June 30, so nothing further. It is just what authorities, laws, regulations are in place there. I mean, is that something you could continue to work with us on to try and hone--a really good idea by Senator Peters where you are trying to go through this was real-time evaluation through the Inspector General Office and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in terms of getting the individuals in, evaluating why they are coming in, how many are reaching that credible fear claim, how many being adjudicated-- again, real-time information to inform future public policy, future law changes. Again, it is not the solution---- Mr. Ahern. Right. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. But it is a step that can maybe make an improvement. If we could return people that do not even achieve that initial credible fear claim, start returning those people in a credible fashion to send that signal--``Do not take this risk. You are going to go home.'' You might be able to see that floor reduced as you said with the Brazilians when you had the process of expat removal. So, again, just kind of get your---- Mr. Ahern. Sure. So I think the first response to that is any movement that will go ahead and add consequences to the current flow that would then result in it being reduced is a positive step, without question. The question becomes is how much of a material impact will it have on the overall body and the numbers. But you have to start. Please understand that does not take the Congress off the hook for some of the legislative changes needed. Chairman Johnson. Not even close, but it is something. Mr. Ahern. The funding that is needed as well. It is all about the messaging as well because there is a tremendous amount of narrative that goes down in those Northern Triangle countries. A lot of it is controlled by traffickers and even by almost quasi-travel agencies. These things start---- Chairman Johnson. They have cards like a travel agency is what we have been told. Mr. Ahern. I know. We have seen them, and we will see them when we go back down in a couple of weeks. Say it is $200 a week or a day. I believe that they can be a multiplication factor for the numbers that would actually decide not to go if they start to realize as a consequence that it is not just a free pathway to being able to stay in the United States for a number of years while they wait for their hearing. So if the number is small--I wish it would be bigger, but it is small. But it is a start. Chairman Johnson. You publicize it. Mr. Ahern. But the consequences could be more significant if that messaging factor goes down to the Northern Triangle countries. Senator Peters. The rub here--and I just want to--because the kind of issues we have worked through this is having not just access to counsel, but actually having counsel. So if there was a program that says you have access to a counsel, how realistic is that to really get counsel for these folks? So what is the timeline versus what you are proposing, Leon, which is actually providing that government attorney? Is that the standard we should be looking at? Mr. Fresco. I mean, here is the issue that makes things complicated for me is if you are trying to do a pure expedited removal-based solution, I actually feel like that was--for better or for worse, that was what the Dilley, Karnes facilities were created to do. The problem is the expedited removal solution did not engender a lot of removals. I do not know what the number is so I will not quote any more numbers, but I think that is why--and the reason it does not is because of the legal standard you have to apply, and so that is why I think---- Chairman Johnson. By the way, that alone in terms of Operation Safe Return would be good information to have---- Mr. Fresco. Yes. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. So we have the numbers and say, ``That is why this is not working.'' Mr. Fresco. Right. I mean, that is what I think. The complication is twofold, or here is what my concern would be. But I think you are on the right track. I just think the concern would be if you end up detaining people for the entire time necessary to try to accomplish this and you cannot because you keep hitting the 20 days of Flores and you have not accomplished the removal, then the whole thing fell apart. Chairman Johnson. It is a pilot program. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Chairman Johnson. Again, we would learn from that, then. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Oh, of course. Chairman Johnson. Again, in our phone conversation, I agree with you. I originally said it as those include that have a valid asylum claim, and we realized, well, that is not going to be possible. We have to do it based on credible fear, but you do what you can do. Right now, this is the only thing we really can do within existing law, existing authority, but it will inform the process. Trust me. I realize it is not a panacea. I realize it is not the solution, but if we can do something in a bipartisan fashion that literally communicates to human traffickers, again, on a bipartisan fashion, ``We are not going to allow you to exploit our laws anymore. We are going to start moving in that direction on a bipartisan basis,'' recognizing this is not acceptable. This is causing harm to people, and we want to dissuade it. We want to deter it. That is what we are trying to accomplish here is just a first little baby step toward bringing a solution. Again, I will make the appeal publicly. Please sign on the letter of support, and work with us and DHS to do it. Senator Hassan. You gave it in last---- Chairman Johnson. OK. Ms. Tandy. If I could just add, Senator, Operation Safe Return, is a baby step. If the laws are not going to be changed, as this panel has recommended, there is nothing else. There is nothing that is going to stop these children from getting harmed. There is nothing that is going to stop the dangers that we are seeing right now. It will just continue, and it will increase. A baby step is better than nothing. But having said that, this Operation Safe Return is not an act of Congress. It is within current authorities and funding. So there is no reason that the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and HHS cannot just do it and do it yesterday. So I realize that---- Chairman Johnson. Here is the problem is anything the administration does it challenged in court, and what I am trying to do is---- Ms. Tandy. No, I understand. Chairman Johnson [continuing]. To at least try and provide bipartisan support saying we actually want the administration to do this. Maybe not bad, but this. Ms. Tandy. You will give beleaguered agencies the cover that they need to do this. I do not know that it is enough to keep courts from intervening, but nonetheless, we do applaud doing something. The real critical factor that is going to change these numbers is rolling back Flores to what it was originally intended for so that we can get these processes with funding, with judges, with a rocket docket, and get this stopped. Without that, this is what will happen. Chairman Johnson. I want a quick---- Ms. Tandy. Can I just finish my point, Senator? This is what will happen. You know these criminal elements on the other side of the border, and what will happen is the Operation Safe Return will be the point of no return for these criminal traffickers. They will move elsewhere on the border and push people elsewhere on the border, and some of the worst places on the border for these sick children is in New Mexico. Border Patrol stations are not even open 24 hours. They are so remote. So there is a risk that it will divert the flow. Chairman Johnson. You can go from all over the border and then be accumulated in Dilley. Ms. Tandy. Yes. Chairman Johnson. You can do it so that that is not an incentive. Ms. Tandy. So, ideally, Senator, this toe in the water is not just in Dilley. It starts, and it starts all over the border to prevent that from happening. Chairman Johnson. But that would be like your regional processing center, though, OK? Ms. Tandy. It would be. Chairman Johnson. So anybody from the border, any part of the border could go there and have this process. Ms. Tandy. Yes. Chairman Johnson. But I did want to quickly talk to Leon, because you are on the other--oh God, I totally lost my train of thought. I will come back to you. Sorry. Ms. Tandy. Sorry about that. Dr. Cooper. One thing I would also like to encourage is that we increase the funding to DHS because these children and families that are coming into the interior are all going to have to go into public school settings, and for the unaccompanied children, they are going to have to go through our out-of-home care settings and child welfare settings. Having spoken to several directors of various communities, where large groups of children have been brought, it is obviously very overwhelming for them, and so I think that that would be the other thing that we should do to try to accommodate those children who are already in the interior. Chairman Johnson. I remembered. Again, you are a Democrat, right? Mr. Fresco. Yes. Chairman Johnson. OK. Mr. Fresco. A Schumer staffer. Chairman Johnson. Do you agree with Secretary Johnson, who vehemently disagreed with the Flores reinterpretation, that Flores settlement agreement did not apply to accompanied children? Mr. Fresco. The specific problem with asking me that question, I was actually the attorney who was arguing that Flores would not apply. Chairman Johnson. Oh, I did not---- Mr. Fresco. That was my job in the Department of Justice. Chairman Johnson. Sorry. I did not---- Mr. Fresco. I actually argued that in court about the Flores agreement did not apply to families. Chairman Johnson. OK. Mr. Fresco. We did not win that. We did not win that argument. Chairman Johnson. Rats. I wish you were a better witness for that. Mr. Fresco. Yes. [Laughter.] Chairman Johnson. That is the first thing. I would tell you to take a look at what we are trying to do with Flores is just go back to the intent of the Flores agreement, which was for unaccompanied children, and the fact that some courts somehow decided, that it applies to accompanied children as well---- Mr. Fresco. There is an hour YouTube clip. You can watch me making that argument. Senator Hassan. But let me be practical for a second, which is most of the people, as you have heard me articulate, there are a lot of us who believe the reinterpretation was correct, given what happens to kids in detention. So if that is where the House is going to be, the question becomes whether you all have looked at the alternatives that have been suggested. They have not been piloted in any meaningful way, and whether there are other things we can do-- because, again, if we go back to the fact that none of us want to have what happens here unnecessarily add to the trauma that children experience, what other things can we do in terms of access immediately to attorneys, penalizing smugglers who are faking their relationship to the child or exploiting that? What are the--and case managing families so that they show up and having enough judges so that they are not here for years waiting for their process? There are a lot of suggestions that have been made that, yes, require resources, but I think, again, in a bipartisan way, targeted resources of some of that could begin to impact numbers too. I think that is where the practical piece is. We could try to re-litigate the Flores reinterpretation. Some of us agree with it; some of us do not. But it is what it is. Chairman Johnson. Here is my concern about resources is that at the current level, I mean, the resources we are going to have to employ here, I am not sure we have enough, OK? So, you can maybe resource this if we are down a couple hundred thousand people a year, but now we are starting to approach a million. So that is a concern. One question I had, because we have not talked about this, I am starting to read news accounts on how schools are having to deal with the dispersion. You have children coming in from the mountains of Guatemala, completely different dialect. You do not have people that speak their language. Plus, as James was talking about, the large number of 17- year-olds. Unaccompanied children, 70 percent are male, 70 percent are over 15, the perfect population, if they are not already a gang member coming out of El Salvador or out of Guatemala. You do not speak the language. You are going to gravitate toward people that do. Got a pretty good chance of joining a gang. So we are really not focusing enough, from my standpoint, on the human trafficking element, but also the societal challenges, whether it is in our school systems or whether it is in our inner cities where those gangs might operate, is that something the council took a look at in any meaningful way? Mr. Ahern. The panel probably did not review the issue to the extent that you are suggesting. But I think one of the things, as I mentioned in my beginning statement, we need to look at this as a continuum. We need to look at is this process as a complete supply chain. What is happening down south in the Northern Triangle countries? What is Mexico doing to control its border? There have been some recent changes. It will be interesting. Their history has not been good at being able to sustain efforts. What then happens at our border, and unfortunately what gets on the nightly news are the horrific situations that is being dealt with at the border. Chairman Johnson. Right. Mr. Ahern. That is a piece of it. People do lose sight of the fact of what then happens when it goes off to detention, to HHS---- Chairman Johnson. Actually, it is a very short piece. Mr. Ahern. It is. Chairman Johnson. You are literally talking days. Mr. Ahern. When you add the amount of time it takes for them to go ahead and come in transit, to make it to the border, beyond the time they spend at the border and in detention, there is more at the other ends. But looking at the consequences after arrival is not being looked at. Ms. Tandy. To that point, we are now receiving information and briefings that are being scheduled on the consequences. So it is the interior consequences, as you suggest, schools, communities, and the impact of not stemming this flow and what it is doing on the interior and will continue to do. So that will be part of our final report, which we expect to have at the end of September. But, Dr. Cooper, I know that you are very focused on the maltreatment and a national expert on the maltreatment of children. Dr. Cooper. Yes, very much so. What I was going to say is 17 is a magic number, but we do have the medical capability with x-rays to have a better determination about whether an individual is a fully grown or completely mature adult versus an adolescent. We have that capability. It has not been used because we do not have x-ray machines available, but it is usually a radiographic evaluation, one of the things that could be beneficial for all these individuals. Chairman Johnson. We have Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing. You are talking about the fraud aspect of this, which is---- Dr. Cooper. I am talking about the age. Chairman Johnson. The age, the age fraud, but also fraudulent parents too. Dr. Cooper. Yes, that is correct. Senator Peters. You mentioned Mexico and the issues there, but yet the report recommends the safe third country agreement with Mexico. How realistic do you think that is, panel? Mr. Ahern. I think if you can actually take the current president of Mexico at his campaign promises, he is pretty strongly against it. So if he is going to stay true to that promise, it is going to be a real challenge. I think something that perhaps has all the elements of a safe third country, perhaps it will remain in Mexico type of a protocol, some of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) things that were being considered may be achieving some of the same objectives without having that label of a ``safe third,'' because I think signing a safe third is probably not likely. Chairman Johnson. Did you see the public opinion poll of Mexicans that came out today? Mr. Ahern. Yes. Chairman Johnson. It is pretty negative against the immigrants. People coming into Mexico are taking Mexican jobs, potentially if they are going to stay. So they really have very little publically or I would say---- Mr. Ahern. Over the last few years, the Mexican economy has stabilized pretty well. That was one of the impacting factors about slowing the flow here to the United States. There was no need to come here for economic reasons. So they were able to stay in Mexico. Now that is putting a new dimension into the challenge within Mexico. Mr. Fresco. In an ideal world, what you would have, in my view, is one or two staging facilities where you would make these claims, and then you would have an entire western hemispheric refugee resettlement program. We would take some. Brazil would take some. Chile would take some. Argentina would take people. We would take refugees from all over, and we would do burden sharing. I think that is, in my view, a much better, longer-term---- Chairman Johnson. In an idea world, America would not have an insatiable demand for drugs. Mr. Fresco. Yes. Chairman Johnson. So you would not have the drug cartels which have destroyed public institutions, the impunity and the breakdown of so many aspects. Mr. Fresco. There is a lot of factors. Chairman Johnson. I think America bears responsibility, but that is a very long-term project right there because, as I have tried to explore, how do you get to the drug cartels, well, they control a large percentage of communities in Central America, even in Mexico. Those communities are supported by the drug cartels. It is not like you can go in there with surgical strikes and get rid of a drug cartel. This is a pervasive problem, again, because of our insatiable demand for drugs. Senator Carper, you missed all the solutions. We have it all figured out. Senator Carper. You solved the problem. Chairman Johnson. Without you. Senator Carper. What did Winston Churchill used to say? ``Success is never final. Failure is never fatal.'' There you go. We have simultaneously a hearing going on in the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee focused on climate change, sea level rise and all that, and the role that electric vehicles are playing in that and how we need to recycle the batteries from electric vehicles and we generate all of these employment opportunities by doing so, so pretty good stuff. I am sorry I had to slip out and missed part of what you were saying. I understand from my staff that--Abby gave me this notice. I understand I missed some discussion around Operation Safe Return. For my benefit, would you please summarize? Chairman Johnson. Yes. Twisting your arm too. Senator Carper. There you go. What are some of the risks and some of the benefits of that pilot, and what are three things that we need to do to make it better? Leon, do you want to start? Mr. Fresco. Sure. I did not either endorse or not endorse Operation Safe Return. I personally do not view the expedited removal process as the ideal way to go through this because I think the legal standard is an illegal standard that if you are doing it correctly will lead to high credible fear determinations, and if you are doing it incorrectly, it will lead to litigation, which will not also create the returns you want. So what my focus---- Chairman Johnson. But I am not saying it is ideally---- Mr. Fresco. Oh, no, no, no. Fair enough. We have all options that are suboptimal. I am totally with you there, Senator. So my only point is I--this is just me. So I am not speaking for the Homeland Security Advisory Committee, but I would want to say you have resources now. Congress does not have to change the law. You could actually get people lawyers on day one, put them in the normal removal process, not the expedited removal process, and see if we can actually get removal hearings done as quickly as possible, not expedited removal hearings, because the expedited removal hearing will end--we have seen this 80 or 90 percent of the time--with a credible fear determination saying yes, and now what? Now we are back, so we have wasted all of those 20 days. Chairman Johnson. If we do not do anything---- Mr. Fresco. No. I agree. Chairman Johnson. I guess what I would say is I am happy to have Operation Safe Return morph into something that works better and better. I mean manufacture it, incremental and continuous improvement. I look at that as a first step, and I want to move in that exact same direction. I am just not sure whether we can, but Operation Safe Return would allow us to have a program that can morph into something that is more effective. Now are you in support of it? Senator Carper. Let me go back to---- Mr. Fresco. Supportive or not supportive. I want to keep talking to your staff, with everybody---- Chairman Johnson. I am a salesman. I am trying to get---- Mr. Fresco. I hate saying anything to not be supportive but we need to work on it. Mr. Ahern. I can tell you something from a historical and operational perspective for over 30 years. Anything you do that is going to have a consequence on the flow is a positive. For that, I think this body really needs to take a strong look at beginning that as a pilot. It is a very small first step. Make no mistake, the legislative fixes still are required. But anything that will start to go ahead and send a different message than the message currently sent by this Country down to those Northern Triangle countries is an important step. It is going to yield a very small number. But again, let us look beyond just the numbers of who would actually be physically put into removal proceedings. The impact that could have on the messaging down in the countries of origin could be more significant. But, again, we need to start. It is a beginning of a process. It is not a huge step forward. I think the other thing that will be very interesting to see is how the interim final rule that came out from DHS and DOJ in the last 24 hours on asylum is going to have the impact on flow as well. So staying close to those factors are important. But to really impact those pull factors that this country has put out there is going to be important to manage the flow. As we talked about children, for a large part of this hearing, a lot of those issues go away and the situation becomes a lot easier to manage if we manage that flow and reduce it substantially back to a more normalized number. These are the steps that need to be taken going forward. Ms. Tandy. I would just add, Senator, that if Congress is unable to change the law and put Flores back to where it was with only unaccompanied children addressed and if TVPRA is not going to be amended, Operation Safe Return, to the extent that it is within existing authorities and within existing resources, is something that absolutely should be pursued. It is a step, and to the extent that it is described as a research and opportunity to--as an experiment, if you will, to see if it will work, I think it could provide very valuable data. There is a facility in Texas at Dilley where it is underutilized right now, and it has all of the capability of implementing Operation Safe Return. Our colleagues, Dr. Cooper and Jay Ahern, were there just a couple of weeks ago. Senator Carper. Where is it? Ms. Tandy. Texas. Mr. Ahern. It is in Dilley. Senator Carper. Where is that? Mr. Ahern. It is 65 miles south of San Antonio, and it has four or five courtrooms already established, with video capability to get the administrative judges to be able to go ahead and actually video in if they are not actually physically there. It is currently a 2,400-person capacity. Sharon, what was it? 600 people were there at the time? Dr. Cooper. Yes. It has excellent medical facilities, everything, x-ray, everything you could need to handle any health care issues that would arise, even in a group setting such as that manner. Chairman Johnson. Jay and Karen convinced me. Come on, Leon. [Laughter.] Ms. Tandy. So it is not a panacea, Senator. It is not a panacea, but I think it is an important step. If the other things are not going to happen that we have recommended, it is a very important step and will give you some kind of data to know how to factor in the laws, the legal changes that should be made and what the legal framework should be. So to that extent and because it is something that could be done right now, I do think it is an important first step. Chairman Johnson. That data collection, by the way, that was Senator Peters that put in process. Ms. Tandy. Excellent input. Mr. Fresco. Yes. You would need to know if it worked for sure. Mr. Ahern. One final point, obviously. Senator Peters. There is just a dearth of data on this whole process, which is really frustrating trying to come up with policy. Chairman Johnson. Your fingerprints are all over that thing, so you might as well sign on. Mr. Ahern. One of the key questions too as you go forward is to consider obviously how you operationalize it. The issue of how to operate becomes always a question in dealing with the operational agencies like CBP and ICE on what will be the operational impacts. As Karen mentioned a few minutes ago, you do not want to necessarily forecast to the trafficking organizations what corridor you are going to be running during that particular day and week. They can all go to Dilley. That is fine. But where you actually are operating and what population of people you are going to be using---- Chairman Johnson. They want to keep that---- Mr. Ahern. We did this in our drug days together. Ms. Tandy. Right. Mr. Ahern. You want to be able to have jump capability to move around. So you are trying to play a more unpredictable game with a very adaptable adversary, like the cartels, and the same people you are dealing with today. So being able to go ahead and have a good operational program that is attached on how they would do the implementation---- Chairman Johnson. That is something we have to implement from day one. Anybody? Any other comments? Senator Carper. If I could, my colleagues may recall I led a congressional delegation down to the Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador back at the very beginning of this year, and we were looking at numbers through really beginning of November in terms of illegal immigration. The numbers were pretty flat, and as you look at that chart\1\ back there, pretty flat right up until the beginning of November. It sort of exploded. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Carper appears in the Appendix on page 426. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Among the things, we focus a lot--and it is important that we do focus--on symptoms of the problems at the border, what we see at the border, but it is also critically important, as my colleagues know, that we try to figure out what is going on down in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador sending all those people up here. It turns out El Salvador, the surge has been a lot less dramatic, and one of the reasons why is they had an election there. They elected a new president. His name is Bukele. He is like 37 years old. He is the former mayor of San Salvador, and people have hope. People have hope that there is going to be a better day. Meanwhile, in Honduras last year, Juan Hernandez, the president of the country, got the Supreme Court to declare that their constitution was unconstitutional and he could run again, and he won a razor-thin reelection that just really rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I mean really made people angry. They are still angry. Over in Guatemala, Jimmy Morales, who is the president, who everybody had very high hopes for 4 years ago when he was elected, it has turned out to be a bitter disappointment. He tried to chase out of the country, the United Nation (UN) entity that is there to try to go after the corruption and so forth. When they had their Presidential election, the best person that could have been on the ballot was not even allowed to come into the country and campaign, Thelma Aldana, the former Attorney General who was like death on corruption when she was Attorney General. And so people are just really like fed up. Plus, you have the situation with climate, climate problems and situations that people cannot grow coffee up in the highlands, and there is a real surge of people there. There is a lot going on there. So it is important that we focus on the stuff that we are talking about here today but also be mindful of some of the things that I just mentioned. There is one of my favorite songs. I love music. One of my favorite songs is a song called ``Hope in a Hopeless World,'' and this is not an easy problem to solve. But there is hope, and the work the four of you and your presence here and our Chairman and Ranking Member hosting this roundtable today gives me hope and what for many people is an all too hopeless world. Ms. Tandy. Thank you, Senator. I would add---- Senator Carper. I will not sing. Ms. Tandy. I am sorry? Senator Carper. I will not sing today. Chairman Johnson. Thank you. [Laughter.] Ms. Tandy. That would probably keep people here. Senator, we are looking at those push factors and traveling to the Northern Triangle to Guatemala and Honduras as a panel. That is coming up next month. In the meantime, we are receiving a number of briefings from the State Department, NGO's, and others regarding the very matters that you just talked about with regard to corruption, extortion, and other issues in the Northern Triangle that are affecting these flows. So our report was an emergency report focusing on the pull factors and trying to stem the flow quickly on the family unit side. We are yet to address the push factors, which will be in our final report in September. Senator Carper. Good. We as a body, the Congress, House and Senate, in a bipartisan way have been supporting, focusing on the three major causes for people that want to get out of those countries: one, lack of economic hope and opportunity; two, crime and violence; and three, corruption that is just endemic. Ms. Tandy. Absolutely. Senator Carper. What we are doing with Alliance for Prosperity, which we get about--for every dollar we invest, we get $5, $6, or $7 from other sources invested to address those three major push factors. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters. Senator Peters. All set. Chairman Johnson. Anybody else want to make any further comments? Ms. Tandy. On behalf of the panel, we sincerely appreciate the opportunity to talk about the issues in our interim report as we saw them and are grateful for your focus. We have high hopes as well, Senator, and look forward to the outcome. Chairman Johnson. Let me just say I want to echo what Senator Carper was talking about, how much we appreciate what you have done. Oftentimes Congress will set up a commission. This was done by the Department of Homeland Security, but a really well- designed council from my standpoint. I think really well staffed, talking about the members, and the fact that you do have a broad spectrum, and you are coming together. You are accommodating each other's views and really doing a very thoughtful job of problem solving. We talk about it all the time, gathering the information, defining the problem, root- cause analysis, and then establishing achievable goals and then start designing solutions. Everything I am reading, everything, all of our discussions, you are going through that very thoughtful process. I appreciate the fact that you recognize this was an emergency and you had to issue an emergency interim report, and I am just looking forward to September, a final report, but also continue to work with you because I think this council can really have an impact. Again, because the bipartisan--I actually prefer using the term ``nonpartisan nature.'' I think it is what this Committee has a pretty good track record under Tom's chairmanship and Susan and Joe Lieberman. It is just a tradition here. I think working together, we really can move the needle on this. I will take the incremental. I will keep twisting Leon's arm to get support fetches, that baby first step, but it is a step. Otherwise, we just sit back and we do nothing and we just keep yacking about this. Again, I think we were all pretty well moved by that picture of that father and his daughter. I called up Gary that morning and said, ``OK. Are not you sick of this? Let us start doing something different. Let us start having these discussions,'' and I thought this was a very good discussion, kind of wide-ranging, maybe not as focused as I would have it, but that is the nature of the beast. So we will continue to have these discussions with a very sincere desire of starting to develop solutions, improve the situation on a continuous basis, and again, I just cannot sing your council's praises enough and all of your involvement. Thank you for doing it. So, with that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until August 1, 5 p.m., for the submission of statements and questions for the record. This hearing roundtable is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S. SOUTHERN BORDER: WHAT IS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS? ---------- TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2019 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Romney, Scott, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, Sinema, and Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I want to welcome our witnesses. The title of this hearing, ``The Unprecedented Migration at the U.S. Southern Border: What Is Required to Improve Conditions?'' I think it is incredibly important that we concentrate on what we can do to improve conditions. Continuous improvement. I have a manufacturing background. That is what we seek to do. I will say at the outset that nobody is satisfied with the conditions on the border. Nobody is. This is unprecedented what is happening on the border. It is overwhelming. It is out of control. I was talking to the Acting Commissioner before the hearing here and mentioned how former Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson was on MSNBC a couple months ago, and he talked about how, when he came to the office, if apprehensions for the day were under 1,000, it was not too bad a day. If they were over 1,000, he knew he was going to have a really bad day. The fact of the matter is in May the average daily number of apprehensions and people presenting themselves at the port of entry (POE) without proper documentation claiming asylum was 4,652--4.6 times 1,000 a day. In June that number dropped to 3,476. For a number of reasons, I think the Acting Commissioner will be getting into that. Currently we are probably less than 3,000 a day, but we are still close to 3,000 a day. Everybody has seen my chart.\1\ We continue to update it. That chart only shows unaccompanied alien children (UAC) and people coming in as a family unit. You can see how it has exploded here in fiscal year (FY) 2019. As of June, the first 9 months of this fiscal year, 495,000 children and family units have come to this country. If June's pace continues, we will be over 700,000, again, primarily people coming in as family units, generally one adult, one child. In total, through June we have had 780,000 people cross the border legally or present themselves to a port of entry without proper documentation claiming asylum. Again, if June's pace continues, we will be about 1.1 million. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 485. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- So those are the numbers that we are having to deal with. That is what Border Patrol is having to deal with on a daily basis. I ask my colleagues, I ask anybody criticizing the conditions down there: How would you handle 4,652 people a day, then wake up the next day and handle another 4,652 people? By the way, it does not stop at 5 o'clock at night. It continues 24/7. It is overwhelming. I had an earlier interview with a reporter from the Washington Post, a real good interview, very interested in kind of the full complexity of this problem, the reporter asked me my evaluation of Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan. My point was if you are looking to see criticism from me, you will not get any. I will not criticize any former Secretary, Acting Secretary, or current Secretary of Homeland Security. It is an overwhelming task. We are not only talking about the border. We are talking about natural disasters and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), so many responsibilities of that position. First of all, I am just grateful anybody would take the position. Commissioner, I am grateful you stepped up to the plate in your capacity. I am particularly grateful to the men and women of DHS, of the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) that have kind of rallied to try and deal with this overwhelming situation. There may be some instances, there may be a few bad apples, but the men and women that I talk to, that I see, dealing with this humanitarian crisis on the border are doing everything they can to treat these individuals with care and compassion. But they are overwhelmed by the situation. I just want everybody to keep in mind what the reality of the situation is. Ask yourself, how would you handle it? How would you manage this? What I would suggest is the solution which we have been suggesting all along is in this case, with this problem in the here and now, is let us address the root cause, this uncontrolled flow of individuals. I would argue that the goal of our policy, the first goal--and we have so many different problems associated with this illegal flow. But the first goal of our policy should be to reduce that flow, which is what the letter we sent to DHS, working with them to design a pilot program called ``Operation Safe Return,'' whose goal would be to rapidly and more accurately determine those individuals that clearly do not have a legal claim to stay in this country and safely return them to their home country to the safe regions of Central America. There are safe regions in Central America. That is important to point out. So, again, the focus on this Committee hearing is what can we do with this overwhelming situation to improve the conditions. We all want to do that. I am not particularly interested in placing blame. I am interested in what can we do to address this overwhelming and out-of-control situation. I would ask that my written statement be entered into the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 465. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- With that, I will turn it over to Senator Peters. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\2\ Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the Appendix on page 467. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the end of May, Chairman Johnson, Senator Hassan, and I were together visiting the U.S.-Mexican border, and on that trip we saw firsthand the tremendous challenges that the Department of Homeland Security personnel and local communities are facing at the Southern Border. It is clear that our infrastructure and our personnel are overwhelmed. Resources are stretched thin and are being shifted away from other priorities like the Northern Border. Our capacity to address the humanitarian needs of children and families is overburdened. Despite those difficulties, we witnessed hardworking law enforcement officers, public servants, volunteers, and civic leaders all doing their very best to manage a very difficult situation. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore the reports and the images that have emerged regarding substandard conditions and unacceptable treatment and tragic deaths of children at some Customs and Border Protection (CBP) locations. I am also alarmed at the reports that we have seen regarding unprofessional and unacceptable conduct from a small number of Border Patrol agents. The situation at our Southern Border is, of course, incredibly challenging. It is clear that our current system is not equipped to process and care for the unprecedented number of families and children seeking asylum at the Southern Border. Some of the images that we have seen and the stories we have heard I believe do not reflect the overall efforts of the Customs and Border Protection folks, the hardworking men and women who secure our borders. They certainly do not reflect the values of this great Nation. But it is clear that there are significant challenges on the ground and to some extent problems within the agency's culture that must be swiftly and adequately addressed. In recent weeks we have seen a decline in the number of migrants arriving along the Southern Border. The pressure appears to be decreasing, at least temporarily. This drop has helped ease overcrowding at many border facilities. Billions of dollars in supplemental funding has enabled DHS to improve their response to these challenges, and today I hope this Committee will hear specifics on how those additional taxpayer dollars are being used. However, as Members of this Committee know, much of the migration that occurs from Mexico and the Northern Triangle countries is seasonal. This fall we can expect to see the number of arrivals rise again. We now have an opportunity to examine where we have failed and where we have succeeded and put lessons into practice. We need innovative ideas to improve migrant processing to relieve the strain on our front-line border security professionals and other agencies that have provided support services in recent months and to keep our border secure and our country safe. Few issues we face are as complex as this one, but today I hope we can find common ground, identify bipartisan solutions, and deliver real comprehensive results for the American people. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to your testimony and responding to our questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters. It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if you will both stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Morgan. I do. Ms. Costello. I do. Chairman Johnson. Our first witness is Acting Commissioner Mark Morgan. Commissioner Morgan began serving his country as a U.S. Marine and his community in local law enforcement. After completing a 20-year career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), he began service at the Department of Homeland Security as the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Internal Affairs before being appointed by President Obama as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. He served as Chief until January 2017. He returned to DHS as the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in May of this year and began his current role as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on July 7th. Commissioner Morgan. TESTIMONY OF MARK MORGAN,\1\ ACTING COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Morgan. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Morgan appears in the Appendix on page 469. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to begin with a story. On May 30th Border Patrol agents from the Del Rio Sector saw a group of undocumented migrants crossing the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) in Texas. The agents watched as smugglers carried a paraplegic man to the river and then callously threw him in. The paraplegic man, of course, immediately began to drown. Fighting the strong river current, agents were able to reach the drowning victim and safely bring him to shore. Had agents not been there, he would have added to the 172 deaths discovered along the Southwest Border in desolate locations and rivers resulting from the dangerous trek and complete disregard for human life at the hands of smugglers. This is one of more than 4,000 rescues performed by CBP this year, with Border Patrol leading the way. This is who the men and women of the United States Customs and Border Protection are. They risk their lives every single day to help and protect whoever is in distress. They do not ask what the person's nationality is or whether they are trying to illegally enter this country. They simply see a human being needing help, and that is exactly what they provide them. The men and women of the CBP are not running concentration camps, making those in our custody drink from toilets, nor denying them access to toothbrushes. That is simply not true. This is the kind of irresponsible rhetoric that they have to endure from both the media and even some of our own congressional leaders. It is unjust and does nothing to bring us closer to resolving one of the most divisive issues that we face in our country. Stories of agents saving lives from drowning in the Rio Grande, dying of dehydration in the desert, and suffering in stash houses or at the hands of smugglers, that goes unreported. The demonizing of law enforcement professionals must stop. These false, misinformed, and overheated attacks are demoralizing and serve to further deteriorate the public's understanding and perception of what the true issues are and what needs to be done to end this crisis. We should be coming together to focus our efforts on the real enemy--the cartels and smugglers who make billions of dollars at the expense of an extremely vulnerable population while exploiting loopholes in our immigration legal framework to facilitate their operation. Over the past year, Homeland Security leadership has repeatedly told Congress and the press that we have an emergency on our hands. We have provided some statistics about the alarming and unprecedented increase in apprehensions. That number is over 800,000 year to date. We have explained how the demographics of this mass migration are unlike previous arrivals and how families and children from Central America present significantly different challenges with regard to their care and processing. Over 450,000 of these apprehensions were family units, and over 80,000 were unaccompanied children. Combined, that is over 300,000 children have entered our custody since October 1 of last year. These numbers are staggering, unprecedented, and have overwhelmed every aspect of our border and immigration enforcement system. Last week I met with the Ministers of Security from the Northern Triangle countries who all--all of them--expressed their collective frustration that ``the future of [their] countries are leaving for America'' and ``they want their children back.'' We at CBP, at DHS, we are comforting infants. We are taking the sick to the hospital, averaging over 800 hospital visits per day. We are expanding our medical care, ensuring children are provided medical screenings. We are building soft-sided facilities to provide a more adequate environment for families and children, costing tens of millions of dollars per month to operate. We are providing food, clothing, and other basic necessities. We have pulled agents from the border security mission to help process the massive volume of migrants. In some sectors, up to 50 percent of agents are pulled off the line to support the extraordinary humanitarian effort along our Southwest Border. We have pulled agents from our northern and coastal duty stations. We have pulled more than 700 officers away from ports. We have called for volunteers from all across the government to help us manage this surge of humanity. The recent supplemental, it helped. But as we have been saying, this is merely treating the symptoms of this crisis. It does not cure the cause. It looks like I have about run out of time. If I could have just a few more seconds? Chairman Johnson. Take the time and finish your statement. Mr. Morgan. Smugglers openly advertise a safe and legal journey to the United States. They tell migrants and their families that there is a policy in the United States that anyone who arrives with a child will not be deported. We have stats and facts to show that is exactly what is being communicate, and our laws support that perception. If there are not specific and meaningful changes in our laws, our detention facilities will continue to be overwhelmed. Our personnel will continue to be diverted from their primary missions to safeguard this country. Legitimate trade and travel will continue to suffer. Our ability to prevent dangerous narcotics and criminals illegally entering our country will continue to be greatly diminished. And smugglers, like the ones who threw the paraplegic man into the Rio Grande, they will continue to profit. Although we are seeing the numbers across all demographics decreasing at the moment, due in large part to the efforts of this current Administration, working with the Government of Mexico as well as our Northern Triangle countries to address this as a true regional crisis and concern, this is not a durable, long-term solution concerning the national security and humanitarian crisis we are facing. Congress must acknowledge this is a crisis and pass meaningful legislation to address the loopholes in our current legal framework. Thank you for your time. I look forward to answering your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Commissioner. Our next witness is Jennifer Costello. Ms. Costello is now the Deputy Inspector General (IG) for the Department of Homeland Security. Prior to Thursday, when we actually did get confirmed Inspector General Cuffari, she was the Acting Inspector General, and we appreciate your service from that standpoint. Ms. Costello has been at the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) since 2017, and prior to her experiences at DHS, she spent over 13 years as Assistant Director in the Forensic Audits and Special Investigations Unit at the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Again, I appreciate you spending some time in my office where we talked a little bit about how GAO can help get the metrics on Operation Safe Return. Ms.Costello, welcome. TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER L. COSTELLO,\1\ DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Ms. Costello. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to discuss DHS OIG's recent work on conditions at Customs and Border Protection holding facilities at the Southern Border. My testimony today will focus on our two recent Management Alerts regarding the dangerous overcrowding and prolonged detention observed by DHS OIG inspectors at the El Paso Del Norte Processing Center in May of this year and facilities in the Rio Grande Valley in June. We issued these alerts because the conditions we observed posed a serious and imminent threat to both the health and safety of DHS personnel and detainees. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Costello appears in the Appendix on page 475. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DHS OIG conducts unannounced inspections of CBP facilities to evaluate compliance with CBP's Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS) standards. TEDS standards govern CBP's interactions with detainees, providing guidance on things like duration of detention, access to medical care, access to food and water, and hygiene. Our unannounced inspections enable us to identify instances of noncompliance with TEDS standards and to propose appropriate corrective action to the Department. In doing so, we seek to drive transparency and accountability at the Department of Homeland Security. Although CBP has struggled at times to achieve full compliance with detention standards, our recent unannounced inspections revealed a situation far more grievous than those previously encountered by our inspectors. For instance, when our team arrived at the El Paso Del Norte Processing Center, they found that the facility, which has a maximum capacity of 125 detainees, had more than 750 detainees onsite. The following day, that number increased to 900. Additionally, at all the Border Patrol facilities we visited in the Rio Grande Valley, we observed serious overcrowding among unaccompanied alien children. We also found that individuals, including children, were being detained well beyond the 72 hours generally permitted under TEDS standards and the Flores Agreement. For instance, at the centralized processing center in McAllen, Texas, many children had been in custody longer than a week, and some UACs under the age of 7 had been in custody for more than 2 weeks. Under these circumstances, CBP has struggled to comply with TEDS standards. For instance, although all facilities we visited in the Rio Grande Valley had infant formula, diapers, baby wipes, and juice and snacks for children, two facilities had not provided children access to hot meals as required until the week we arrived. Additionally, children at three of the five facilities we visited had no access to showers, limited access to a change of clothes, and no access to laundry facilities. Space limitations also affect single adults. The lack of space has restricted CBP's ability to separate detainees with infectious diseases such as chicken pox, scabies, and influenza, from each other and from the general population. According to CBP management, these conditions also affect the health of Border Patrol agents who are experiencing high incidence of illness. Further, there is a concern that the overcrowding and prolonged detention may be contributing to rising tensions among detainees. A senior manager at one facility in the Rio Grande Valley called the situation ``a ticking time bomb.'' Despite these immense challenges, we observed CBP staff interacting with the detainees in a professional and respectful manner and attempting to comply with standards to the extent possible. Notwithstanding these efforts, Border Patrol requires immediate assistance to manage the overcrowding in its facilities. CBP is not responsible for providing long-term detention, and CBP facilities like those we visited are not designed to hold individuals for lengthy periods of time. However, with limited bed space available in ICE facilities and the Department of Health of Human Services (HHS) facilities nationwide, detainees are left in CBP custody until a placement can be found. In its response to our recent Management Alerts, DHS described the situation on the Southern Border as an ``acute and worsening crisis.'' Our observations comport with that characterization, which is why we have called on the Department to take immediate action to begin to remedy the situation. DHS OIG will continue to monitor and report on the situation at the border. In the meantime, the Department's leadership must develop a strategic coordinated approach that will allow it to make good on its commitment to ensure the safety, security, and care of those in its custody. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions the Committee has. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Ms. Costello. I want to throw a couple numbers out on some of these issues that have been raised. We talked a little bit about the capacity of the border stations. First of all, generally, except for the McAllen, Texas, facilities and some of the temporary facilities, these Border Patrol stations are basically police stations, correct? They are not designed whatsoever to really house any volume of people. Ms. Costello. No, not at all, and that I think is the problem. What we are seeing in the overcrowding is simply not designed to house the capacity of migrants that they are getting at this time. Chairman Johnson. Commissioner Morgan, I think we got information from you that the basic capacity of the hard-sided facilities is about 4,000? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, that is correct. During this time period that the reviews were being done by the OIG, which we appreciate, welcome, and enjoy their partnership, at that time we reached the highest apprehensions in the month of May, over 140,000. At that time our detention capacity of those we had in custody reached 19,000, and our capacity was 4,000. Chairman Johnson. I have 19,699 on June 3rd. Even at that 4,000 capacity, is that fire code capacity or is that just how many we can generally chock in one facility? Mr. Morgan. That is all across the Southwest Border, including the sectors and approximately 70 stations. That is what we refer to as--4,000 to 4,500, we refer to that as ``a manageable population.'' Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters made the comment and asked the question about how have the dollars been spent. It was unfortunate it took 2 months for that emergency funding request to be passed, but, my information I have received, I think from you and others, is that prior to the funding, we had about 2,700 unaccompanied children in the custody of Border Patrol beyond 72 hours, up to as many as 10 days, a few outliers beyond that. But within a couple weeks we were down to a little bit more than a day's intake, about 300, with an average stay of about 30 hours. Is that pretty accurate in terms of what the conditions were and what they are currently? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Again, during the time of the OIG review, we were topped out at about 2,700 unaccompanied minors, and today we are averaging in the past week between 250 to 300, with less than 20 over 72 hours. Several of those are due to medical conditions. Chairman Johnson. The reason you were backlogged so much is there simply was not the bed space or detention facilities open in HHS until they had the funding. Is that correct? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, that is correct. I think she represented it well, that we have interdependencies. When it comes to UACs, we are reliant on HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to take those children. And then for single adults and families, we rely on ICE to remove those from our custody. Chairman Johnson. So Border Patrol had really no option other than to continue to hold those children until bed space opened up in HHS. You could not just let them into the communities. You were responsible for them, and you had to keep them in your custody, in obviously crowded conditions because you a capacity of 4,000, and you had more than 19,000 people in custody. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, that is correct. In both El Paso and RGV at the time, and still RGV to this day, they were two of the sector that were getting inundated the most. El Paso, and I am sure you have already heard, one day, one single large group of over 1,000, of which 90 percent of them were families and kids, hit the El Paso Sector in a single day. Chairman Johnson. Ms. Costello, I appreciate the fact that you made the comment that the Border Patrol personnel that your inspectors talked to were professional, they were respectful. They were doing everything they could do to take care of these children and family members in their custody that they have been basically given the responsibility to take care of. Is that accurate? Ms. Costello. That is a fair assessment, Senator, and those are our experiences. Obviously, OIG would never discount anybody else's experience, but our inspectors have been doing this for a while and have always encountered very professional CBP staff. Chairman Johnson. It has certainly been my experience when I have encountered them at the borders. I have talked to Border Patrol personnel. They are trying to cope with the situation with as much humanity and compassion as they possibly can muster. So, again, there may be a few outliers. There may be a few instances--we saw the texts or the whatever. Those are obviously unacceptable and regrettable. But the vast majority of the men and women of DHS and Border Patrol are trying to cope with this. In your testimony you were talking about Border Patrol agents becoming ill, the illnesses coming across the border. We have a pretty long list of them. I am concerned about drug- resistant strains of tuberculosis, those types of things. I am concerned about Border Patrol attrition. Is that something that you are really taking a look at in your inspections, basically the basic morale of Border Patrol personnel trying to cope with this? Ms. Costello. Morale in and of itself is not a specific focus of our work, but we are looking into the drivers behind that prolonged detention to see, as Mr. Morgan was suggesting, what is going on with ICE and HHS that is leading to some of these problems. Chairman Johnson. The Commissioner talked about the larger aspect, a dimension that I do not think is reported on enough, the whole human-trafficking element. We had an Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) witness here talking about a child sold for $84, when we were down at the border, a child, a 3-year-old boy, left in a field, his name and a phone number written on his shoe, the fact that we are finding these families in stash houses that are being beaten, the beatings being videotaped, being sent back to Central America demanding ransom, the involuntary servitude that Senator Portman had an investigation a couple of years ago on unaccompanied children showing up in involuntary servitude, a situation in an egg farm. Are you looking at that aspect in the Inspector General's office? Ms. Costello. No, not at this time, and we would have to be careful about jurisdictional issues related to some of that. Having said that, we are very open to considering all sorts of issues on the table. But, what we actually have authority and purview over is one of the first questions we ask. Chairman Johnson. Commissioner Morgan, let me throw it to you in terms of your concern over just basic attrition. I do not think anybody would want to spend the night in those facilities. I am highly concerned. Again, I went down there, and you can see the holding cells for scabies, for chicken pox, and for flu. I would be concerned about Border Patrol personnel kind of giving up and trying to take a position elsewhere, either in the Federal Government or in the private sector. Can you just kind of talk to your generally assessment--you have been on the job now for a few weeks--of the Border Patrol? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, and I harken back to my time as Chief of the Border Patrol in 2016. I think the IG's report captures it well, and the Border Patrol, CBP personnel, all those entities are helping us, they are mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. The overcrowding that you see, we have all said that we have to do better, that children and families should not be held in police stations for a long-term period of time. We all agree with that. So, absolutely, it affects them every single day. I worry about their health and their morale, and I think absolutely it is being impacted. Along with the frustrations, they also know Congress could do some things if they could work together to pass meaningful legislation. That is equally as frustrating for them as well. Right now, though, the hiring numbers for us are OK. They are not going in a downward departure. But I am concerned about the future. Chairman Johnson. That is good to hear. I have run out of time. I do want to talk about the solution in terms of reducing that flow, but we will save that for later on. Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Mr. Chairman, my office has received a statement from Church World Services (CWS), and I would like to ask unanimous consent that it be entered into the hearing record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The statement referenced by Senator Peters appears in the Appendix on page 495. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Johnson. Without objection. Senator Peters. Thank you. Mr. Morgan, it is clear that we are confronted with a significant problem on the Southern Border, and the challenges are wide-ranging and require, I think, significant coordination from a number of Federal agencies coming together, and that means also Federal, State, and local. Truly a whole-of- government approach is necessary to confront this. So could you describe how CBP is coordinating with other DHS components, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), ICE, and CBP, as well as HHS and ORR? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. So the coordination specifically with USCIS and ICE, that is really done on a daily basis. For example, we talked about the interdependencies that we have specifically with respect to ICE. One of the largest challenges we have right now are single adults. Again, ICE does not have adequate bed space, and so it is a constant struggle with the number of apprehensions we have to be able to ensure and get them out of our custody as fast as possible to ICE. So we are coordinating with ICE on a daily basis with respect to how we can expeditiously get those single adults out of custody into ICE. USCIS, obviously we work with them on a daily basis. They are the asylum officers. They are the ones that actually determine and adjudicate someone's credible fear claim as they go through the process. They are at our stations. We work with them constantly. DHS, again, this is not just a CBP issues, this is not just an ICE issue. It really is a DHS issue. It is even outside of DHS. Right now we have hundreds of volunteers from across DHS that have been deployed to the Southwest Border to help us specifically with the humanitarian crisis. Senator Peters. So you talk about daily coordination, but is there an interagency group in a formalized way that is actually coordinating this on a regular basis? Or is this ad hoc as you are just talking to other agencies? Mr. Morgan. No, it is both. So we both have working groups at the local level in each field. So each field has their own entity that they work, whether it is El Paso, RGV, with those entities. And then at DHS there is also a working group that is led by DHS that has a lot of different subgroups and subcommittees. But we are doing it on a formal basis. Senator Peters. Because that is important. When we are trying to think about how we coordinate all these activities, which it is going to require, I am always frustrated as to knowing who is actually in charge. Who is actually responsible for making sure all of these pieces are working together? I never seem to get a real good answer about that, and that has me concerned. I guess, that leads to the question: Is anyone at the White House facilitating the coordination of these activities? Mr. Morgan. They are absolutely involved in every aspect of this crisis. Senator Peters. Who is doing that at the White House? Mr. Morgan. Different entities. It depends on what lane it---- Senator Peters. Different entities are coordinating. Is there one entity that is really responsible for coordinating all this? Mr. Morgan. I would say it depends, sir, on what element you are talking about with respect to the certain conditions you are talking about. I mean, we could talk about media. That could be held by a different individual. If you are talking about what we can do within the current legal framework to stem the flow of migration, then we would be talking to different people within the White House. Senator Peters. Is there someone who is in charge of coordinating State and local governments as well as Non- governmental organizations (NGO's), which are a critical component of all this? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. DHS has a State and local partner coordinator, yes, sir. Senator Peters. So that person is in charge that we could ask how is that coordination going? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Peters. Mr. Morgan, the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bill has included $128 million for CBP to contract with medical professionals, and a recent emergency supplemental included roughly $112 million for medical care and consumables. Given the number of children who are arriving at our Southern Border, how much of the fiscal year 2019 and supplemental funding has been spent on pediatric medical professionals? Mr. Morgan. So on specific pediatric care, I do not have those numbers in front of me. But we are looking at $63 million for continued additional medical assets and high-risk support across the Southwest Border. That was contained in the supplemental moving forward. Senator Peters. But we want to know how it is being spent, how many folks are involved. Part of our oversight function here is to understand exactly how that money is being spent. It is the intent of Congress to make sure we are providing medical services to those folks who need it, and we are accountable to the taxpayers for that money and how it is spent. So I would certainly like to do a deeper dive with you to have a better sense of that. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, and I have that data. I will be able to provide that, sir. Senator Peters. Where these professionals are being sent, any shortfalls, challenges, all of that is going to be important for all of us to do our work. Mr. Morgan. We have all that data, sir. Senator Peters. Thank you. Senator Peters. While the recent Management Alert is certainly the main discussion point for us today, it is my understanding that this alert, Ms. Costello, is part of a much larger oversight effort that is related to the CBP and ICE detention facilities. I think it is important for this Committee to hear you describe what other reviews are currently in progress. More importantly, when do you expect those reports to actually be released? Ms. Costello. Senator, we have a lot in this space. Following on the Management Alerts, I think in my written testimony you may have seen this is part of a larger series of unannounced inspections that we did all along the Southern Border. So these two alerts were issued because of the serious nature of what we found, but we will be issuing a Capping Report this fall to identify the findings in all the facilities. We are also looking at, since you were asking Mr. Morgan about it, we are going to audit how that aid is being spent, not all of it but the consumables, the medical access, things of that nature. We are looking at asylum seekers at the Southern Border, separating families at ports of entry, whether or not families were given the opportunity to be removed with their children, things of that nature. We are looking at the underlying causes of the prolonged detention, so why 72, why are we going beyond the 72 hours? Between HHS, ICE, CBP, and some of the other folks in play what are the factors at play in driving that? We have a data analysis audit underway looking specifically at the tracking of children during zero tolerance. We are also looking at ICE's ability to quickly and easily remove criminal aliens. It is a lot of work in this space. I think the first job that will be issued will be the data tracking work. We will follow shortly with most likely the Capping Report on all these inspections and perhaps some asylum seekers work this fall. Senator Peters. When you say ``this fall,'' when do you expect that to be? Ms. Costello. You are going to pin me down, aren't you? Senator Peters. Broadly speaking. Ms. Costello. I think the reports will start coming out September and roll out toward the end of the year. Senator Peters. That is great. Mr. Morgan, as we talked about in my office on other occasions, transparency is critically important. I would certainly hope that we have your commitment to ensure that the OIG retains access to unannounced facility visits and anything else necessary to conduct oversight, which is absolutely critical to maintaining transparency. Mr. Morgan. Absolutely, sir. There is an old saying. I think great agencies remain great because they believe they can get better, and I believe that the OIG is one significant step in how we maintain that. Senator Peters. Great. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters. Before I turn it over to Senator Portman, because you raised the issue of pediatricians, Commissioner Morgan, I have spoken with you about the fact that I met with both the representatives from the American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) as well as nurse practitioners who are offering, I guess, individuals who want to go down and help, and you said you would do everything to facilitate that. Do you want to just make that kind of public commitment? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, absolutely. There are some challenges with that, obviously, but anyone who wants to come and assist us with our continuing expanding medical care, it is absolutely--I would be more than welcome to work with them. We have done a lot. We are hiring four pediatric advisers and a patient safety officer at this time. Just last week I authorized for CBP to go forth with hiring our own chief medical officer. We have expanded our medical contract now to almost, I think, a little under 300 medical professionals that we are sending out across seven sectors and 20 of the stations, and we are expanding more every single day. Chairman Johnson. I do not want to just have people show up at the border, so it has to be coordinated. I guess I would just suggest if you would be willing to meet with those same representatives and you can kind of hash out a coordinated technique or method for those individuals to help out. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, and we have two physicians right now, one at DHS that is coordinating the overall Southwest Border medical initiatives. We have one that is detailed specifically to CBP. I think it would be a great idea to include the pediatricians into the fold with these physicians and have some meaningful dialogue on how we can get better. Chairman Johnson. We will try and facilitate that. Senator Portman. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both for being here today. This is a tough issue, and what we have been trying to do in this Committee is to look at it from an objective point of view and try to get some bipartisan solutions, particularly on the root causes. It has been hard. Obviously, we do not have consensus yet, and that is frustrating because I was down there on July 12th, as I think you know, Commissioner, and had the opportunity to go to the McAllen Sector and see what was going on, went to the Donna processing facility and also the Customs and Border Protection processing facility there, the station. It is a bad situation. There is obviously a huge influx of individuals, but what is really tough is the influx of families and kids, and that is unprecedented. There has been no previous time in our Nation's history we have had this many people coming across the border who are in family units and have to be taken care of differently. One of the things that was interesting at the Donna processing facility--and I think this is something that some of my constituents have found surprising--the families I talked to--and I spoke to five or six families. My Spanish is good enough to get by, and I asked them, why are they here and how long they plan to be here. I also talked to the Border Patrol about that, of course, Customs and Border Protection. The honest answer is they expected to be released into the United States, and the Customs and Border Protection people expected to release them within a few days--in fact, for some of them, within a couple days, I was told. And so that is the understanding on both sides, and the reason is that they cannot be processed during the time period that we have, particularly if they have, again, a minor child with them. It is pretty common sense. Unless we fix those laws, change those laws, we are not going to be able to keep people in any kind of detention facility or processing facility long enough to be able to assess whether it is appropriate for them to come into the United States legally. We are simply releasing them into the community and the nonprofits are helping to ensure people have what they need when they leave the processing facility and get them on the buses and get them on the airplanes and take them to communities around the country. These people have been processed, and they have been told to show up at a court hearing, and some of them do and some of them do not. Typically, it takes a couple years, actually between 2 and 3 years, for the first hearing, and then typically 5 or 6 years, we were told, before the case is finally resolved. You can imagine during that time period a lot of folks tend to stay in the United States and not show up at those hearings. Those numbers are hard to get in terms of how many show up. I do not know if you have anything on that today, either one of you. The numbers I have heard, fewer than half actually show up for the final hearing to be able to determine their status. Is that still accurate? Mr. Morgan. That is accurate, sir. That is the information that I have. Senator Portman. Ms. Costello. Ms. Costello. We do not have any information on that. That would be a Justice statistic. Senator Portman. So today we are focused on the conditions at the border, but I guess my point is this will continue, and we are not going to be able to resolve it unless we come up with some common-sense solutions to a very obvious problem, which is traffickers going to poor families in Central America and saying, ``If you come, if you are willing to pay us 5,000 to 10,000 bucks and come with us, we can get you into the country. In fact, we do not even have to do anything else other than leave you at the border, and you walk across a bridge,'' or in the case of some of the families I met, across the river, ``and present yourself and you can go into America.'' When you can make 10 to 20 times more here in America than you can in your home country, it makes sense. You and I would do the same thing, probably, if we were given the opportunity to help our families. But we have a legal immigration system, and there are people waiting not just for months but for years in those same countries to come legally. I do not think the problem is really that hard to understand. The asylum issue on top of it, obviously, adds some complexity. In terms of the overcrowding and what I saw was overcrowding in the men's facility at the Customs and Border Protection processing facility. The analogy that the Customs and Border Protection people were telling me, which I think makes sense, is this is more like the police station where you process people, but it is not a detention facility. The detention facilities ICE runs. Congress in the $4.6 billion that we sent down to the border--which I think was absolutely necessary, and I am glad it is there, and it is being used to help with the humanitarian crisis on the border. But Congress said, no, we are not going to fund these ICE beds. I saw the report from the Inspector General, the OIG finding from your trip to the border, I imagine, Ms. Costello, and your colleagues, it says, ``Due to shortage of ICE beds, Border Patrol has had to hold detainees longer than 72 hours.'' That was one of your findings. Ms. Costello. Yes, that is accurate. Senator Portman. So it is not that complicated. If we are not willing to fund ICE beds and under Flores you cannot hold people for more than 20 days and you cannot process people during that time period, it leads to a bad situation. Is everything perfect on the border? No, it is not. There is overcrowding. Now, I will say at the Donna facility, which is a soft- sided facility, we did not see the overcrowding. It is a new facility. My understanding is you have a new processing facility for adult males. Is that up and going yet? I know you are talking about putting a new one in place. Mr. Morgan. It should be in the next 10 days, sir. Senator Portman. In the McAllen---- Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Portman [continuing]. District as well. I think that Congress has a pretty obvious choice here, which is, one, how to deal with the immediate crisis, provide the ICE beds, provide more judges, expedite these processes as much as you can, take away the ability for traffickers to say if you just walk in, you get in; otherwise, this continues. Second, we have to look at the root causes, and that does include our asylum system. I have been promoting this idea, and some Democrats have expressed interest in this, in having people processed in their home country or in a third country. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations, does it all over the world, and they have four or five processing centers in Central America. They have one in Mexico. They have expressed some interest in working with us on that. That to me makes a lot of sense. It is the same criteria as the asylum criteria, the credible fear. And then what the Chairman has talked about in terms of expediting the processing, Operation Safe Return. And then, finally, more effective aid to these countries, because we have spent a lot of taxpayer dollars in the Northern Triangle, and, obviously, the results have not been impressive in terms of the socioeconomic conditions and the great poverty that is down there. There is no question about that. We can do a better job. But we cannot address that problem and expect that someone, again, who can make 10 to 20 times more coming to this country is not going to continue to have that incentive if, in fact, we have a system in place that allows them to come into our country. On the asylum front, of course, people that have a credible fear ought to be taken care of, but when you get to the end of that process we talked about earlier, after the 4 or 5 years, only 15 percent of those migrants are granted asylum. And that can be determined much earlier in the process, and preferably earlier in the process so they do not have to make the long and arduous and dangerous journey north, which so many traffickers are exploiting so many poor families in Central America to take that journey. Anyway, thank you for your service, both of you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Senator Hassan. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Peters, for this hearing, and thank you to both of our witnesses for being here today. I also want to take a minute to thank the men and women of the Border Patrol for their hard work and to thank so many of them who I know work to save lives on the border every day. I also want to note that we can absolutely address the root causes of this crisis, which are multiple, and improve conditions for migrants and secure our border without taking up controversial issues like the Flores decision. Mr. Morgan, 3 weeks ago I asked CBP's Chief of Law Enforcement Operations Directorate, Brian Hastings, about the conditions at the Clint, Texas, Border Patrol facility following reports by a group of lawyers sent to inspect the facility describing the horrid conditions endured by migrants detained there. Mr. Hastings repeatedly dismissed the reports as not true, and he implied that the lawyers were exaggerating solely to advance the case of their clients. Only 6 days later, Ms. Costello issued a report about facilities in the Rio Grande Valley depicting some of the same troubling conditions as reported by the group of lawyers that inspected the Clint facility. Mr. Morgan, I have been to the border twice, and I get that the Border Patrol is overwhelmed and that its agents feel like they are under fire. However, our job in Congress is to conduct extensive oversight and to use that oversight as a way to help drive our funding decisions and to uphold our values. When senior officials from the Border Patrol refuse to be transparent or seek to mislead Congress, it does serious damage to the credibility of the entire Border Patrol. It exacerbates agents feeling as if they are under fire. Most importantly, it undermines the security and humanitarian mission that we are all grappling with. It keeps us from addressing the root causes in the way we need to. So to that end, Mr. Morgan, please answer yes or no to the following: Will you commit to giving Congress full visibility into the Border Patrol, its detention practices, its treatment of all migrants, and any credible allegations made by detainees? Mr. Morgan. Yes. Senator Hassan. Do you have the support of your superiors, namely, the Acting Homeland Security Secretary and the President, to be fully transparent with Congress as you deal with this crisis? Mr. Morgan. Unquestionably I do. Senator Hassan. Thank you. Will you take appropriate action if any CBP or Border Patrol subordinate seeks to mislead or deceive Congress or the American public? Mr. Morgan. Yes. Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Morgan, there really are two different crises occurring at our border facilities. The first is the lack of supplies and space driven by the huge surge in migrants. Congress has passed an aid package to address the surge with our own surge of resources. More needs to be done, and it will be. However, the second crisis is much deeper. Allegations of cruel and the illegal treatment of migrants in Border Patrol's custody have plagued the agency in recent weeks. These allegations include the sexual assault of an underage migrant, the attempt to humiliate a migrant by forcing him to wear a sign that says, ``I like men,'' and intentional deprivation of basic necessities of migrants, including children, as a way to punish them. Mr. Morgan, this troubling pattern of the Border Patrol's culture--and I know it is not everybody in Border Patrol--has to be addressed immediately. What steps are you taking right now to change this culture? Mr. Morgan. First of all, I think we have to be cautious about, when there are allegations that have not been fully adjudicated yet, to refer to this as a pattern or part of the culture. I do not believe that, ma'am. I served as Chief of the United States Border Patrol, and I would not say what you described is a culture within the Border Patrol or a pattern. But what I will say--and I promise and commit to you--is that any allegation will be thoroughly and completely investigated, and anybody, any man or woman, in the United States Border Patrol or CBP that violates their oath and violates what they swore to do and uphold, I assure you that they will be held accountable for and properly disciplined. Senator Hassan. I thank you for that. I will note that the revelation about the Facebook page and the number of people participating in that tends to give credence to the notion that there is a troubling culture, at least among some of the officers. What I am trying to just get at is what you are doing to make sure that you are disrupting that culture and improving it. Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am. On the Facebook, the 1015, I would be more than happy to, offline, come to your office and provide you an extensive brief of exactly what we are doing in that matter as well. But I will say it is one of those posts that we all know about is horrendous. Senator Hassan. Yes. Mr. Morgan. Absolutely, hands down. But I can assure you that overall this is a very small group of Border Patrol agents. Senator Hassan. Ms. Costello, do you think CBP is doing enough in terms of addressing the issues of culture that I just outlined? Ms. Costello. So we do not really have any information on what they are doing in the culture, but I can tell you that we are also looking into that Facebook issue, not so much the conduct of the specific agents themselves, which is better investigated by CBP's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). But what we are looking into is the allegations that leadership knew and was using the sight for information, so who knew what when and was appropriate action taken when it needed to be. I think perhaps in the course of that review, some information about culture might be elicited. Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Morgan. If I could add, ma'am, we are working with the IG every day. On Facebook, for example, right away we got with the IG, and we continue to work with them. Senator Hassan. I appreciate this. I just do want to point out that it is going to be very important that you all are transparent about what you do and do not know. As you investigate allegations, you have to be transparent with us and the American public so we can improve, because these kinds of reports and these kinds of behaviors that are reported and the conditions are really hampering our capacity to address a security and humanitarian crisis at our border, and that is something we all need to do together. Mr. Morgan. You have my absolute commitment to full transparency. Senator Hassan. Thank you. I have one other issue, and I am going to touch on it very briefly because I am just about out of time, but it has come to my attention, Mr. Morgan, that in May a Customs and Border Protection subcontractor, a company called ``Perceptics,'' was a victim of a cybersecurity breach. Hackers stole tens of thousands of photos of travelers' faces and license plates collected by CBP on the U.S.-Mexico border from the subcontractor's network and then leaked these images publicly. This breach has serious implications not only in cyberspace but also for the security of our borders. It is my understanding that this data was not supposed to be present on the subcontractor's network to begin with and that CBP has since terminated this contract. However, this begs a bigger question about the vulnerability of CBP because its subcontractors seem not to be taking cybersecurity seriously. So realizing my time is about up or over, what I would like to do is work with you and follow up with questions about this to ensure that the contractors and subcontractors adhere to the highest cybersecurity standards. Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. Senator Hassan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both of you, thank you for the work. I just returned back from the border last weekend, spending last weekend at five different facilities in the Rio Grande Valley area and then spent much of the night riding along with members of the Border Patrol as they did night patrols to get a feel for what is really going on on the ground. I went into each facility and asked to be able to see their supply room, to see food, water, hygiene products, diapers, clothing, toothbrushes. In every facility that I went into, all of those supplies were there in ample supply. I also found in some of the facilities a couple of pieces of used equipment like car seats, and I asked about that and said, ``These seem like used car seats. Where did they come from?'' And they said some of the children have to be moved to different places, and so Border Patrol agents have brought their own car seats for their kids here to be able to make sure these kids have car seats when they actually move from facility to facility. What I found was a tremendous number of very professional people trying to be able to find a way to be able to manage a problem where they have thousands upon thousands of people coming at them. In the McAllen station, in that area alone they have 1,500 to 2,000 people a day that are coming across the border illegally, and they are trying to figure out ways to process them. When I asked the agents, ``What would help you the most?'' the first response I got from everyone was, ``Allow ICE to be able to detain people. That is what they do, not what we do.'' What I heard as a pretty clear statement was when this whole movement on abolish ICE or defund ICE came about and the push to not allow ICE to get more funding and the adamant pushback we have had on adding additional funding to ICE, it is backing up thousands of individuals into Customs and Border Patrol facilities to be able to be held while they are waiting for a place for them to go. We have almost 50,000 beds in ICE facilities but 4,000 beds in Customs and Border Patrol. When you have thousands of people a day coming at them with nowhere to go, you are not going to just release them on the street. That is not the obligation of Federal law enforcement just to release people. It is to be able to process and find out who is a risk and who is not a risk and then to figure out how to be able to transition them. So my simple question to you is: Are your facilities designed and set up to hold thousands of people? Is that the mission of Customs and Border Patrol? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely not, Senator. We have stated that again and again and again. Senator Lankford. I have heard it, and so much of our conversation at this dais and through Congress is what we are going to do to get Customs and Border Patrol in a better position to hold more people, ignoring the obvious question: Why are we not adding additional funding to ICE? That is what they do. They do have the facilities. They do have the contracts. They do have all of the oversight there to be able to allow a lot more people to be held as they are trying to process them. So I am a little frustrated that our conversation seems to be what can we do to help Customs and Border Patrol be better at detaining people when that is not even the mission of Customs and Border Patrol. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, and that is correct. Right now, just in the past 60 days since the IG review, we have done so much. We have created four soft-sided facilities for family units alone, a capacity of over 2,000; two more soft-sided facilities are coming on for single adults, a capacity of 4,500. I could keep going. Modular systems we are setting up. I could keep going on and on. This is tens of millions of dollars a month we are spending on this. We are talking about for us to do more and for CBP to get more for these temporary facilities, when you just outlined the answer, we fund ICE. We asked for $200 million in the supplement. It was denied. And then we question why we are overcrowded. We are overcrowded because ICE does not have the funding to have the bed space as the system is designed. We are interdependent. We are overcrowded in part because HHS was overcrowded, because ICE was overcrowded. It was not being properly funded, and ICE is still not being properly funded. Senator Lankford. No, it is not, and that is part of our challenge that we have to be able to break through this. We are spending over $200 million on one soft-sided facility this years instead of giving $200 million to ICE to be able to manage all of those. So it is not only wasteful to the taxpayer; it is not fair to those men and women that are serving Customs and Border Patrol to be able to help do something that they were not first set up and trained to do to try to do makeshift facilities rather than actually to have better facility for folks to be able to go through this process. I had lots of questions there about the Flores settlement, and we have even heard some conversation on this dais that the Flores settlement is not the issue. What I heard when I was at the border was adults that are traveling with a child, when they arrive with a child and there is a 20-day clock that is ticking at that point, are we able to get criminal records from countries outside of the United States, obviously, from other countries within 20 days of who this adult is traveling with this child? Mr. Morgan. Not efficiently. Senator Lankford. So some countries can, some countries cannot. Is that correct? Mr. Morgan. That is correct. Senator Lankford. So do you have situations where you have had to release an adult because of this time period, this Flores Agreement time period, where you have released an adult traveling with a child and later discovered that that adult is a felon from that country? Mr. Morgan. I do not have those statistics, sir. Senator Lankford. I will tell you what I heard this past weekend from some of the Border Patrol folks that I talked to there on the border. They gave me two specific examples that have happened recently: that they released an adult and then found out after they released an adult with a child and then found out 2 weeks later that that adult had a murder warrant in their home country, and they just released them into the country, and they could do nothing about it. I also found out that--one of the agents was telling me they had released an adult traveling with a child, and then found out after they were released when they got the criminal records in from the home country that that was a convicted pedophile from that country now traveling with a child somewhere in our country. Because we could not detain them for longer than 20 days and we could not get those criminal records, they are released in the country, and they are traveling with a child. The other thing that I heard that I thought was interesting was it was children that were maybe 7 to 10 years old that were traveling with adult males. But when I got to the facility in McAllen last week, it was almost all infants and very young children. When I asked about that, they said, ``We were able to pull people out and separate the child from the adult, interview the child, and the child could often tell us, `That is not my dad.'" Now, with infants, you cannot do that anymore. Have the cartels changed methods? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. That is why they are a multi- billion-dollar organization, because they change and they profit from it every single time. Border Patrol alone has identified 5,800 fake families. HSI, an investigative element of ICE, has put resources down there. They discovered hundreds of fake families. The stories are happening every single day, and it is very clear. It is very clear, Senator, that they know, you grab a kid, that is your passport into the United States because of the Flores Settlement Agreement. That has to be changed, and it is going to take a legislative fix to do that. If that does not happen, all this other stuff we are talking about, the care which we absolutely have to do, it does nothing, though, to stem the flow. If we do not address the Flores Settlement Agreement, they are going to keep coming. Senator Lankford. OK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Excellent line of questioning. I want to quick follow up before I turn it over to Senator Rosen. Where are we at in terms of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) tests? Because when we were down there, there were some pilot tests of that. It is about $200 per DNA test. Are we doing more of those or is that on hold? Mr. Morgan. So ICE is in charge of that program, so they did do a pilot program. It was very successful, and they asked for additional funding in the supplemental, which they were granted. So they are going to begin to expand that program. But right now I do not know the specific details of where and when. I would have to defer to ICE. Chairman Johnson. Because we are really releasing right out of CBP, in many cases bypassing ICE. Won't Border Patrol have to do the DNA tests to try and get some handle on the fraudulent families? Mr. Morgan. Right now what is happening is ICE is actually deploying HSI agents to the Southwest Border to actually be in the stations to do that. Chairman Johnson. OK. Senator Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROSEN Senator Rosen. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, for considering my request to hold a hearing on conditions of migrant children at CBP facilities today on this critically important topic. It is vital that we work together to ensure the safety and well-being of children, so I want to thank you, Commissioner Morgan and Deputy Inspector General Costello, for your testimony, for your work, and your commitment to doing the right thing here. I asked last month for three needed reforms. I placed a hold on two DHS nominees. I am going to keep my hold in place until the facilities drastically improve. As you know, a couple of weeks ago, we went down and we visited Donna, McAllen, and Ursula, saw the conditions of the detention centers holding migrant children. They are slightly better than what was reported weeks prior, and those facilities are still no place for children to stay for prolonged periods of time--or really any amount of time. I have been advised by child welfare advocates from various nonprofit organizations that there are three immediate changes needed at CBP: one, more medical professionals with pediatric experience at CBP facilities; two, the hiring of trauma- informed child welfare professionals to ensure the best interests of the children are being met; and, three, providing NGO access to CBP facilities to assist with humanitarian efforts. Last week I sent a letter to Secretary McAleenan outlining these needs, and in spite of the urgent situation at the border, I have yet to hear back from him. So I am asking in the interest of time if you would answer these similar questions in yes-or-no fashion. So, Commissioner Morgan, who currently--well, this is not a yes-or-no. Who currently screens children for illnesses or injury after apprehension by CBP? Is it a medically trained professional? Mr. Morgan. So we have a couple areas, ma'am, that I will not quickly. So we have Border Patrol agents who, when they are first apprehended, do a first layer of screening, whether an emergency medical technician (EMT) or advanced EMT. Once they get to the processing center or the place where they are going to be held, then they are also screened. The majority of the children right now are screened by a medical professional, such as a nurse practitioner. Senator Rosen. Are they using standardized screening tools? Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am. The protocols were actually developed by a physician that we have at DHS that has designed those protocols with respect to medical standards and industry. Senator Rosen. So they are taking vital signs such as body temperature, blood pressure, and heart rate? Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am, every single one. They actually have a range of temperature they file as part of the protocol. If it falls within that range, that means immediate transport to a hospital. Senator Rosen. Do all CBP facilities have adequate working medical equipment for children? Mr. Morgan. No, all do not. We are doing it by flow and threat and need right now, but we are expanding that every single day. Seven of the nine sectors have it. Over 20 of the 70 stations have it. Every day we are putting more medical resources online. Senator Rosen. Thank you. Mr. Morgan. Supplemental health. Senator Rosen. If a child is found to be injured or sick, is there a process for them to receive additional evaluation by a health care professional? Mr. Morgan. Yes. We work with local emergency medical services (EMS), local medical facilities as well. Again, based on those protocols, if the individual is meeting those standards, we transport them immediately to a hospital. Senator Rosen. Do your medical professionals onsite at those facilities walk into pods or cells to look for sick individuals who may be too young to voice their needs, unable to ask for help, or are too afraid to ask for medical attention? Mr. Morgan. So we do do welfare checks. Whether each one of those welfare checks they actually go into the holding facilities, I would need some more fidelity on that. But there are welfare checks that are mandated by TEDS every 15 minutes. Senator Rosen. Approximately how many more medical professionals with pediatric experience and child welfare professionals do you plan to hire? Mr. Morgan. That is a good question. I would say I am welcome to anyone that you just described that continue to work with us to help us come up with that strategy and end game. We are welcome to any ideas and suggestions. But those numbers are being worked right now, again, from the physician that DHS has as the overall medical coordinator as well as other, I would say, health care provider associations. Senator Rosen. I am going to ask, is there pediatric mental health screening in detention? Mr. Morgan. Not at this time. Again, I would just say that I understand, but, I want these children out of--even the soft- sided facilities, I agree with you, ma'am, that is not where kids should be. I want them out of there as fast as possible to a more adequate environment. Senator Rosen. So who is ensuring that very young children have their basic needs met, such as diaper changing, feeding, bathing or brushing teeth? Mr. Morgan. We actually have coordinators in every one of those facilities, and the Border Patrol and other agencies that are helping with this are responsible for that. We actually have detailed logs when someone is fed, whether they receive a hot meal, a cold meal, how many times they receive a shower, etc. We have detailed logs on that. Senator Rosen. So you have expressed just now interest in working with me to make some things happen, so are you developing a policy to provide access for NGO's to CBP facilities to assist with these humanitarian efforts? Mr. Morgan. So what I can say is those have been ongoing discussions, and, Senator, I am absolutely willing to work with you to come up with a workable solution. Senator Rosen. Because we do have people willing to come in to help alleviate some of the situation and provide comfort care specifically for children. Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am, what I can say, in the 115th and 116th Congress, you have had over 100 codels, staff dels almost the same number. We have had countless numbers of IG reports and other access and reviews. So we are not shying away from-- -- Senator Rosen. But we would like to see NGO's have better access, to be sure they can evaluate children who oftentimes cannot express concern or express what is happening to them. So I would like to be sure that we are able to do that and can work with you. I have people ready, willing, and able to come to your facilities. Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am. Senator Rosen. I just have a short time left. I want to be sure that--Senator Hassan talked about abuse. Can you talk a little bit about the process for migrants to safely report any abuse that they have and if they are aware of that? Mr. Morgan. Yes, again, from the start, they have the ability from the moment that they are apprehended to report anything. What we have found, though, is once they leave Border Patrol custody, CBP custody, and they go to HHS, specifically for the children, that is when we found that most of the reporting is being done after they leave our custody. Senator Rosen. So they are not reporting there. They are reporting after they leave. Mr. Morgan. That is what the statistics show, yes, ma'am. Senator Rosen. To your knowledge, is there a confidential process there for them to report so they do not receive retaliation wherever they go in the future? Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am. It is hard to have that confidentiality when you are in a central processing center or the soft-sided Donna facility that you saw. That is why it opened. But we absolutely take every allegation seriously and do everything that we can to make sure that it is followed through and we coordinate with the appropriate entity, whether it is the IG, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), or any other appropriate entity. Senator Rosen. Do you have a specific place where the logs are kept once abuse is reported, do you have a central location where that is kept so that NGO's or other places can take a look and see what is going on? Mr. Morgan. Yes, ma'am. So we have a Joint Information Center (JIC). So anytime there is a complaint or alleged complaint, that goes to the JIC that OPR from CBP manages, and that database is kept. Senator Rosen. So if NGO's want to come in and represent someone, there will be transparency with these records? Mr. Morgan. So there is some privacy concerns with respect to ongoing investigations, but I would be more than happy to work with you offline to see where we can reach an appropriate compromise for transparency. But there are privacy concerns with respect to investigations. Senator Rosen. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Senator Sinema. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SINEMA Senator Sinema. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate our witnesses being here today. I remain extremely concerned about the recent allegations regarding the treatment of migrants at the Yuma Border Patrol station. I am committed to fixing our broken immigration system, finding solutions to the ongoing crisis at our Southern Border, and ensuring that migrants are treated fairly and humanely. The recent reports regarding what happened in Yuma clearly indicate we need to do better on all those fronts, so I look forward to our witnesses shedding light on how CBP can do better and how Congress can help do better. My first questions are for Mr. Morgan. As you know, a big part of the problem at Yuma seems to be communication between HHS and CBP. The news of the Yuma allegation broke because NBC News obtained incident reports put together by HHS case managers after migrant children had left CBP custody. But it is unclear to me if the HHS information flowed into CBP in an efficient manner and in a way that CBP could then take immediate action to ensure the well-being of these children. What steps is CBP taking or have you already taken to improve the response and ability to respond in a timely fashion to allegations that come through HHS? Mr. Morgan. Senator, you are right, I think there is definitely an area where we can improve the flow. There is an old saying: ``Justice delayed is justice denied.'' And so I think we can get better at that. Once we saw that article, we actually immediate worked with the IG. There were three separate allegations contained in the article. One of them had already been opened and was already being worked by the IG. The other two, based on the article, we opened up our own investigations. And then we went to HHS ORR to ask them about the alleged 30 that were contained in the article. What we found is that on a consistent basis ORR sends those to CRCL Division, which is good. It is another layer of oversight, because some of the allegations are not always specific misconduct of employees and may say, ``Our cell was too cold or too hot,'' which still needs to be looked upon and action. And so then we coordinated with CRCL. We found out through this process that 381 entries had been made by ORR with respect to a series of allegations. We actually obtained all 381. OPR triaged those, and because of that, we opened up 23 additional investigations. Now, having said that, the bottom line is what we are trying to do is work with CRCL and HHS ORR, and what we asked them to do and they have agreed is, as they sent it to CRCL, they also send those significant activity reports directly to CBP OPR so we can action them right away. Senator Sinema. So then, Commissioner, you are getting them in real time as of today? Mr. Morgan. I cannot speak as of today, but that is the end state, and we are working with them. Senator Sinema. OK. My second question is: As I understand, the information from HHS, as you said, enters DHS through the CRCL or through the OPR. But when OPR receives the series of allegations, how do they use that information to prevent additional incidents? So what do they do to take action, one, to protect the alleged victims at the time and then also to prevent that same behavior from allegedly occurring to other individuals? And what mistakes were made in this overall communications process that you all have learned from that you can fix and change for the future? Mr. Morgan. So through OPR--we also work with them, and so it is not just about the investigations, but then it is also-- once it has been adjudicated and effective discipline has been handed down, we also look at that and analyze that and then take that back to the field to see, hey, are there other areas that we can improve upon. So it is not just about handing down the discipline, as you said. It is about taking corrective actions to get better at what we do to try to prevent any other incident from happening in the future. As far as the coordination and control, again, as I explained, it is continuing to work with CRCL, it is continuing to work with HHS ORR to make sure we have a streamlined system as far as reporting. What we have asked them to do is give that, and that goes directly into our JIC that I talked about a minute ago, and then it gets actioned immediately. Senator Sinema. For children who have alleged sexual abuse, that obviously is quite different than an allegation that a cell is too cold or someone does not have a blanket. One you rectify by changing the temperature and providing a blanket. The other, alleged harm may have already occurred with the resulting trauma that comes from that. What actions are taken to provide appropriate mental health care to children who may have been traumatized by these alleged sexual assaults? Mr. Morgan. Again, I would have to refer to HHS ORR because once they are released from our custody and the allegation is made, as far as continued care for that child, it is really outside our purview. Senator Sinema. OK. My next question is for Ms. Costello. According to the news reports--and we just mentioned there were 30 allegations of issues at the Yuma facility that flowed from HHS to DHS. Did your office get to see all these complaints right when HHS transmitted them to DHS? From your perspective, how could the information sharing between HHS and DHS as well as between components of DHS be improved? Ms. Costello. Thanks for the question, Senator. We did get your letter on this matter. I think Mr. Morgan has accurately described this process, and your letter and the news reports caused us to go back and take a look as to how this was working, and he is correct. HHS is getting the allegations to the Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Office, who is passing them on to CBP. And then because of our right of first refusal, they are coming to us. We are going to start taking a look into that as a result of your letter. I think my staff is scheduling a meeting with your office to see can that be improved. There was such a large number of allegations here, and I know we knew about some of them. As Mr. Morgan said, we actually opened on one of them. But it does seem to be a more systemic issue--right?--that is more appropriate for one of our other offices to start taking a look at as opposed to individual investigations. So we are going to be following up with your staff and to try to get some answers to those questions that you posed in that letter. Senator Sinema. Thank you. Back to Mr. Morgan, strictly from a personnel perspective, what changes need to be made so that CBP can more effectively manage he overcrowding that we are experiencing at some of these facilities? Do we need a different mix of people working at these facilities? More training? Do we need more social workers, more medical personnel? What is it that we need in order to address allegations and prevent them from occurring in the future? Mr. Morgan. Ma'am, two different things, allegations and overcrowding. The overcrowding, I will continue to go back to we need Congress to pass meaningful legislation to stem the flow, and that will impact the overcrowding. But specifically to allegations of misconduct, again, I will go back. I think that these allegations are rare instances, although one is more than enough. We are committed to working with CRCL, IG, to make sure that those cases are investigated thoroughly and that appropriate disciplinary action is taken, and that those individuals, to the best of our ability, are removed from those areas right away. Senator Sinema. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. My thanks to you and our Ranking Member for calling this hearing, and our thanks to both Mr. Morgan and Ms. Costello for your work and your presence. My colleagues to my left have heard me talk about root causes so often that I am sure they are sick of it, and perhaps some of the folks in the audience are as well. But we are going to be sitting here asking these same questions 5 years from now, 10 years from now, unless we address the root causes for why these hundreds of thousands of people want to get out of their countries and get into our country. We have asked questions of a lot of people in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, ``Why are you trying to leave your country and make it to the United States?'' They basically say three things. They say, one, lack of hope, lack of economic opportunity in their native country; two, crime and violence; three, endemic corruption. Endemic corruption. Until we help them satisfactorily address those causes, they are going to keep coming. The Chairman has heard me say this before. We traveled together in Central America and on the border, and it is a little bit like Home Depot. What they say at Home Depot: ``You can do it. We can help.'' We cannot do this for them, but we are responsible for it by virtue of our addiction to drugs. We are largely--not entirely but largely responsible for the conditions that force a lot of people, compel a lot of people to come to our country. So I would just say this as a predicate. A couple questions, if I could, for Mr. Morgan. Ms. Costello, if you want to correct him, you are welcome to do that. But, Mr. Morgan, can asylum seekers currently apply for asylum or refuge protection in the United States without leaving their home countries? Mr. Morgan. No. Senator Carper. Alright. Would you support the creation of an in-country processing program to allow asylum seekers to avoid making the dangerous journey to our Southern Border? Mr. Morgan. Yes. Senator Carper. Why? Mr. Morgan. So we talk about and you talk about, sir, the root cause, identifying the root cause of this. We have to stem the flow. Asking someone to either claim asylum, apply for asylum in their home country, or the first country they come to outside of the country that they are alleging they are fleeing persecution from will do just that. It will stem the flow. Again, the overwhelming majority of the individuals that come to our border that are claiming fear are found to be unsubstantiated, meaning they came here as an economic migrant and they did not come here with respect to the technical definition of asylum, persecution, and fear of persecution based on race, ethnicity, and religion. It would absolutely, almost overnight, begin to stem the flow. Senator Carper. Ms. Costello, would you approve this message? I know this is not necessarily your area of expertise, but go ahead. Ms. Costello. That is what I was going to respond. As the IG, the situations outside this country, the push-pull factors, are really beyond our jurisdiction. Senator Carper. I understand. Ms. Costello. So we cannot---- Senator Carper. I just thought I would give it a shot. Ms. Costello. Thank you very much, Senator. But we cannot comment also on those policy decisions, but what we can commit to is evaluating the effectiveness of the programs once they have been established. Senator Carper. That is good. Thank you. Mr. Morgan, another question for you if I could. You recently served as the Director of ICE, and I just would ask: Is it reasonable to think that ICE could detain every undocumented immigrant in this country through their removal proceedings? Are there other programs like alternatives to detention that are less costly and could be expanded for non- criminal immigrants? Mr. Morgan. So I do not think it is reasonable to say that every single individual that is here illegally in the United States would ICE be able to detain. No, I do not think that is realistic, although I still think they need enhanced funding to increase their ability to detain a greater population. With respect to other innovative ideas, I think we need to continue to talk, I think we need to continue to come to the table to talk about other effective ways besides detention. But what I will say is, though, the stats will show that if they are detained, it is more efficient, more effective, the entire process. In the non-detained docket, to include alternative detention, it has not proven to be fruitful, and it is actually quite costly, and the end result, we are having people that remain in this country illegally. Senator Carper. Would you support expanding alternatives to detention in order to reduce the strain on CBP resources at the border? Mr. Morgan. Again, sir, I think my response to that is I would be committed to having a discussion with you about, continued alternatives, because we are overwhelmed, ICE does not have the appropriate funding. What I would like to be able to have a discussion about is where can we come maybe to a happy medium, to increase funding to ICE, to increase the bed space immediately, so that we can get some relief at CBP, while at the same time maybe come up and discuss alternatives to detention. Senator Carper. We would call that a ``compromise'' around here. Mr. Morgan. It is hard to see that sometimes, sir. Senator Carper. Actually, we reported out a bipartisan compromise, a 5-year surface transportation bill this morning on a 21-0 vote, and so there is hope in a hopeless world. My colleagues and I have traveled to Central America together, and I look forward to going back down there again. One, if you look at the flow of folks coming out of those three countries--Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--a big part of the problem in Guatemala is agriculture-related, people who grow coffee in the highlands. And they have had drought after drought after drought, year after year after year. They are bailing out of there to try to get out of there so they can make a living, and they see they have some opportunities here. But if you look at what is--the outflow from El Salvador is not as great as it has been from Guatemala and Honduras. What is happening, one of the things that has happened--this is a lesson for them and for us. They have elected a new President in El Salvador who is, I think, 37 or 38 years old. Bukele is his name, and he was mayor of San Salvador, a city of 2 million people, for a number of years and ran for office. He succeeded a 75-year-old former guerrilla leader. I think the people in that country feel a sense of hope. Meanwhile, in Honduras, Juan Hernandez, the President, about a year or so ago basically asked his supreme court, appointed by him, to declare their constitution unconstitutional so he could run for another term. He won, allegedly, reelection by a narrow margin. The people there are still outraged, up in arms, and they have had it. If you go over to Guatemala, Jimmy Morales, the President there, for whom I had high hopes, has turned out to be an enormous disappointment with respect to corruption, family corruption, all kinds of things, and he is basically going to be done, gone, by the end of this year. But the people in that country are just fed up with the corruption that is going on, and we cannot be silent about--our administration and we in Congress, and when we go there, we need to speak out. We need to speak truth to power. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to traveling perhaps later this year with you and Senator Peters to go down there and get a fresh look at what is going on. The last thing I will say, things are really galling in Guatemala. The former attorney general there, Thelma Aldana, who is highly regarded--she was attorney general for a number of years. She was death on corruption, and when she wanted to run for President, they basically would not let her in the country. They kept her out of the country. She could not run. Just shameful. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Senator Carper, I think we are going to be traveling down to Central America in October, so I would love to have you join us. I think it was interesting, Commissioner Morgan's comments about his meeting with the government officials down there, the same comment we heard in 2015 from both Presidents of Honduras and Guatemala. ``Fix your laws that are attracting young people. Really, we are losing our future to America, so fix those laws.'' That has been a consistent theme. Now, I think at the same time Central America does like the remittances, but I think they are starting to realize that depopulating their countries is not a real good deal for the long-term future of those nations. So hopefully we will be on the same page. You talk about compromise. I am always looking for areas of agreement. It is a lot easier. Senator Peters, do you have a couple questions? Senator Peters. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morgan, it is my understanding that CBP is conducting a pilot program to train Border Patrol agents as asylum officers to conduct credible fear interviews, and I would just like to have a little bit more information on the pilot program. How long is the training for these participating agents? Mr. Morgan. I am not sure what the duration is. That is really set by USCIS and their standards. Senator Peters. So could we get that information? I would like to have that. Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. Senator Peters. How many of these agents have been deployed to date and to what locations? Mr. Morgan. I do not have those numbers. Senator Peters. You will get those for me as well? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. Senator Peters. So you probably do not have the answer to this as well. Once deployed, what percentage of their time is spent conducting interviews? Mr. Morgan. Again, I do not have that information, but I will get that to you. Senator Peters. Do you know why this pilot was initiated? Was it because of a lack of asylum officers at USCIS? Or was it for the goal of reaching different outcomes? Mr. Morgan. My understanding, it was a lack of USCIS asylum officers. Senator Peters. If that is the case, would you agree that we should be investing in the hiring and training of additional USCIS asylum officers? Mr. Morgan. Yes. Senator Peters. If the USCIS had additional capacity and these Border Patrol agents no longer are needed to conduct these credible fear interviews, would the agents in the pilot program be able to return back to line and patrol duties? Mr. Morgan. I would like that very much. Senator Peters. That would be your intent if that happened? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Peters. Is the officer wearing a uniform and carrying a gun when they conduct these interviews? Mr. Morgan. They would be wearing a uniform and carrying a gun. Senator Peters. They would be? They would be in traditional--or their regular uniform? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Peters. Do you know if the CBP is seeking to expand this program and train additional officers to conduct credible fear interviews? Mr. Morgan. My understanding is we are, but I will get back to confirm that for you. Senator Peters. So in addition to that, we would need to know how many officers that you are expecting. I do not believe you would know that at this point, either, so---- Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. Senator Peters. So we would need to have more detailed information on this, and I appreciate working with you and your staff on that. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Peters. What has been striking to me in the discussion about detention standards is that there seems to be a great deal of variability in the experience that lawmakers have when they go to the border. We hear different stories from different lawmakers, administration officials, lawyers, advocates, and perhaps all these experiences could be true because the situation on the ground obviously changes on a daily basis, and conditions can deteriorate very rapidly. So, Ms. Costello, my question to you is: What is your take on the variability across sectors and even detention locations within a sector? What type of challenges does this pose for you as the OIG in identifying recommendations for an enterprise improvement program across the entire enterprise? Ms. Costello. So the experience of our inspectors has been that it changes rapidly, and I can give you an example, although we have not publicly reported yet on our observations in Clint. We actually went there in April, and we did not see some of the things that were reported on later on. I am not saying that they did not happen. It is just I think that is a good illustration of how quickly things can change. Another example from our reporting is what I testified to earlier, that on one day we had a facility with 125 maximum capacity at 750. The next day it was up to 900. So I think that is absolutely accurate, that you can go down and visit a facility and have a very different experience the next day. In terms of pinpointing root causes, that is going to make it difficult, and it is part of the reason why this effort has led us to look not at the push-pull factors outside the country, but led us to initiate work that is going to look at those drivers behind the 72 hours and why we are not meeting that standard currently. Senator Peters. Mr. Morgan, given this is a rapidly changing environment, could you describe how CBP retains visibility into facility standards and standards of care across these sectors given the rapid change that we can sometimes see? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. So TEDS is our guiding factor, just as it was for the OIG during the review. So every single facility uses that standard that was developed in 2015 for the care and feeding with respect to anyone in our custody. Senator Peters. Ms. Costello, the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), plays an often overlooked role in facilitating the collaboration between multiple IGs. We have heard in testimony today this has to be a whole-of-government approach across a variety of agencies and IGs. Has CIGIE made any changes to how the OIG community coordinates various oversight of border security efforts in particular that you are aware of? Ms. Costello. Not CIGIE in particular, but we have a very solid relationship with HHS OIG, with GAO, and with the Department of Justice (DOJ). As we have been doing our work on the border starting last summer, we have been in close contact with them. Now, we cannot share specific findings if they have not alerted their own departments yet and reported to you, but in terms of how we are doing our work, exploring opportunities for joint efforts and the like. Senator Peters. Is there more you can do and help that you might need from this Committee to do it? Ms. Costello. Let me think about that, Senator, and we will get back to you. I think right now we have a positive relationship with the other IGs, and everybody is really committed to working together in space. But we can take that back to the office and think about if there is any other avenues that we could pursue and any help you could provide. Senator Peters. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks to both of you for your testimony today. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters. By the way, if you have to go vote, I am happy to close out the hearing. I have two lines of questioning here before we close out the hearing. I kind of want to go back to a line that Senator Lankford was talking about, the problems of releasing people that come across the border illegally rapidly into our country without really knowing who they are. It is just a reality. Our laws prevent us from holding people more than 20 days, and because we cannot get the information, we are probably releasing them even sooner than that in many cases. Correct? Mr. Morgan. That is absolutely correct. With respect to family units, since March of this year, the United States Border Patrol has been releasing family units directly. So in some cases, they are being released in under 48 hours into the interior United States. Chairman Johnson. Because it really does not make a whole lot of sense to try and find the facilities to hold them for 20 days with this overwhelming flow. So instead of Border Patrol turning them over to ICE for a more thorough vetting process and then ICE releasing them, Border Patrol is doing it directly. Mr. Morgan. That is correct. Chairman Johnson. That represents a real danger to not only potentially our country but to those individuals. Mr. Morgan. Especially with the amount of fake families that we are uncovering every single day. Chairman Johnson. It is true that we really do not have time to determine is that the father or is that the human trafficker? Is that his daughter or is that his trafficking victim? Mr. Morgan. It is a challenge. Chairman Johnson. So our broken laws are creating risks for these migrants, and so we do focus on that time in custody. Again, nobody would say these are really pleasant surroundings, this is exactly where you would want to spend the night. Nobody would want to spend the night in those conditions. But the reason we hold people in custody is we do need to take some kind of precaution in terms of where they are released, but even with the precautions we are trying to take, it is overwhelming the system, and people are put in danger, correct? Mr. Morgan. Not only are they put in danger, sir, but, again, that is one of the largest pull factors, and it is not going to stop. We have been talking a lot of stuff. Should we improve on our care and quality of that? Absolutely. But we are still not addressing--that is addressing the symptoms. That is not addressing the actual disease. We need to stem the flow, and as long as our laws are where they are, you are going to grab a kid, that is your passport into the United States. They know that in the Northern Triangle countries, and they are exploiting that every single day. Chairman Johnson. So let us talk about in my mind there are really three categories of people coming to this country illegally and being apprehended or port of entry claiming asylum. You have single adult males, which used to be the problem, the vast majority. Then you had people coming in as a family unit, generally one adult, one child. And then you have unaccompanied children. Let us start with the unaccompanied children. My information shows me of the 780,000 people that have come in illegally at the ports of entry, about 67,000 are unaccompanied children this year. Mr. Morgan. That is correct. The number is even a little bit higher. Chairman Johnson. In the past, the composition of those unaccompanied children would be 70 percent are male, 70 percent are 15 or older. Is that composition holding largely true of the unaccompanied children? Mr. Morgan. Yes, and the majority of them are between 14 and 17. Chairman Johnson. So, again, if they are more than 15, is they are male, certainly that would be the profile of an individual that might already be a member of a gang from Central America. Correct? Mr. Morgan. That is correct. Chairman Johnson. Or if you come into this country, you cannot speak the language, you probably gravitate toward those areas, those pockets of other immigrants that speak your language that would be gravitating toward gang activity. Correct? Mr. Morgan. Your vulnerability to be recruited by a gang is exponentially higher under those circumstances. Chairman Johnson. I am reading reports of the issues that schools are having to cope with. It is not just bilingual education. Now it is not only bilingual but different dialects from some of the mountain regions of Guatemala. Is that a problem? Mr. Morgan. Yes. Chairman Johnson. In terms of the family units, the children coming in--and, again, you talked about 300,000 children, so you have 67,000 is unaccompanied children. Then you have over 200,000 is part of a family unit. Those would be children more of tender age, right? Which would be defined as, what, 12 and under or 14 and under? Mr. Morgan. It is changing on a regular basis, but we do find them to be a little bit younger. But I will have to follow up on the stats. Chairman Johnson. I asked a question earlier about DNA testing. The few pilots or the few tests we have had show what percentage of people coming in that we determine are a fraudulent family? Do you have any sense for that right now? Mr. Morgan. I do not have the overall percentage, but we do have the numbers. Right now, Border Patrol, 5,800; and HSI, part of ICE, they have identified hundreds since their pilot program of pushing agents forward. Chairman Johnson. When I was down with Senator Peters and Senator Hassan, I saw about a 40- or 50-year-old man with about an 18-month-old girl, and, listen, I know children can be fussy. Having just talked about the fraudulent families, I have to admit I just looked at that situation right there, and that is not his daughter. And then we heard testimony from HSI of a child being sold for $84 to be used by an adult to get in this country and exploit our laws. Mr. Morgan. That is correct. Chairman Johnson. I mean, those are just the realities that are occurring here. When we talk about how do we improve the situation, one of the questions you have to ask, what do you design the facilities to hold? What number do you use? Do we use 1.1 million people coming in here annually? Do we go back a couple years and have it be a couple hundred thousands? Ms. Costello, what would your advice on that? Do we just assume that this is going to hold at 1.1 million people per year or potentially grow? Ms. Costello. I do not think you can assume that. Even just looking at the past statistics over the past years, it fluctuates. We are experiencing a rise in families this year based on the Department's statistics. So, without being able to really concretely weigh in on that, I would say that relying on any one of these numbers is probably not a sound idea. Chairman Johnson. Commissioner Morgan, what numbers are you using as you are looking forward? You are obviously putting up temporary facilities. That Donna facility--by the way, those are, for temporary facilities, very nice facilities. That gives people, I think, a fair amount of comfort that Border Patrol is really actively working to improve conditions. But that is not cheap. Mr. Morgan. We are spending tens of millions of dollars; we are probably on target to spend around $700 million, which a lot of that came from the supplement, on those soft-sided facilities. Sir, if I could, Senator Peters asked me a question about whether the pilot program for Border Patrol agents, whether they were uniformed or not when they were doing the credible fear interview, and I misspoke. My staff actually told me that they are actually not uniformed and they do not carry a gun. Chairman Johnson. OK. I will actually inform Senator Peters of that. Mr. Morgan. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Again, just going back to my question in terms of how are you designing the system, are you assuming the 1.1 million flow? Do you think that is the smart thing to do? Or do we just design a system where it really can be flexible, that if the flow is reduced, we can adjust? Mr. Morgan. So that is a tough question because, again, CBP, sir, as you well know, has so many interdependencies, both on HHS for the unaccompanied minors and then ICE for all the other demographics. It really does depend on how we come together to address this problem. If we are not going to have meaningful legislative fixes and we are not going to fund ICE for beds, well, then I have a different solution. But if you are going to tell me that Congress is going to fund more bed space for ICE to include family residential centers, now we have a different proposal. That is the conundrum we are in right now. We say we are a police station and we say we are not a long-term holding facility, but we are somewhere in the middle. We are interim custody. We are not short term or long term, but a lot of it depends on what Congress is going to do. Chairman Johnson. So alternative to detention sounds good, but isn't it true that an ankle bracelet on somebody who does not really have a permanent address, we do not know where they really came from, we do not know where they are really going, those are easily cutoff and that is basically what people do? Mr. Morgan. That is exactly right. Again, I do not want to speak for another agency, although I was there for a short period of time, but statistics will show that alternatives to detention, it is not productive, and it actually costs exponentially more per removal on the non-detained docket, on alternatives to detention, than it does to detain them. So financially it is also a challenge. Chairman Johnson. I would call that ``counterintuitive,'' but there is the reality. You talked about funding. As a fiscal conservative, I was a leading proponent early on of providing government agencies with the funding they need to take care of the situation. On a telephone town hall last week, I realized that was not a real popular position. Again, very legitimate concerns on people on the call saying, ``That is $4.6 billion to close out the fiscal year. How better could we spend that money?'' People need to understand the cost of apprehending, processing, and dispersing this overwhelming, out-of-control flow of illegal immigrants? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, and I think the American people need to understand, $3.5 billion of that supplemental funding went to HHS for children, 300,000 this year. So what the supplemental did, and people need to understand, is it did not address the crisis at all. It did not stem the flow at all. What it did is it just improved our ability to more equitably and efficiently bring these kinds into the interior United States in a humane way. Chairman Johnson. Again, that supplemental emergency spending does not cover the full fiscal year. It is not going to cover the costs for 2020. It just filled in the gap to address the situation. So let us just very quickly, before I have to go vote, talk about really what the solution needs to be. First of all, what is the first goal of our policy? I would argue it is to reduce that flow. Would you both agree with that? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. Chairman Johnson. When I was down at the border, I talked to the Border Patrol and asked them, ``What is the solution?'' You get a pretty consistent answer: ``We have to remove people that do not have a valid claim.'' And to be a consequence, to be a deterrent, so that others will not indebt themselves to human traffickers, will not mortgage their home, will not pay a year's worth of salary to these, let us face it, evil people. OK? Evil people. We talk about the Feinstein amendment to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which creates a disparity in how we handle unaccompanied children. We cannot voluntarily return them in a safe situation to their--because we just cannot do that. We also talk about the Flores reinterpretation where--the Flores Settlement really applied to an unaccompanied child. I think her name was Jenny Flores?-- back in 1985. It took a long time to come up with the settlement and how we handle unaccompanied children. Then in 2015, because of a lawsuit, the Obama Administration--and you were probably there--decided to detain children with their families, and a court said, no, the Flores standards apply to accompanied children as well. If you take a look at our chart\1\--it is not up there now--that is really the moment where this was really sparked, and once people realized if you came into America with a family unit, you are going to get to stay. Even though Deferred Action on Childhood Admissions (DACA) does not apply to any people in the future, that was used by coyotes to say we have changed our laws, come on it as an unaccompanied child or as a member of a family unit, you get to stay. And that has been the reality. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 485. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would argue the thing that we really have to address is that gap between--in terms of our asylum laws--the credible fear standard, which lets people in the front door, takes them into this adjudication process where, I hear different numbers, but at least 800,000 backlogged cases in the immigration courts, correct? Mr. Morgan. Correct. Chairman Johnson. I was told that we adjudicated last year a little more than 30,000 immigration cases of people coming in as family units from Central America, about 30,000. About 3,000 were granted asylum; the others were denied. So that is about a 10-percent rate. There is a real problem when we let all these people in and only--and, again, nobody really knows the number here. We really do not know. But somewhere around 10, probably no more than 20 percent, actually had a valid asylum claim. I would argue the law change--and it is going to require Congress to act. The law change has to close that gap, has to be to close that gap. Would you both agree with that? Mr. Morgan. 100 percent, Senator. You hit all three major elements that Congress must do to fix this crisis and stem the flow. It is a credible fear, as you just described. It is TVPRA where we treat kids different from Mexico and Canada than other countries, and the Flores Settlement Agreement which says we mandated we have to release unaccompanied minors and children within 20 days. Those are the three fixes. Chairman Johnson. It is also true that we are releasing I think 79 percent of unaccompanied children to a person in the United States that is undocumented. Correct? Mr. Morgan. I do not know the specific stat, but that is happening every single day. Chairman Johnson. We are only able to remove 70 percent of people that we do not detain. We just do not know where they are. Correct? Mr. Morgan. Sir, that is another reason why we want to detain, is on the non-detained docket it is extremely difficult, once these individuals have a final order of removal, to go and apprehend them. Chairman Johnson. The solution is we have to look at that credible fear standard. We have to raise the bar on that initial hurdle. We need to squeeze all the inefficiencies out of that initial adjudication process so that we can, again, more rapidly, but I would argue more accurately and fairly-- because we do not want to deny asylum to people who really qualify. Mr. Morgan. Sir, I would even say that by streamlining this process, as you just described, that is exactly what we will do, is that we will actually be able to more efficiently actually find those that have actual valid asylum claims and take care of them appropriately. Right now they are getting lost in the system with all the false and fraudulent claims. Chairman Johnson. So that is the goal of this first step, Operation Safe Return. Again, I do not know what is going to happen with the safe third country. With Guatemala, I think they have to approve that through their legislature. Who knows what kind of court challenges both here and in Guatemala may occur? Operation Safe Return uses existing authorities--we have spoken with you and the other component heads within DHS--to implement that program, to start it, again, to rapidly and more accurately determine those individuals that clearly do not have a legal claim to stay and safely return. From my standpoint, that is what we are going to continue to work on. We have bipartisan support for that initiative. I just ask you to do everything you can to work with us on that, implement it, take a look at is it working, are we able to remove those individuals, to be a deterrent to reduce that flow. Assess how it is working, make adjustments, and move forward, and hopefully at some point in time we can get the bipartisan support to change our laws to actually fix this once and for all. Anyway, I want to thank both of you for your service. I want to thank the men and women of DHS and Border Patrol and ICE, all of these individuals trying to cope with this out-of- control situation. I view them personally as heroes, and I hope they stay on the job. I hope they continue doing a good job, and I truly am grateful. I think this Committee is as well. I think you heard that voiced by most members. So if you will convey that back to your component, I would appreciate that. Mr. Morgan. I will. They absolutely are heroes, and I thank you for that, and I will make sure that they know that, Senator. Chairman Johnson. Again, I am glad in your testimony you pointed out some of the heroic actions. We have heard other similar situations as well. The hearing record will remain open for 15 days until August 14th at 5 p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] UNPRECEDENTED MIGRATION AT THE U.S SOUTHERN BORDER: THE YEAR IN REVIEW ---------- WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2019 U.S. Senate, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Johnson, Portman, Lankford, Scott, Hawley, Peters, Carper, Hassan, and Rosen. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON\1\ Chairman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appear in the Appendix on page 565. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to first thank the witnesses for taking the time for your thoughtful testimony. I want to thank the audience members. I am not sure why you are not over on the House side, but we appreciate--it must have been paid staff. But I appreciate everybody coming here. This is, from my standpoint--the hearing title is ``Unprecedented Migration at the U.S. Southern Border: The Year in Review.'' But what I would like to do is I would like to actually start with the decade in review. I would refer everybody to my chart.\2\ This is a chart that I have been really updating for probably the last 3 or 4 years, I think as long as you have been on the Committee. I think it is important to kind of lay out what the history has been, certainly from my standpoint some key moments, key policy changes that I would certainly argue contributed to what I do consider an ongoing crisis, even though we have made some progress. But that chart reflects all minors and people coming into this country as family units. Earlier versions only focused on Central American children and family members. So initially, in 2009, 2010, and 2011, we had 3,000, 4,000, and 4,000 unaccompanied alien children (UAC). We were not even keeping track of families because it was not a problem. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appear in the Appendix on page 601. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2012--and, again, I would consider that a pretty seminal moment--was the issuance of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) memorandum, which I would argue by testimony was used by the coyotes, by the human traffickers, to help incentivize people. They would tell them, ``The United States has changed its policy. You come to America, you get a piece of paper called a `permiso,' '' which was a notice to appear (NTA). Again, I know others may dispute this, but I think it is pretty obvious that that certainly started something. Fast forward to 2014. 2014 was really the year when President Obama very accurately described a humanitarian crisis on the border when 137,000 unaccompanied children but also people coming as a family unit crossed the border and overwhelmed Customs and Border Protection (CBP). I remember leading a congressional delegation down there in early 2015, down into McAllen, Texas, and we were all singing the praises of Customs and U.S. Border Patrol (USBP), the humanity they were showing, the ingenuity they were showing in setting up a facility to separate children from adults, to make sure the children stayed safe. Now those same facilities are called ``cages,'' very improperly so, because I think, if anything, we have gotten better at it. It is just the problem has grown so much more severely, as the chart shows. In reaction to the humanitarian crisis of 2014, the Obama Administration said that they had to do something. There had to be a consequence. So they began detaining those families and those children together to adjudicate their claims, and it worked. You can see we went from 137,000 in 2014 down to 80,000 in 2016. But then a court intervened, as courts are continuing to intervene in this problem, and reinterpreted the Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) I think clearly incorrectly. The Flores settlement dealt with unaccompanied minors, and now for the first time a court said, oh, no, it also includes accompanied minors. So now the government was faced with the fact that if we want to enforce the law, we are going to have to either detain the adults and release the children, or we have to release the families. What the Obama Administration decided to do is they released the families, and that began what was referred to as ``catch and release,'' and you see the results. It went from 80,000 in 2015 to 137,000 in 2016, 117,000 in 2017, and 181,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2018. It was ramping up. We started talking about caravans. Unfortunately, folks on the other side of the aisle started referring to it as a ``manufactured crisis.'' I started producing this chart on a monthly basis. I actually went so far as to put it on a cup so I could distribute this to the news media so they would not just take my sheet, crumple it up, and throw it away, to start pointing out, no, this is not a manufactured crisis, this is something real. This is something overwhelming the courageous men and women of Border Patrol, the compassionate men and women of Border Patrol, who are just trying to deal with something that is, again, overwhelming. In May, we hit the high-water mark of the current crisis: 4,651 individuals per day were crossing the border illegally. Now, that is the total number. That is not just women and children but families. Four thousand six hundred fifty-one per day. We no longer heard people talking about manufactured crisis. In May, what I started doing with my chart is I started extrapolating, saying if this continues at May's levels, we would end up with over 800,000 unaccompanied children, people crossing the border as a family unit, 800,000. Now, the final results--and that is what this is all about, the year end in review. What was the final accounting? In the end it was 608,000 people who came to this country either as an unaccompanied child or as a family unit compared to 137,000 when President Obama declared it a ``humanitarian crisis.'' I think we have hopefully laid to rest that this is a manufactured crisis. We have brought it down in terms of the averages--why don't you put up the next sheet here? This is kind of my weekly report. I come from a manufacturing background, so I like to see what my daily, my weekly, my monthly, and my annual statistics are. So, again, we went from May of 4,651 per day to in September we went down to 1,749 on average. Now, what is not shown here because for some unknown reason this is law enforcement sensitive, but members on the Committee have this in front of them, the last week I have figures on-- and I can say this figure--it averaged about 1,372. So we have gone from 4,651 to less than 1,400. But I will never forget an interview that Secretary Jeh Johnson, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary under President Obama, gave to MSNBC a few months ago. He said when he would come to the office and the numbers were more than 1,000, he knew he had a really bad day. So we are still 372 on average in one day over Secretary Jeh Johnson's ``really bad day.'' So, again, the purpose of this hearing is to lay out the reality, talk about where we were, where we have come, but I would also say describe what happened. Why did we go from--how did we get from 4,651 a day, how have we come down to less than 1,400? What else needs to be done? Maybe an even more important question, what threatens the progress we have already made? I have to say I go down to the border, the individuals coming across here, the vast majority just want what we want. They want safety and security, and they want to take advantage of the opportunity. I am highly sympathetic with that, but it has to be a legal process. We have to get the illegal flow under control, and it is far from under control. My last point, I want to thank Senator Peters and other Members of the Committee and some other colleagues on the other side of the aisle that worked with me. In the end, Senator Peters decided not to sign the letter of support for Operation Safe Return. There is a program initiated right now--hopefully Mr. Morgan will talk a little bit about that--of basically how can we more rapidly and more accurately determine those individuals that have come to this country illegally or without documentation that clearly do not have a valid asylum claim and safely return them back to their home country? The big contribution that Senator Peters made to that conversation was, well, if we are going to do something with that, let us gather the data. Let us figure out what is happening. And so what I am hoping we are going to get out of this hearing is certainly some of the data. How many of these claims have been adjudicated from Central America? How many of those individuals actually have a valid asylum claim? Because if we are going to address this problem, from my standpoint the biggest problem is we have such a low hurdle, that credible fear standard, that we just wave everybody in. The courts are completely backlogged, and a very low percentage of those individuals that we wave in that just end up melting into our society, we do not know where they go. By and large, we do not know where they are. But in the end, they do not have a valid asylum claim. We should not have ever waved them in. We have to increase that initial hurdle rate. But we need the data in order to actually enact public policy. So, again, what I am hoping is going to come out of this hearing is better data, but then also, as we move forward with some of these programs that have shown some success--not enough, but some success--let us develop the data that will inform public policy, and then hopefully, in any problem- solving process, you gather the information, you define the problem, you define the root cause analysis, you set an achievable goal. Hopefully we can come together on a bipartisan basis and develop some real solutions on a bipartisan, hopefully nonpartisan basis. That is the whole purpose of all of these hearings on border security, but in particular, it is the purpose and the goal of this hearing. So, with that, I will turn it over to Senator Peters. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\ Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses here today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix on page 566. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am proud to say that, over the past year, our Committee has been able to come together on a bipartisan basis to examine the migration and humanitarian challenges that we are facing at our border. We have found compromise and passed common-sense legislation to address staffing shortages at the borders and ports of entry (POEs), strengthen security at both our Northern and Southern borders, and ultimately make our country safer. In June, we came together to unanimously advance my bipartisan bill to strengthen border security and address law enforcement shortages at ports of entry throughout the country. Last month, the full Senate approved my bill to hire more agricultural inspectors and canine units to protect the Nation's food supply from harmful contraband. Last week, our Committee approved important legislation led by Chairman Johnson to support the U.S. Border Patrol by hiring new agents and support staff, improving retention, and providing medic training to agents that could save lives. And just yesterday, I had a chance to see CBP officers and canines in action at Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and I was stunned to hear the number of seizures that they make to keep our country safe every day. I am proud that the men and women of CBP at Detroit Metro are leading the Nation when it comes to the interdiction of harmful biological material that is coming across the border. In fact, Detroit Metro has been the number one intercepting port for the last 2 fiscal years with more than half of all interceptions at ports of entry nationwide. Detroit Metro has also pioneered training programs that have been deployed nationally with positive results being generated in Boston, Newark, and Dulles. They also told me that, among all airports nationwide, Detroit Metro is second in the Nation for discovery of wood packing material containing very harmful pests that can damage the lumber industry and agriculture across the board. These species pose certainly a significant threat. The CBP officers and canines in Detroit are doing phenomenal work to protect Michigan and the rest of the country from harm, and I am proud to support their efforts every day. This past year, however, has posed many challenges for our border security professionals. The situation on our Southern Border and throughout Central America is dynamic. Our border security efforts should certainly reflect that fact. Often this administration's border security policies have been shortsighted. If we are going to successfully address both the conditions on our border and the root causes that are driving this migration, we need to take a comprehensive approach that looks at the data and finds common-sense solutions to address these very serious challenges. I appreciate our witnesses for joining us here today and for their commitment to serve our country. I also recognize that addressing border security and humanitarian challenges requires stable and effective leadership. I am deeply concerned--I think that concern is shared by the Chair and everyone on the Committee as well--by the lack of Senate-confirmed leaders in nearly all of the top leadership positions at the Department of Homeland Security. In fact, we have three Senate-confirmed positions before us, and all three of you are Acting, not Senate-confirmed. I will continue to call on this administration to nominate qualified leaders for these vacant positions who can gain broad, bipartisan support in the Senate. The men and women of DHS and the American people deserve stability; they deserve accountability that comes from nominating and confirming qualified leaders that can ensure that the Department can carry out this national security mission in a Senate-confirmed position. That permanence and stability is absolutely critical. I look forward to hearing your testimony. Thank you again for your service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Senator Peters, and you know I completely agree with you in terms of getting individuals nominated and confirmed. The good news here is I think we do have some very highly qualified individuals in these acting positions, so that is also a bit of good news. It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if you will all stand and raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you. God? Mr. Morgan. I do. Mr. Cuccinelli. I do. Mr. Benner. I do. Mr. McHenry. I do. Chairman Johnson. Please be seated. Our first witness is Mark Morgan, who is the Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. Acting Commissioner Morgan began serving his country as a U.S. Marine and his community in local law enforcement. After completing a 20-year career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), he began service in the Department of Homeland Security as the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Internal Affairs before being appointed by President Obama as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. He served as Chief until 2017. He returned to DHS as the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in May of this year and began his current role as Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection on July 7. Mr. Morgan. TESTIMONY OF MARK A. MORGAN,\1\ ACTING COMMISSIONER, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Morgan. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to be able to inform the American people the truth about the unprecedented crisis we have experienced along the Southwest Border during fiscal year 2019, as well as the remarkable and noteworthy successes by the current administration and the incredible men and women of the United States Customs and Border Protection. I am honored to speak on behalf of the men and women of CBP who are on the front lines of our Nation's borders defending the rule of law, maintaining the integrity of the immigration system, and protecting the safety and security of this great country, all while simultaneously playing a critical role in ensuring our economic security as well. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Morgan appear in the Appendix on page 568. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you will recall, earlier this year we sounded the alarm at the border crisis and asked Congress repeatedly to act to fix the loopholes in our broken immigration system and close the gaps driving the crisis. Unfortunately, not a single piece of meaningful legislation has been brought forward to address this crisis. As a result, the country watched as the crisis worsened. Although we have made great progress, I am here today to respectfully remind this Committee and the American people that there continues to be a humanitarian crisis and, importantly, a national security crisis. In fiscal year 2019, CBP's enforcement actions exceeded 1.1 million nationwide, an increase of 68 percent over the previous year. The total number of apprehensions along our Southwest Border exceeded 978,000, an 88-percent increase over the previous year's apprehensions. The United States Border Patrol alone apprehended more than 473,000 family units, representing the highest number for any year on record. The number of unaccompanied children encountered between the ports totaled more than 76,000, 52 percent higher than any other year. There is no immigration system in the world designed to handle such massive migration numbers, not even the United States. Challenging still is the demographics of those illegally entering our Southern Border, as the Chairman discussed. In 2019, 71 percent of all Southwest Border apprehensions came from the Northern Triangle countries, the vast majority being families and unaccompanied children. They are being pulled into the United States by the loopholes in our current legal framework. They know if you grab a kid, that is your passport into the United States, and it was working, all while the human smuggling organizations and cartels exploited them, placed them in life-threatening situations, and treated them as nothing more than a money-making commodity, a multi-billion-dollar scheme. The impact was real. As the Chairman stated, in May of this year we saw our highest numbers, more than 140,000 apprehensions in a single month. CBP had to divert resources away from their mission-critical duties to care for the children and families. At times, up to 50 percent of Border Patrol resources were pulled off the line to care for the families and children, leaving areas of the border increasingly vulnerable. Meanwhile, the cartels and smuggling organizations were exploiting those law enforcement gaps, increasing the threat to our national security. Last year, more than 150,000 migrants who illegally entered the United States got away. The transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) are not only exploiting the migrants themselves, but also flooding the United States with illicit narcotics making their way into every town, city, and State in this great Nation. Make no mistake: If you have a methamphetamine in your town or city, it came from the Southwest Border. In the absence of congressional action, the administration has taken action. Through engagement with the government of Mexico and Northern Triangle countries, we have initiated a network of initiatives, policies, and regulations to stem the flow of migration. Together we are approaching this as the regional crisis that it is, and we have seen incredible success. The last 4 months in fiscal year 2019 we saw an almost 65-percent reduction in the apprehensions, with September marking the lowest number of enforcement actions during the entire year at just over 52,000. By mid-year, CBP was holding almost 20,000 detainees in custody. Now we are averaging less than 3,500 a day in custody. At the height of the crisis, CBP apprehensions at times exceeded 5,000 in a single day. Now we are averaging less than 1,400. We have all but ended catch and release. But our success at addressing the humanitarian crisis should not overshadow the national security crisis. Last year, CBP officers and Border Patrol agents seized more than 750,000 pounds of illicit narcotics. CBP's air and marine operations (AMO) contributed to the seizure of an additional 285,000 pounds of cocaine. Seizures of the four hard narcotics-- fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine--all increased. Last year, there were more than 68,000 overdose deaths in the United States. We know that methamphetamine has seen significant resurgence as super labs in Mexico are taking over production and flooding the United States with cheaper and purer forms of meth. Additionally, CBP seized nearly 3,000 weapons, 1,000 gang members, $75 million of illicit currency, and apprehended 16,000 criminal aliens, and this is just what we caught. Chairman, I know I am running over time, but if I could just make a couple more comments? Chairman Johnson. Go ahead. Mr. Morgan. The apprehension numbers are still at unacceptable levels. Chairman Johnson, as you stated, the former Secretary of DHS, Jeh Johnson, stated, ``One thousand apprehensions was a bad day.'' He was absolutely correct, and that still stands today. I am concerned that the good story I am able to tell this morning regarding the migration crisis has allowed some to take their eye off the ball, but this crisis is not over. Due in part to the judicial activism encountered from the lower courts, we are one bad court decision away from losing a significant ability to continue to mitigate the current crisis. Additionally, we cannot rely solely on our partner nations to resolve our broken immigration system. To obtain a lasting and durable solution, Congress must act. As I sit here today as a law enforcement professional, over 30 years of service to this country, I am absolutely perplexed why Congress cannot come together in a bipartisan manner to fix this. We know the cartels and human smuggling organizations are exploiting the migrants as they make their journey here. They are giving up their life savings, turning themselves over and often their children over to the hands of the smugglers, often abused and deprived of adequate food, water, and medical attention during their trip. We know because we averaged 71 hospital visits per day in 2019. Add that up, I think that is roughly over 25,000 hospital visits. They leave them--the smugglers and cartels leave these immigrants in rivers to die. They leave them in open harsh terrain to die, in tractor- trailers to die. The Border Patrol last year conducted 4,900 rescues of immigrants who the smugglers abandoned to die. We also encountered 24 bodies along the Southern Border, including skeletal remains. I have told this story before, and I think I told it in front of this very Committee, of a paraplegic man whom smugglers threw in the water to avoid apprehension without giving it a second thought. We know children are being rented and recycled and presented as fake families. Last fiscal year, CBP identified over 6,000 fake family members, impacting over 1,834 juveniles. We had a Honduran man who bought a child for $80. Why did he do it? Because the loopholes in our system told him and the smugglers made sure he understood you grab a child, that is your passport into the United States. It is our broken immigration legal framework which is providing an incentive, driving the crisis. We have been asking--I feel like I have been begging--for Congress to act. If Congress continues to fail to come together across the aisle, more children and families will be placed in harm's way by the cartels, and the criminal networks, both domestic and abroad, will continue to negatively impact the public safety throughout this Nation as bad people and drugs make their way into our Nation every day. We need your help. We are asking for your help. We have been asking for your help. The only winners here by inaction, by not passing meaningful legislation, are the cartels as they continue to thrive and increase their multi-billion-dollar business on the backs of migrants. Please, join us in doing everything we can to target these smuggling organizations, to target the cartels, and to put them out of business. We can start by eliminating their ability to advance their multi-billion-dollar business on the backs of migrants and at the cost of American lives. I sincerely thank you for this opportunity, and I am looking forward to addressing any of your questions. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Thank you for that testimony, and it is certainly my intention and I think hopefully the intention of Members of this Committee to do everything we can. We need the information, so, please, help us get this information. I think you have done a good job of laying out that reality, which is the first step. We need to acknowledge the reality, and then we need to work with real information in terms of how we actually do fix this problem. So, again, I appreciate your testimony. Our next witness is Ken Cuccinelli. Mr. Cuccinelli is the Acting Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) at the Department of Homeland Security. From 2010 to 2014, Mr. Cuccinelli served as Virginia's Attorney General (AG), where he led the State's fight against human trafficking. He also previously served in the Virginia Senate from 2002 to 2010. Mr. Cuccinelli. TESTIMONY OF KENNETH T. CUCCINELLI,\1\ ACTING DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Cuccinelli. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the incredible and important work the men and women of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have been doing over the last year. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Cuccinelli appear in the Appendix on page 580. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In fiscal year 2019, USCIS achieved many of President Trump's goals to make our immigration system work better for America. As an agency, we have tirelessly worked hand in hand with our fellow DHS components to answer President Trump's call to address the ongoing crisis at the border. In the absence of congressional action to close the loopholes that are being exploited and have led to the crisis at the Southern Border, we have taken significant steps to mitigate the loopholes in our asylum system, to combat fraudulent and frivolous claims, and to strengthen the protections we have in place to preserve humanitarian assistance for those who are truly eligible for it. USCIS had a historic year in fiscal year 2019. I am proud of the agency's work over the fiscal year and want to mention a few of the agency's notable accomplishments. USCIS adjudicated more than 8.2 million requests for immigration benefits, and we have seen a rising level of complexity in those adjudications as well. This workload represents the full spectrum of benefits that our laws provide to those who seek to come to the United States--whether temporarily or permanently--as well as those who seek to become citizens of this Nation. It also includes work continuing to process Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and DACA after courts have interfered with our lawful attempts to terminate these programs, time and resources that should be spent adjudicating lawful immigration benefits instead. USCIS naturalized approximately 833,000 new citizens last year--the most in more than a decade. USCIS granted lawful permanent residence to 582,000 individuals and completed more than 78,000 affirmative asylum applications. The agency also performed more than 40 million verifications of employment eligibility through the E-Verify program. On the Southern Border, USCIS felt the impact of the crisis, receiving more than 105,000 credible fear referrals-- 5,000 more than the previous year and a new record high. To put that in some perspective, just 5 years ago, still on the front edge of what is considered the crisis, 2014, USCIS received approximately 51,000 credible fear referrals, and just 10 years ago, USCIS received approximately 5,000 credible fear referrals. So you can see the nonlinear rise in that measure of the crisis at the border. During any given week in fiscal year 2019, 150 to 200 of our officers were assigned to process cases arising from the Southern Border, including approximately 40 to 60 assigned to process cases in person at the Southern Border. USCIS took significant actions that will result in protecting American taxpayers by publishing a Final Rule on Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, a rule that enforces the longstanding law to better ensure that those who come to, or remain in, the United States are self-sufficient and not dependent on public benefits. Public charge has been a part of our immigration statute since 1882. Unfortunately, DHS was preliminarily enjoined from implementing and enforcing this final rule. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and DHS are vigorously defending the final rule in litigation before Federal courts, and I am confident that, as we continue to do as these things go through courts, we will prevail in that. USCIS continues to expand our online filing capabilities with over 1.2 million applications filed last year, a 10- percent increase from the previous year. USCIS added four of our important forms for a total of eight now available for online filing with additional forms planned to be added this year. The men and women of USCIS are working extremely hard to transform a paper-based agency into an electronic agency that takes full advantage of the capabilities of the 21st Century, all while maintaining our records in a secure fashion, even as our threats evolve. In the coming year, USCIS will continue to use every tool available to us to fulfill President Trump's goals to strengthen our Nation's strained immigration system and alleviate the crisis at our border while continuing to fairly and efficiently adjudicate applications and petitions of those seeking lawful status in the United States. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to answering any questions that you might have. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Director Cuccinelli. Our next witness is Derek Benner. Mr. Benner is the Acting Deputy Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Benner has served in a variety of positions within ICE since he began his law enforcement career with the U.S. Customs Service in 1991. Before becoming Acting Deputy Director, he served as the Executive Associate Director for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a position in which he oversaw the investigative component of ICE that combats transnational criminal organizations. Mr. Benner. TESTIMONY OF DEREK BENNER,\1\ ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Mr. Benner. Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to review U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's efforts for fiscal year 2019. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Benner appear in the Appendix on page 585. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will echo my colleagues when I say that the unprecedented crisis we saw on the Southwest Border certainly stressed our immigration system to its breaking point, and the administration clearly took necessary actions to address it. The face of this breaking point, though, is an example which tragically illuminates the humanitarian cost of an unsecure border. It involves an adult Guatemalan male who presented at the border with a minor female whom he fraudulently claimed to be his child. Since law enforcement could not detain as a result of the Flores Settlement Agreement, they were released into the interior of the United States. He then moved the minor female to the southeastern United States where he repeatedly sexually abused and beat her on a regular basis until she was, luckily, rescued by law enforcement. Sadly, this is just one of many examples of this fraud, exploitation, and violence associated with this unprecedented crisis. Like any crisis, we are certainly not measured by the crisis itself but how we respond. I appear before you today proud to represent the men and women of ICE who responded to the call and whose efforts significantly curbed the migrant influx which overwhelmed our borders. Our response to this crisis was not without consequence. The sustained increase in illegal migration has stretched resources thin across the U.S. Government. The administration was faced this year with responding to the humanitarian crisis at the border at the expense of other vital law enforcement missions. While the border dominated the headlines, the achievements of ICE over the last year were not defined by the crisis, nor were they limited to the border. Across the country and around the globe, ICE personnel remain steadfast in their critical mission--protecting America from cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threatens national security and public safety. Today I will highlight ICE's two robust operational directorates responsible for protecting the people of this great Nation. ICE's Homeland Security Investigations investigates and enforces more than 400 Federal criminal statutes, and we work in close coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and our State, local, tribal, and Federal partners in a unified effort to target transnational organized crime. Over the past year, HSI's special agents arrested over 46,000 individuals, with more than 37,500 of them being criminal arrests, exceeding last year's record by over 3,000 criminal arrests. HSI made 4,000 arrests of gang leaders, members, and associates, including over 400 arrests of MS-13 members. HSI continued to be at the forefront in the fight against the opioid epidemic and prioritized the investigation, disruption, and dismantlement of TCOs involved in introducing fentanyl, heroin, and other dangerous opioids into the United States. In fiscal year 2019, HSI and our CBP partners seized over 11,000 pounds of opioids, including over 3,600 pounds of fentanyl, while at the same time making over 2,000 fentanyl- related arrests, which was an increase of nearly 175 percent from the prior year. HSI also continued to protect our citizens from crimes of exploitation by arresting over 3,600 child predators and over 1,800 human traffickers, while at the same time identifying and assisting more than 1,400 victims of these heinous crimes. These efforts pay immediate dividends when considering the long-term damage these criminals can inflict upon their vulnerable victims. All of these accomplishments were achieved despite the fact that HSI sent 400 personnel to the border to assist with combating the migrant influx. Agents who would otherwise be investigating criminal organizations were deployed to initiate a rapid deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) pilot utilizing supplemental appropriations from Congress that allowed for over 10,000 DNA tests at seven locations along the Southwest Border. During this deployment, agents conducted interviews of members of suspected fraudulent family units to disrupt the disturbing practice of children being used as pawns by ruthless human smuggling and trafficking organizations. These efforts resulted in the identification of over 1,000 incidents of family unit fraud and false UAC claims, which also led to over 1,000 criminal prosecutions. As a result of these efforts, HSI has seen a marked decrease in the number of fraudulent family incidents over the past few months, indicating that our joint efforts have impacted the use of the fraudulent families to circumvent our Nation's immigration laws. ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) ensures the integrity of our immigration system and enhances our national security and public safety by enforcing the Nation's immigration laws in a fair and effective manner. While ERO's targeted immigration enforcement operations focus on the interior of the country, changes in migration flows at the border directly impact nearly every area of the agency's operations, including interior enforcement resources and detention capacity. As a result of the activity at the border, much of ERO's limited detention capacity has been dedicated to housing aliens arrested by CBP at the border, many of whom are subject to mandatory detention under U.S. immigration laws. Certainly this shift in resources and ERO's arrest of aliens in the interior decreased by almost 15 percent, to include a decrease in the number of criminal aliens arrested. Simply put, more criminals who would otherwise be in ICE custody or removed from the country are at large in our communities, many of them violent recidivists, as a direct result of the border crisis. Despite the operational environment of extremely limited resources, ERO has continued to focus on its public safety mission. In fiscal year 2019, ERO officers arrested nearly 140,000 aliens of which 86 percent were convicted criminals or had pending criminal charges. The safety of the courageous and dedicated men and women of ICE is paramount to our agency. When local jurisdictions refuse to work with us or obstruct our lawful enforcement of the laws that this body has passed, it increases the risk to every community in this country. In just one example from Boulder County, Colorado, ICE officers recently found and arrested a 56-year-old illegal alien who had been released from local custody twice after ICE detainers were ignored. The alien was arrested on local charges and then released, subsequently arrested for felony sexual assault on a child and again released. He was convicted of sexual assault in July of this year and remained at-large until ICE apprehended him in August 2019. Not only do these policies impact public safety by releasing criminals back onto the streets to reoffend, but also the safety of both the individuals we are arresting and our own officers and agents whose goal it is to effectively enforce the law in a manner that is safest for all parties involved. It is much safer for officers and the public to have ICE apprehending aliens in the secure environment of a jail or police station rather than in a residence in the presence of family and friends. Unfortunately, despite our collaborative efforts at the border, the crisis does not start and stop at the border. It extends into the interior of the United States. Between the illicit flows of opioids and the mass influx of aliens, almost every community in this country is now a border community. While our partners at CBP appreciate a temporary decrease in the migrant flow, ICE is not so fortunate, as our personnel, particularly our attorneys and deportation officers, will be managing this unprecedented increase in immigration cases for years to come. An already overburdened immigration system now must deal with the massive influx of aliens and their immigration court proceedings, The ICE ERO docket is now over 3 million, a population managed by a workforce that is short thousands of deportation officers and hundreds of attorneys. Contrary to some public opinion and in the face of those who wish to attack those of us that represent the men and women of DHS, we remain vigilant enforcing the laws that Congress has passed. The extraordinary men and women of ICE will continue to reinforce our efforts in protecting the communities each of you represent from criminal aliens, terrorists, drug dealers, human trafficking, gang members, and organizations who attempt to exploit our borders. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear this morning, and I look forward to answering your questions. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Benner. Our final witness is James McHenry. Mr. McHenry is the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) at the Department of Justice. Mr. McHenry previously served as Acting Director from May 2017 to January 2018. He previously served in a variety of positions throughout the Federal Government, including an administration law judge (ALJ) for immigration matters, and is a Deputy Associate Attorney General for immigration-related litigation matters. Mr. McHenry. TESTIMONY OF JAMES MCHENRY,\1\ DIRECTOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. McHenry. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and other distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. As the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the Department of Justice, I welcome this opportunity to share with you the progress that EOIR has made in adjudicating cases, the continuing challenges it faces, and the overall impact of the unprecedented levels of illegal immigration on its operations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. McHenry appear in the Appendix on page 596. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The primary mission of EOIR is to adjudicate immigration cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and administering the Nation's immigration laws. Our employees are firmly committed to this mission, they have performed commendably in improving the functioning of our immigration courts, and I am honored to lead them. After 8 consecutive years of declining or stagnant productivity between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2016, EOIR recently concluded its third consecutive year of increased immigration court case completions. In fiscal year 2019, EOIR completed over 275,000 cases at the immigration court level. This represents the second-highest total in the agency's history, an increase of roughly 80,000 case completions from the prior year 2018, and is almost double the number of cases it completed just 3 years ago. Even accounting for factors such as hiring recency, 150 of our immigration judges completed at least 700 cases last fiscal year, and the average immigration judge completed 708 cases, despite losing 5 weeks to the government shutdown. Perhaps most importantly, this increase in productivity did not lead to an increase in allegations of judicial misconduct. Although we have solved some of our more intractable problems of the past decade, including hiring, productivity, and technology, our progress is, nevertheless, threatened by challenges emanating from the continued surge of illegal immigration at the Southern Border. For many years, the immigration court caseload, which currently stands just under 1 million, increased due to factors primarily within EOIR's control, namely declining productivity by immigration judges, insufficient hiring, and a lack of institutional emphasis on the importance of completing cases in a timely manner. Those factors, however, are now being successfully addressed. More recent increases to the caseload, though, have been driven largely by external factors. More specifically, in fiscal year 2019, the Department of Homeland Security filed approximately 443,000 new cases with the immigration courts. That is the highest single year number in EOIR's history. On average, four out of every five removal cases filed in immigration court will conclude with the alien required to leave the United States through either an order of removal or an order of voluntary departure. This means that statistically the majority of cases may not involve a viable claim that allows an alien to lawfully remain in the United States. However, the presence of these cases on EOIR's already crowded dockets diverts resources from more effectively addressing those claims that are meritorious. In particular, significant increases in recent years in cases involving asylum applications, unaccompanied alien children, credible fear claims, and aliens who fail to appear at their hearings have taxed our resources to an unprecedented degree. Our immigration system faces numerous challenges, and the current level of illegal immigration is foremost among them. EOIR shoulders significant downstream effects of surges of illegal immigration at the border, and those effects in recent years have placed a marked strain on its resources. To combat these effects, the Attorney General has brought important clarity to the law through case adjudications, and the Department of Justice is actively defending against challenges that would otherwise erode the integrity of our immigration laws. EOIR continues to adjudicate cases fairly and expeditiously at unprecedented levels, but fair and efficient adjudication alone will not resolve the crisis at the border. It is imperative that Congress act as well. The Department has proposed numerous changes that would strengthen the immigration system as a whole, including consolidating Federal appeals in one circuit, clarifying the so-called categorical approach, and revising statutory language that the Supreme Court has found unconstitutionally vague. We stand ready to continue to work with Congress to strengthen existing laws and to more effectively address the many challenges facing our immigration system today. Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have. Chairman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. McHenry. I am going to actually do some questioning. Normally, I defer, but there are a couple things that popped out of me. Mr. Benner, you talked about an ERO docket of 3 million. Mr. McHenry, you talked about a 482,000 pending caseload but a little under a million backlog. Can we start reconciling what these numbers are, what they exactly mean? Mr. McHenry. I will defer to Mr. Benner regarding the 3 million ERO caseload, but my understanding is that would include cases that are already final but still have to be processed or reviewed. On our side, as you know, the caseload has increased almost exponentially over the past decade, but it has increased considerably in the past 3 years. Most of that increase appears to be driven by changes to the border. Our judges are adjudicating cases as efficiently as they possibly can, and as I alluded to, we have made significant improvements in that area. Chairman Johnson. But, again, the pending caseload or just the most recent ones, that is about half of the million. What are the other half a million? Mr. McHenry. Those are cases that were filed in a prior fiscal year. Those are cases--some of them may have been up on appeal and have come back, or they are cases that are just taking that long to adjudicate. Chairman Johnson. OK. So pending is just this year's cases? Mr. McHenry. No, pending is all cases that were pending as of the end of the fiscal year. Chairman Johnson. OK. Mr. McHenry. They could have been filed that year or filed in a prior year. Chairman Johnson. We have also over time--I think we stopped doing this, administratively closing some of these cases. I think there were hundreds of thousands of those that have been administratively closed over the years. Is that true? Mr. McHenry. There are right now approximately 320,000 cases that are still administratively closed. They are not included in that 1 million total. Chairman Johnson. OK. And then, Mr. Benner, the 3 million cases, those have been adjudicated, so those are off the Department of Justice docket, kind of in your lap. So they have been adjudicated, and they have basically been ordered for removal, correct? Mr. Benner. Correct. So it is a little confusing saying ``on the docket,'' but the 3 million would be inclusive of EOIR numbers plus the added--the delta, the difference there is people that maybe have already been through their adjudication process; they have already been in front of an immigration judge (IJ); they have an order of final removal, a lot of them in absentia. Recently, with the expedited docket of the family units, 86 percent of the final orders of removal were ordered in absentia, meaning no one showed up. Chairman Johnson. Which brings me to the next question. To what extent do we know where the 608,000 people are from that chart.\1\ I guess the chart is not up there anymore. Now, again, I am just talking about the children and family units that came in last year. Do we know where those people are? Again, when I was down on the border, I realized they give addresses, but then they do not necessarily show up. So can we comment on the extent that we actually keep track of where they are that have come in illegally? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appear in the appendix on page 601. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Benner. So, no, we do not, largely, as evidenced by the fact that those families were issued a notice to appear; unless they are put on some form of alternative to detention or monitoring system, we have a higher rate of knowing where people are. Chairman Johnson. But that is a very low percentage that are on alternatives to detention (ATDs), correct? Mr. Benner. Right. Our capacity I think is around--I want to say 160,000 people in fiscal year 2019 went through the ATD process, whether it was ankle bracelet monitoring, phone check- ins, and other technology. So, no, smaller percentage. Chairman Johnson. Do we have some feel, Mr. McHenry, in terms of the successful asylum claims after the adjudication process? Because I have heard different things, as low as 9 percent, 15, or 20 percent. What is the best information we have in terms of these family units coming in? Again, I am really focusing on that problem in terms of successful asylum claims. Mr. McHenry. The overall asylum grant rate right now is about 20 percent. Historically, it has been below 25 percent for the past 4 or 5 years. The rates for some of the Northern Triangle countries are even lower, but it is basically one out of five at this point. Chairman Johnson. OK. Again, that makes sense to me. People are coming to improve their lot in life. I am highly sympathetic with that, but that is not a valid asylum claim. I was surprised but not shocked in our threat hearing last week where we had the Director of the FBI, somebody from DHS, and somebody from the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). Not one of those three individuals even mentioned gangs in their written testimony. I brought it up, so there was some oral testimony about that. In light of what we saw in Culiacan with El Chapo's son being arrested and then the Mexican Government just having to give him back because of what the drug cartels did, the murder of the nine Mormons, to what extent is that drug cartel, that kind of violence, how has that already spilled over the border? I would think it is certainly, in terms of gangs, the drug distribution where--again, those people just turn themselves in. They overwhelm the system, which allows a lot of people to get away. I would think those would be gang members, maybe drug kingpins, maybe, people that are going to--so as soon as we put somebody away, they can bring somebody else in to manage an operation. So can you describe to what extent is that spilling over the border? Are we at a greater risk for that spilling over the border in a more extensive manner? Whoever wants to--Mr. Morgan? Mr. Morgan. Sir, I can address a little bit just from a statistics standpoint. I mentioned in my opening in fiscal year 2019 Customs and Border Protection apprehended over 1,200 gang member from 20 different gangs, the majority of them being MS- 13. So we know and every local law enforcement in this country knows that the main tool that the drug-smuggling organizations use are gang members to distribute their drugs throughout---- Chairman Johnson. That is who you apprehended. Any estimate of how many you did not? Mr. Morgan. That is the question that we do not talk about enough. We conservatively, sir, estimated 150,000 individuals illegally into this country that we did not catch. And you just think about---- Chairman Johnson. In one year? Mr. Morgan. In one year, 150,000. Those are the individuals who are running from the Border Patrol agents, who are trying to avoid apprehension. So the intellectually honest conversation we need to have is there is a good chunk of those people, that 150,000, are bad people, criminal aliens coming in, gang members coming in. The numbers are staggering, and everybody in this country should be alarmed by that. Chairman Johnson. Do we have within law enforcement--again, I could not get this out of the FBI Director or the witnesses last week. Do we have some estimate of how many gang members are in this country? And is that a growing number? Are we successfully battling that? I could not get that answer. Can anybody here offer one? I am out of time, but---- Mr. Morgan. I would say I would hand it over to Derek from the domestic law enforcement. Mr. Benner. So we do not, sir, have really good statistical reporting on the number of specific types of gang members. So MS-13, for example, we have been focusing on for the last 2 years in particular, and the estimates have been in the range of 8,000 to 10,000 MS-13 members. We have been working with the El Salvadoran national police, though, to try to get a better understanding of the flows both out of the United States through DHS and ICE's removals and investigations, but then also understand what the population is in El Salvador that may be looking to travel. Chairman Johnson. So just a quick response. Is it your sense that this is a growing number, a growing problem? Something that is contained? I just want some kind of sense in terms of the threat level. Mr. Morgan. It is not, from our perspective it is not contained, and it is growing. Again, the cartels, specifically the Mexican cartels, they thrive off the gang members as part of their distribution node and network throughout this United States. They need those gang members to infiltrate every town, city, and State in this country to further their drug scheme that they do. So from our perspective, the numbers are not getting better, and, again, we need to talk more, Chairman. You mentioned about the numbers we do not catch. So that is why it is a little bit harder to---- Chairman Johnson. We will pick up on that. I am way over time. Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morgan, effective training ensures that our Border Patrol agents execute their mission with the highest degree of professionalism. Both initial and continuing training sessions I think keep them out of costly and very time-consuming disciplinary investigations. When they are in those investigations, they are not on the line, and that is what we want them to do, is to be on the line and be able to do that professionally. I do not see the need for training as a criticism in any way for the men and women who serve in these critical roles; rather, I think it is a recognition that they are in a very challenging environment and an environment that is highly dynamic as well. If you look at the Department of Defense (DOD), they do not put folks out into harm's way without extensive training. Certainly when it comes to private industry, they regularly train so their employees understand that is the best way to increase productivity, is having training schedules as well. So my question to you is: How many hours of training do new Border Patrol agents receive? Mr. Morgan. So we have two major topics. One is Custom Border Protection Officers (CBPOs), and then United States Border Patrol agents. So Border Patrol agents get in excess of about 700 hours of training. CBPOs get a little bit less than that, but only because some of the areas' requirement for the Spanish language is not as great. If they are going to be assigned to those ports, then they get additional, I believe, around 80 hours, so that gets them up about equivalent to the Border Patrol. So you are looking at in excess of 700 hours of basic training. Senator Peters. That is prior to them going out, they get 700 hours. Is there a continuing education every year for them? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. It is really two different facets. One is specific to their continuing education specific to their job skills and duties. And then there is another which we have all employees do. A couple of those would be continuing ethics training, annual integrity training. We just developed some new social media training, training on Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2018 (TVPRA), et cetera. Senator Peters. How many agents have faced disciplinary action in the last 2 years, approximately? Mr. Morgan. So approximately in the last 2 years--it has been consistent. Around 3,500 have received some form of disciplinary action. That is a long list and it varies, but about 3,500. Senator Peters. Would you agree that effective training programs can help reduce the incidence of misconduct and the disciplinary action that takes them off the line? Mr. Morgan. Absolutely. I always say, great organizations remain great because they obsess over two things: leadership and training. I will say training is part of that, but I also think that well-thought-out and articulately communicated policies and plans and tools. I think another big area is resiliency training and programs as well that helps that. Senator Peters. What enhanced training do the agents receive or reforms did CBP undertake after the widely reported misconduct involving inappropriate social media use and harassment that I know you are aware of? Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. That is a good question. So shortly after that, I am really proud of the CBP team. They really got together across the board, across all different components, and developed a first-time ever social media training package that was mandatory for every single CBP employee, and that course was launched on July 22 of this year, and I am happy to say that we had a 99-percent completion rate of that training. Senator Peters. All right. Thank you. The next question is really for the whole panel. If they would interject, I would appreciate it. The administration has implemented a number of policy and operational changes that have had significant effects on individuals attempting to seek asylum in the country. These changes include metering and the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), which have forced thousands of families and their children to wait in some pretty dangerous areas in Mexico while they wait for their claims to be heard. In addition, the administration implemented the asylum ban for non-Mexican migrants who transit through Mexico, rapid deportation pilots, and has allowed Border Patrol agents to do asylum screening interviews. I want to say first off our most important responsibility is always to keep our Nation safe. That has to be number one, and I know all of you four gentlemen share that. But we can also secure our borders and ensure that families fleeing persecution and violence also have a fair process. I think we can do both. That is something that we can do as a country. So in light of the many reports detailing kidnappings, sexual violence, extortion, disappearance, and murder targeting at migrants returned to these areas, my question is: Is DHS considering revisiting the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPPs)? Any thoughts about that given some of the things that we have been seeing? Who wants to take that? Mr. Morgan and then anybody else after. Mr. Morgan. So, sir, I can speak to that briefly. On the MPP, first I think we have to quickly--what are the reasons why that started? So at one point, CBP, we had over 20,000 individuals in our custody. Our capacity is about 4,000. It was overcrowded. It was unbelievable. Now, and largely because of MPP, we have about 3,500 people in our facilities. The overcrowding issue has all but evaporated. So now let's look at MPP. What I can tell you the facts are, just recently the Department of State along with the International Office of Migration (IOM), other advocacy groups, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) actually went to Mexico and visited several shelters. Two of those shelters were found to have persistent law enforcement presence. One had National Guard. One was run by a church organization, the other by the government. They were under capacity. They did not have adequate food and medical attention, et cetera. What we are hearing--so those are some facts. The other facts, IOM, who has a more methodical and structured approach to the information and intelligence they are gathering, because they actually interview the migrants, their MPP, and ask them if they want to voluntarily return. They are saying that if they stay in the shelter environment, those things are not happening. The issue that we are receiving, yet still somewhat anecdotal, is that the issue becomes when the individuals in MPP leave the shelter environment and either go out in the economy on their own and/or what we are seeing is they are reengaging the human-smuggling organizations to then come back and reenter illegally. We have about a 9-percent recidivism rate. The information we are getting is that is the area where they are being exploited again with respect to that. Senator Peters. Does anybody else want to add to that? [No response.] Do we have data there or are these anecdotal stories? These are certainly very troubling reports that come out, and again, back to our point--and you and I have spoken about this a lot. Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. Senator Peters. What is the data to actually support what you are saying? Mr. Morgan. So that is the tough part, and I think you are spot-on. We should try everything we can, sir, to get that data. That is what makes this tough, is that the data just is not there because we are dealing with another country. A lot of the information we are talking about is anecdotal. Again, we are trying to go and revisit these shelters. Again, an interagency group of nonprofit organizations were dealing on a daily basis in the field level with our Mexican counterparts to get that data. The data is just not there. Those reports are not being substantiated by the Mexican military or the National Guard, so it is hard for us to get the data. The data that we can get is that, again, we were at 20,000 in May and now we are down to 3,500 in custody. The data was in May 140,000 apprehensions. Now we are averaging 1,400 a day. A large reason for that is because of MPP, and Mexico has for the first time stepped up and agreed to really meet us as partners and see this as a regional crisis. Because of that partnership, we are seeing our capacity go down. We are seeing our apprehensions go down. That data I have that shows MPP is effective. Senator Peters. All right. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. I will just add, I was handed a note by staff. Apparently a group--and I do not know anything about this group, Human Rights First--issued a report and said there were 343 cases of violence or threats out of 57,000 individuals that have gone through the MPP program. So, again, every one is a problem, but 343 out of 57,000 kind of ties into what I think Mr. Morgan was talking about. But, again, I would like to enter that report into the record,\1\ and we will check and see the veracity of it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The report referenced by Senator Johnson appear in the Appendix on page 603. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Morgan. And just real quickly--and this is important-- anytime anybody, any person that is enrolled in MPP, if they have any concern, any fear at all, all they have to do is come to a port of entry and express that, and they will be given due process. Chairman Johnson. Senator Lankford. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD Senator Lankford. Gentlemen, thank you. Thanks for the work that you are doing. Thanks for standing up for the laws of the United States. You do not hear enough, and so let me add a voice that I hear a lot in my State, that people are incredibly grateful for the work that is happening, and understand we have laws in our country, and you and your teams are stepping up and enforcing the laws that are on the books. So thank you for doing that. I listened to some of the current debate nationally, and there is a move to be able to transition DHS to being more like greeters at the border than they are law enforcement at the border, and I am grateful that we have law enforcement folks there and for the stories that you have already told about some of the dangers and the risks that are there. I have a whole series of questions, but I want to start first talking about with ICE. When I was down at the border last July and talking to CBP folks that were there, I said, ``What do you need?'' The very first thing that most of them said is, ``We need ICE to get more funding. We need ICE help.'' They are doing soft-sided facilities, which I want to be able to speak to you about, where we are on that status right now. But there was a pretty big push to say that the biggest issue that CBP has is not enough capacity with ICE. I understand there are some battles. There is a whole group of folks saying they want to abolish ICE or de-fund ICE and not have it at all. But what do you need at this point to greater be able to manage a surge of people coming at us next summer? Mr. Benner. So two things, Senator. Number one, detention beds. Detention capacity is a really big issue that affects the whole ecosystem of enforcement of our immigration laws, and as Commissioner Morgan can attest, the funding levels of beds, for example, in fiscal year 2019 was 45,000 and change, including 2,500 beds for family residential centers (FRCs). We were operating at a high of almost 58,000, well over our appropriated levels, and, of course, we do want to live within our means. However, the operational reality in responding to the crisis really forced us to make some decisions about, how to acquire more beds---- Senator Lankford. Do you have the capability to be able to surge up numbers if you were given additional funding to be able to do that, as far as the location of facilities that are quality facilities? What they are managing right now on the border when they had up to 20,000 people with 4,000-bed capacity, they are trying to be able to manage, they are not going to just release people on the street, which we thank you for doing that, to be able to help manage what you get. But do you have the capability at ICE to be able to surge facilities up? Mr. Benner. Yes, sir, and we will not bring a bed online unless it meets all of our high standards for ICE. So sometimes the challenge in identifying beds is making sure that they meet the standards that we are committed to putting detainees into. I will say one example of some proactive planning would be the ability to have a certain number of beds available and empty in almost like an emergency preparedness posture, so like Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), for example, stores supplies and assets and things that they would need to respond to a natural disaster. We should have 5,000 beds that are ready to go to immediately address a spike in numbers at the border. And so those beds, that is going to cost money, but they are empty and they are available and they are ready to go in the case of an emergency. Senator Lankford. So let me push that cost money. Do you have a guess of what that might on cost? Have you all started looking at that? Mr. Benner. I do have estimates, Senator, and I am happy to provide those to you or actually come---- Senator Lankford. Glad to be able to talk about it. Let me switch over. The soft-sided facilities that CBP had to do to be able to ramp up, to be able to manage the capacity, they are around $200 million a year to be able to ramp--that is a pretty big cost on it. But there was no place to be able to go to be able to ramp up. What is the status on those? How many soft- sided facilities do we have? I have visited some of those facilities. They are great facilities, and they are well managed, they are well run, they are fully stocked. How many of those do we still have and what is the capacity on those soft- sided facilities? Mr. Morgan. So we still have multiple facilities independent of what they are. So we have facilities that are designed for families. We have families designed for single adults. And we also have facilities for the temporary hearing facilities to support MPP. It is costing a tremendous amount of money every single month. You and I have talked about this, sir. What I am concerned about, though, is I do not want to look up the definition of insanity in the dictionary and have a picture of a soft-sided facility. We have to change how we do this. I think Acting Deputy Director Benner said it best. We need a surge capacity. We are looking for bipartisan support in the future, to establish permanent hard-sided facilities in strategic locations along the Southwest Border that are multi- use, multi-purpose buildings, that gives us that capability to instantaneously turn on the lights and give us that surge capacity, so, one, we are not in a position we were this year where we did have to release individuals into the cities and towns, tens of thousands on a regular basis, and we are avoiding the definition of insanity of just having to ramp up soft-sided facilities only to tear them down again. Senator Lankford. Mr. Benner. Mr. Benner. Senator, so this year ICE had 503,000 book-ins into custody; 75 percent of those were from CBP. So, ERO and ICE and the infrastructure of transportation and all of those efforts were doing their level best to relieve the pressure at the border for Commissioner Morgan's folks. There is one other aspect, though, here. On the other end of the equation is attorneys that represent the government in immigration court. While it has been hugely helpful to have more judges and more capacity for EOIR, the ICE attorney levels have remained flat. And so with that docket of around a million at any given point, we need to look at the ability to surge our attorney population to service the increase at EOIR. I think that is a hand-in-glove kind of asset---- Senator Lankford. They have to all go together. Mr. Benner. Yes. Senator Lankford. Mr. Cuccinelli, let me ask you a question. ICE did a raid in Mississippi this past year that got a lot of publicity on that. I think, Mr. Benner, you had mentioned that for ICE in the interior picking up 86 percent of those folks that were picked up had a criminal record already. Is that correct? Mr. Benner. Yes. Senator Lankford. OK. So that is important to be able to know, that 86 percent of the folks already have a criminal record on this. When ICE carried out that raid, there were a lot of questions, because E-Verify is mandatory in Mississippi, yet there were hundreds of people there that were not legally present that had employment in Mississippi. So help us understand, in States that have chosen to do E-Verify as mandatory, how we had that many people illegally employed there. Mr. Cuccinelli. Thank you, Senator. So in the instance of the operations that ICE executed there in Mississippi at a number of different locations, you had multiple companies claiming to be participants in E-Verify and they had registered with E-Verify. But when we investigated with our partners at ICE how many of the individuals they had utilized E-Verify on, it literally came to a handful, less than 20, if recollection serves. And you know the hundreds that were identified by ICE as working there illegally. So we have instituted for the first time a consequence for businesses who participate in E-Verify or nominally participate in E-Verify, but do not comply with the terms of that participation, such as the businesses in Mississippi would be an example, that we will terminate them from the E-Verify program. So for the first time, we are bringing a consequence to those businesses so they cannot shield, as they did--you heard in the press, ``Oh, well, we use E-Verify.'' Right, we used it once last year on one guy. And they cannot do that any longer. Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you. Chairman Johnson. Senator Portman. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To each of you, thank you for your service, and to the men and women who work for you. It is a tough job, isn't it? It looks like from the numbers that there has been enormous success in reducing the number of people crossing the border, but we have to put it in perspective. It is still a lot of people relative to the historical numbers. So a 64-percent decrease, as I read it, from May to September. That is positive. In terms of the pressure that you all feel and the infrastructure feels that I saw when I was down there a few months ago, it is better. I still do not think we quite understand what happened, although, Commissioner Morgan, you talked a little about the Remain in Mexico program and how that is working. Can you tell us a little more about what you think the other factors are, and if you could give what you think the top three reasons are you have seen a reduction, in order? And then also how has the makeup changed? We have seen reports, as an example, that there are fewer Central Americans crossing but more from Mexico. Is that accurate? Do they tend to be family members? I understand some are claiming asylum, so a similar fact pattern. If you could give us just a little sense of what is going on and why. Mr. Morgan. I will take the latter first. So the changed demographics, this is key. So the demographics, you are spot- on, have changed. Again, all of last year we had about 71 percent came from the Northern Triangle countries, and the overwhelming majority of those were families and unaccompanied minors. For the first time this year, now what we are seeing is actually Mexican nationals now are taking over a larger percentage than those individuals from Northern Triangle countries, and the specific families and unaccompanied minors numbers, those are drastically being reduced for the first time. That is a game changer. That is very important. It is the families and kids that really task our system because of the broken legal framework. To your point, hands down the Government of Mexico, their efforts, is number one. I would call Mexico number one and number two because they are really doing two important things. One is with the formation of the National Guard, over 25,000 troops. They strengthened their Southern Border. They strengthened the border between Mexico and the United States. They have also targeted interior enforcement operations, specifically the human-smuggling routes. In fiscal year 2019, we had 213 large groups, one group of over 1,000, I believe it was in May in El Paso. Last month, we had two. So Mexico is absolutely strengthening interior enforcement and their enforcement on both borders. The second thing is that they are supporting MPP. I think I described that. That has been a game changer as well. I would say the third element that is really impacting is what we have done with the Northern Triangle countries. So they have joined us. They are trying to strengthen their interior enforcement as well. They are trying to increase their asylum capacity. They have worked with us and other agencies sitting here to expedite the removal of their individuals through different electronic document verification and other techniques. That has been able to allow us to expeditiously return those individuals. The last thing real quick that I would say is this administration. This administration has continued to work within the current legal framework and continued to push. Although the judicial activism of lower courts has hindered us time and time again, we are continuing to push. The asylum Interim Final Rule (IFR) that is out there, that is another significant initiative that we are able to use, too, to expeditiously return individuals. Senator Portman. As the weather gets warmer, there are fewer people who tend to cross. So I am not suggesting we do not need to have the surge capacity again, but this does give us a little breather. One of the things that I have been concerned about going back to 2015 when we first held hearings about this in one of our Subcommittees is the issue of kids and the lack of communication between the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and DHS. And my sense is that we are doing a little better now, but with this law, I would hope that we can do a better job of providing information about these children to, ORR with two goals: one, just to understand what is happening with these kids, where they are, why they are where they are--and these are children; but, second, to get them reunited with their families. I think it is in everybody's interest, by the way, including the administration, given what happened at a time when there was this surge, and we kind of lost kids. Can you tell us where we are on that in terms of providing information? You mentioned MPP earlier. The same issue, if you come over as a family unit and the kids get separated some are in the United States, the kids, and the parents are in Mexico. How are we doing there to provide that information? Again, I think this is something that is in everybody's interest, including the children. Mr. Morgan. So I will turn to my colleagues on the former question about the ORR issue, but specifically MPP, so we would not return an individual, like a parent, to Mexico and keep the child. So if we decide to separate based on a specific criteria, like, for example, the parent is a convicted murderer, rapist, et cetera, convicted of a violent crime, yes, for the safety of the child we would separate that child from the parent. But the child then would be provided to HHS ORR, and then we would keep the parent in our process in the United States. Senator Portman. OK. We will follow up on that because I do have some additional questions, because we are hearing some other things about MPP and separation and I want to be sure we understand it well. To the drug issue, I mean, as Director Benner said, I think accurately, we are all border States. Ohio is hit hard with crystal meth right now as an example, and it is coming from one place. It is coming from Mexico. We were already hit hard with opioids coming over, primarily heroin; now we see more fentanyl coming. It used to be almost exclusively from China through our mail system into our communities. Now we see it coming through Mexico. The cartels are very involved in this. There is a lot of money in it. As the number of crossings has gone down, we get a sense that the drug flow has not. I asked this question of Under Secretary Glawe last week. We did our annual threats to the homeland hearing, and we had the right people there to talk about what was happening in the interior of the United States in terms of the drug threat. He indicated that even though there is a 64-percent decrease in people coming across, there is no a decrease--in fact, an increase--in the flow of drugs. Is that accurate? Mr. Benner. Yes, Senator, that is accurate, and I will tell you what our concern is right now. The number of seizures of fentanyl from China are way down, so coming through, the small quantities coming through the mail facilities. But HSI seized over 1,000 pounds more fentanyl in 2019 than we did in 2018. That delta, that increase, is Mexico. The Mexican cartels have jumped into that fentanyl space. My concern is that the trend of the super labs, which we have seen with the methamphetamine phenomenon for 3 years now, is that the fentanyl problem translates into the same super lab problem that we are facing with methamphetamine. Senator Portman. I know my time is expiring here, but what do you mean by that precisely? Everybody would be interested, because for us to address this issue properly, we have to understand it better. I hear different things from different law enforcement individuals, but it seems to me, you are right, the Synthetics Trafficking and Overdose Prevention (STOP) Act and other things have helped us with regard to the mail. In other words, this deadliest drug, fentanyl, which kills more people with overdoses than any other drugs--all drugs combined, in fact. But with Mexico, it is going, as I understand it, primarily from China to Mexico. It is not being produced in Mexico at this point. There were two labs, you all think it is shut down by the Mexican authorities. But it is being processed there often into pills. Is that accurate? Mr. Benner. Yes, and so what we saw, for example, sir, in Ohio was the domestic pill press operations where an individual orders relatively pure fentanyl from China through the dark web. They produced pills that were killing people. Senator Portman. Right. Mr. Benner. What we are seeing now is the precursor chemicals to make fentanyl essentially going from China to Mexico where it is being processed and assembled in Mexico in bulk. So the number of seizure incidents has gone down, but the amounts and the weights have gone up. So we are seeing bigger shipments, bigger capacity, better quality, higher purity, and much more productivity. Senator Portman. Yes. Mr. Benner. And so it is really Manufacturing 101. This is a supply chain kind of economy, and we can apply the same lessons and the same rules---- Senator Portman. Director Benner, my time is expiring. I would love to follow up with you on this. We met with the Mexican ambassador last week about this and talked about a trilateral approach here--China, Mexico, and the United States--because you still have this flow, as you said, coming in from China. Can you follow up with me on that and see how we can better target the cartels and the real problem here? Mr. Benner. Absolutely. As you know, HSI opened an office in Dayton and in Toledo. We doubled our footprint in Ohio to combat both the meth and---- Senator Portman. We thank you for that. Mr. Benner. So we look forward to getting together. Senator Portman. Yes, thank you. Chairman Johnson. I just want to point out there was an excellent article written by Mary Anastasia O'Grady in the Wall Street Journal just this week where she reports that a Council on Foreign Relations paper says that in 2016, Americans spent nearly $150 billion on cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. One hundred and fifty billion dollars. That is fueling these drug cartels, which are operating with impunity, taking over a large number of communities inside Mexico, certainly in Central America. They are untouchable. That impunity bleeds over into other parts of society in terms of extortion. I mean, this is America's insatiable demand for drugs, $150 billion. Mr. Cuccinelli?. Mr. Cuccinelli. I want to seize on your word ``impunity,'' and we cannot go too deep on it here, but they do not have to. And, you all in your capacity can help make sure that does not happen. I think that is a longer discussion for another day. There is a major difference between the gangs we are talking about and the cartels we are talking about, and it rises to literally at every level, from the street all the way up to the kind of manufacturing that Mr. Benner is talking about and the nature of the structure of the organizations and what they are willing and capable of doing. They do not have to be able to act the way they are acting if we take unified action as a Nation to counter that. Chairman Johnson. The challenge is in Mexico or in Central America, we have these drug kingpins basically controlling communities, the economies of the communities. Let us say you have a community of 10,000 people that is completely dependent on the drug trade. It is going to be very difficult to take out that drug kingpin, and, by the way, there are plenty of people just standing right behind him. So this has grown into such a massive problem, which is why it is so difficult for governments in Central America and Mexico to really deal with it. But, again, the point I am making, this is America's insatiable demand for drugs. But I do have some questions here. Actually, what I will do is I will defer to Senator Carper before I start my second round. Senator Carper. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER Senator Carper. Gentleman, welcome. Thank you all. It is good to see you. Let me just begin by saying that my colleagues have heard me say over the years, ad nauseam, everything I do I know I can do better. I think the same is true of all of us. I think one of the keys to making progress is to point toward perfection. Our Constitution starts off with these words: ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union . . .'' It does not say ``perfect union.'' It says ``more perfect.'' The goal is toward perfection--knowing we are not going to get there, but at least we know where our goal is, and we are going to aim high. The other thing, we have recently had testimony before the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. A fellow had been nominated to be a top official at the Commerce Department, Rob Wallace from Wyoming, and he is in charge of national parks, he is charge of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). He said in his testimony--he used to work for Malcolm Wallop, a Republican Senator from Wyoming. He is a close friend of John Barrasso. He said in his testimony, he said the most lasting solutions are bipartisan solutions, and what you have are some people on this Committee who are pretty good at that, and we need to have partners in the administration who are pretty good at that as well. I am bouncing back and forth between this hearing and the hearing in my other committee that deals with nuclear safety, nuclear power plant safety, which is important. As an old naval flight officer (NFO) guy, I chased Russian subs all over the world for many years. I have a real appreciation for nuclear safety. I want to come back to some of what, Mr. Morgan, I heard you say. I think one of the things--I wrote this down--was ``not a single piece of legislation,'' I think, passed by this Congress to do much to fight this battle. I would just remind us all that we could build a wall from sea to shining sea. I support barriers. I voted for billions and billions of dollars of money for barriers--some walls, in other cases barriers. I voted for money, we have voted for money, billions of dollars, for roads, for vehicles to go along those roads. We have voted to raise the authorization for the number of Border Patrol officials we have, for Customs and Border Patrol. We have, I think, a ceiling of about 21,000 Border Patrol officers right now. I do not think we are up to that ceiling. I think we are at about 20,000. I think we are looking toward raising it again, and we provide the money to fully fund those positions. I have voted for money for fixed-wing aircraft, for helicopters, for improving our intelligence, intelligence sharing. We have provided money for boats, for boat ramps. We provided money for horses, all kinds of force multipliers. For us to suggest that the Congress has not been a good partner I think is just unfair and I think untrue. I would have us just keep that in mind. We are pretty good in Delaware with the letter ``C''-- communicate, compromise, collaborate, and civility. I think we need to keep those words in mind here. I would add another ``C''--comprehensive immigration reform, which we passed with bipartisan support led by John McCain and others, 6, 7, or 8 years ago, a two-thirds vote in the Senate. And that is not a cure-all, but that is part of what the solution is. It would be nice to have a President who would be our partner, a fellow who at times talked about the need for comprehensive immigration reform, and then just walks it back. We need him to endorse the idea and engage on that and not walk it back. The other thing I would say is that the Chairman and I and Senator Peters and I have been down to Central America together a number of times, and I have always been struck by how folks down there live lives of misery. You have seen it, I have seen it. If I lived down there with my family, I would want to get out of there, too, and go to a place where there is better opportunity. Through the Alliance for Prosperity, as you know, we have put several billions of dollars now into three buckets. One of those buckets is hope and economic opportunity. That is one of the main drivers that cause people to leave those countries. Second is crime and violence. The third is corruption, which is endemic in those countries. I will just give you a tale of two cities only this is a tale of three countries. You have, on the one hand, El Salvador--a new President, Bukele. You have probably met him; I have met him several times. Impressive guy, former mayor of San Salvador. A young guy, not even 40 years old. A different kind of a generation. He replaced a 75-year-old former leftist guerrilla leader. The money that we are putting in those three buckets in El Salvador is very well used. If you look at the murder rates and crime rates in El Salvador, it is very encouraging. If you look at what has happened in Honduras, not so encouraging. I have known Juan Hernandez since before he was actually elected President, and he ran for President a second time. The Constitution of that country says you can only be President for 4 years. He ran again, and he had the Supreme Court, which he appointed, basically say their Constitution was unconstitutional so he could run a second time for President. Huge uproar in the country, and it has really just destroyed a lot of the progress that was being made in that country. The thing that is noteworthy there, for the last 2 years, maybe 3 years now, we have not had an ambassador in that country. If we had had an ambassador in that country, somebody like Jean Manes or some other people that are as accomplished as she is and others are, that would have never happened. We would never have allowed that to happen. I was present, and I think maybe our chairman was actually present, when Jimmy Morales was actually sworn in as President of Guatemala. Very encouraging. He ran on basically a platform that says--what was his motto? Neither a thief nor corrupt. He has just so disappointed, his family has disappointed us, and served as a terrible role model for that country. Now they had a new election, they have new leadership, and we need to be fully engaged through U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), through our Ambassadors, in some cases the Senate leader, in some cases President or Vice President, the leaders of those countries do know that we have high expectations. The idea of putting the money that we have put into the Alliance for Prosperity is not money that is just U.S. money. We are leveraging other money. In El Salvador, for every dollar we put in, we leverage seven. They put in money, foundations put in money, private companies put in money, and that is the expectation. We have criteria that measure that they are getting done what they ought to get done, and sadly, our current President basically earlier this year suspended money to all of them. The last thing that Secretary McAleenan did as he was leaving was at least restore the funding that we had authorized and appropriated for the security side to those three countries. I do not go through this kind of statement when addressing the witnesses. But I just want to say we need to be on the same page where we can. We need to agree on principles and as often as we can on the policies. The idea of suggesting that we have done pretty much nothing is just not fair, and it is just not true. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the floor. Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, could I just respond to---- Chairman Johnson. Very quickly. Senator Carper. No, you have had a lot of time to speak already---- Chairman Johnson. We do have a vote called, but---- Senator Carper [continuing]. Let us let somebody else talk, OK? Thank you. Chairman Johnson. If you want to quick respond, but---- Senator Carper. I do not. Chairman Johnson. Oh, you do not want them to respond? OK. So, Mr. Cuccinelli, I have a number of things here, and we do have a vote called, and so we will be closing this hearing out here. In terms of credible fear, the numbers, you talked about referral. I just have a question. You said 5,000 10 years ago, 51,000 5 years ago. I was surprised that only, 105 this year. We had over 600,000 families, and I thought they were pretty much all claiming credible fear. Why such a low number in comparison to the number of family units and unaccompanied children that came in? Mr. Cuccinelli. So the children typically flow right into HHS when they are unaccompanied. They are not typically participating---- Chairman Johnson. That is a relatively low percentage of the overall number. Mr. Cuccinelli. Of the overall number, that is right. You also do not have the MPP pieces in that credible fear number, so---- Chairman Johnson. But, again, that is a pretty small amount, too. That is 57,000 or something like that. So you still have hundreds of thousand versus only 105. Can anybody explain that discrepancy? Again, I would have thought you would have had hundreds of thousands of referrals. Mr. Cuccinelli. Right. You would expect perhaps to see the numbers matching at least the family---- Chairman Johnson. So, again, why don't they? Mr. Cuccinelli. I do not have an answer as to why they do not. I can tell you it is an overwhelming number. Chairman Johnson. Does anybody? Mr. McHenry. Mr. McHenry. The credible fear process is only triggered typically when someone is subject to an expedited removal order. So if they do not go through the expedited removal process, they would not have---- Chairman Johnson. So the bottom line is we literally let hundreds of thousands of people in, and they did not even have to claim credible fear? Mr. Cuccinelli. That is correct. Chairman Johnson. That is pretty noteworthy. I want people to understand that. We just let people in. They did not even have to claim that unbelievably low standard that, by and large, you said 20 percent, I think under Central America it was lower than that. Mr. Cuccinelli. That is correct. Chairman Johnson. People claim that, and they still do not have a valid asylum claim. Mr. Morgan. And that is one of the parts, sir, that I was talking about, about the legislation that does need to get passed with respect to this crisis, is the Flores Settlement Agreement which says we can only detain people for 20 days. That is what is driving us. There is not time to do the proper vetting that we need to do to complete that process, so we have to release them. Chairman Johnson. Mr. Cuccinelli, do you know of another nation on Earth other than Germany over the couple years with the Syrian migrant flow that grants legal permanent residency to more than a million people per year? Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely not. We are the most generous Nation in the world by far. Chairman Johnson. Is there anybody that comes even close? Mr. Cuccinelli. Not even close. Chairman Johnson. And we do that. On an annual basis we are granting legal permanent residency---- Mr. Cuccinelli. In the humanitarian space, America is number one way beyond two, three, and four combined. Chairman Johnson. I have had people come up and basically lobby me and say it is just outrageous that we have reduced the number of refugees from 70,000 to 50,000 to now 15,000. I point out to them, well, that is the official total, but you are kind of ignoring the 608,000 people that come here that would basically be refugees as well. I mean, that is the problem with the illegal flow. It absolutely affects the legal flow. Correct? Mr. Cuccinelli. Absolutely, and we had almost 80,000 asylum cases last year, same legal standard as refugees. It is the same type of population, but they are landing at our border and on our soil, and so we are shifting resources to contend with that. And that backlog continues to grow. We are at over 340,000 cases and growing. Chairman Johnson. When you said or somebody said 87 percent of the people that we are taking enforcement action against have a criminal record, define ``criminal record.'' Is that criminal because they have overstayed their visas? I mean, define ``criminal.'' Or is that literally--is that felonious, other than immigration felonious behavior? Mr. Benner. Yes, it could include felony immigration charges. Typically it is not a visa overstay. It is somebody with a criminal conviction or a pending criminal charge make up that 86 percent of the 140,000 the ERO officers arrested in the interior. Chairman Johnson. It would be nice to separate--again, I am not understating the concern of breaking our immigration laws, but it would be nice to have that split out in terms of felonious behavior. Is it immigration related? Or is it literally rape, assault, or murder? That would be good data to have. Mr. Benner. I do have some data, sir, and I am happy to provide this to you after the hearing, the breakout of weapons, assault, sexual---- Chairman Johnson. OK, good. We will take that and enter it into the record. DNA testing, not being done by CBP, that is being done by ICE, correct? Because, we are hearing these children being used time and time again. I cannot help but think of a little girl who gets used as a false family, goes through that dangerous journey once, gets sent back down to Central America, goes through that dangerous journey again. When she gets old enough, is she just then put in the sex trade? But what are we finding in terms of data in terms of false families? Mr. Benner. So the rapid DNA was by far the most critical investigative tool for our fraudulent family units that went to the border this spring and this summer. We found with rapid DNA about a 13-to 15-percent hit rate on fraudulent families. Now, initially, Senator, when we first got there during the height of the crisis, we were showing percentages that were above 20 percent, 25 percent, because the amount of fraud was rampant. Word spreads. The cartels are the best advertisers of what works and what does not. Within a short period of time, it was getting back to the organizations that needed to pivot their operations. You also mentioned Operation Noble Guardian, and this was the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) efforts to look at kind of the back end of the equation of where fraudulent families were released into the interior, and then the children were separated from those unrelated adults, and they were taken to an airport and flown back to the Northern Triangle. We have identified over 600 children that have been recycled in this methodology. We interviewed several of the children as they were departing the United States, and some of them had indicated that they had made the trip as many as eight times with separate unrelated adults every time. Chairman Johnson. Again, I always have to point out the 600 are people we catch, and we do not even know how many we do not. We do not understand the magnitude of this problem. I am running out of time. I just want to make a final point. I want to have Mr. Morgan comment on this. We have a completely unsecure border on our side of the border. But the Southwest Border is 100 percent secure, basically, or close to 100 percent secure on the southern side, right? I mean, nothing is passing--migrants are not passing, drugs are not passing. It is completely controlled, so it is possible if we actually have the will to do so. Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan. I agree on both fronts. One is that the Mexico side of the border is absolutely 100 percent controlled by the cartels. Nothing passes through without the cartels charging a tax, controlling it and letting that through. So I think you are absolutely 100 percent correct. I think it is important when we talk about securing the border, I think part of the narrative, sir, that we need to get better at, securing the border is not just about the immigration issue. It is also about the humanitarian issue and the national security issue. Again, drugs are pouring into this country. CBP alone, over 750,000 pounds of drugs, illicit drugs, all for the hard narcotics went up last year; 68,000 deaths due to overdose of illicit narcotics in this country, 70,000 the year before. We absolutely need to secure this border. People are dying every single day because our border is not secure. Chairman Johnson. As long as we have laws that are so easily exploitable by the human traffickers, where they literally can surge in one time in El Paso a thousand people, it is pretty easy for six or seven or a hundred to get through, whether it is to replenish the gang members who are trafficking the drugs, that type of thing. That is a reality we have to recognize. Mr. Morgan. That is absolutely right, and when we talk about the security of the Southern Border, we cannot separate the migration flow from the national security side. They are too interconnected. Smuggling organizations, they do not care whether they smuggle humans, bad people, or drugs. They do not care. They are all interconnected. Chairman Johnson. Senator Peters. Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk a little bit about the in absentia cases, if I may. Mr. McHenry, you indicated that ``aliens who fail to appear at their hearings have taxed EOIR's resources to an unprecedented degree.'' I think you testified that orally as well. So, Mr. Chairman, I am holding a redacted Notice to Appear that was issued earlier this year. I will ask unanimous consent (UC) that this be entered into the record.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The redacted Notice referenced by Senator Peters appear in the Appendix on page 620. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chairman Johnson. Without objection. Senator Peters. Thank you. It clearly shows that a 7-year-old child, unaccompanied child, was given an NTA without specific hearing dates or locations, thus making it difficult to avoid an in absentia ruling, and you agree that taxes our resources. So my question is: How is a 7-year-old supposed to navigate the immigration court system if basic information is not provided in the form that you give to a 7-year-old child? Mr. McHenry. Senator, I am not familiar with this specific form, and I have not seen it so I cannot necessarily guarantee that it was filed, it was not rejected by the court, or anything like that. What I can say is that there are regulations that dictate how service must be accomplished on someone who is underage. Typically if someone is under the age of 14, it has to be served on a custodian, a parent, someone else other than the 7- year-old him-or herself. But, again, I am not familiar with this specific case, so I am not sure exactly what happened. Senator Peters. I would like to go through what those procedures are. It may beyond our scope of what we can do right now, but I think our office would like to talk to you as to what are the procedures in place to ensure that hearing notices indeed have the information that a migrant is going to need to have in order to appear. Mr. McHenry. Sure, the regulations do typically spell out what is required, and I notice there has been some litigation on that, as you may be aware, in the past year following a Supreme Court decision. But there are requirements. We also have our own internal guidance for when we reject notices for not having sufficient or correct information. Senator Peters. We would like data on all that as well, back to our data-focused hearing here to take a look at that. The DHS Office of Inspector General reported that participants in the Family Case Management Program (FCMP), which is, as you know, an Alternative to Detention Program, had a 100-percent attendance at court hearings. What are your agencies doing to expand on these programs under the recently provided appropriations that were provided to your agencies? If we could have some comment, either Mr. Morgan or Mr. McHenry. Mr. Morgan. Mr. Morgan. So we do not participate in any alternative detentions. That would be ICE or ERO that would handle that. Senator Peters. So if you could answer that, please? Mr. Benner. Yes, Senator, so it is my understanding--I did not know it was quite 100 percent. I thought it was in the high 90s. Senator Peters. That is still pretty good. Mr. Benner. Excellent. The challenge with alternative to detention is the limited amount of those resources to keep that monitoring on throughout the pendency of a total hearing process. The FCMP provided for that, so we were continually monitoring and providing that level of engagement that certainly increased the level of participation and showing up for hearings and check-ins at a higher rate. So my understanding is that that was a pilot and that we are not currently running FCMP at the moment. I want to go back, though, and double-check that so I am providing accurate information and making sure that I am getting this right. Senator Peters. We would like that. You say it is a pilot that had in the high 90s, if it was not 100. That seems like a pretty successful pilot, so why isn't the pilot expanded? That is the whole idea of having pilots. If they work, we expand them. Mr. Benner. So the challenge, though, is the bandwidth of our ATD Program, which I think was capped in 2019 at about 100,000. Of course, those assets are recycled; as people go off of ATD, they have new people come in. I think I mentioned earlier the number was about 160,000 that had gone through it. But, certainly, it is just a dedication of a lot more resources in a more intensive way. So I would be happy to bring our folks that manage that program and come and talk about it more specifically. Senator Peters. We would like that. You have to look at the alternative. Having them not show up also is a tax on the system, as Mr. McHenry has said. So we have to take a comprehensive look at that, and I look forward to doing that. Mr. McHenry, our current immigration court backlog, including asylum backlog, has ballooned, I think as you mentioned, to approximately a million cases now. One of the stated causes is a lack of immigration judges and staff, and under our recent border supplemental funding bill, EOIR was appropriated $45 million for the hiring of 30 immigration judge teams, $10 million for additional court space, and $10 million for the Legal Orientation Program. What is the progress in implementing this funding as of now? Mr. McHenry. I believe we implemented all of it except maybe 0.1 percent by the end of the fiscal year as we were directed to. Senator Peters. How many immigration judge teams are on board now with law clerks? Mr. McHenry. There are currently 439 immigration judges. We brought a class on in September, actually. Senator Peters. That is the hiring of the additional immigration judge teams? That has all been accomplished? Mr. McHenry. It has. We have another class coming in approximately 2 weeks, and right now we are averaging one new class per quarter. Our formal authorization is 534, so we still have more room to go. Senator Peters. You have identified new courtroom spaces as well? Mr. McHenry. Yes, we are expanding courtroom space. We have a plan out through at least 2021 right now. Senator Peters. Have any Legal Orientation Program sites been highlighted for expansion under the program? Mr. McHenry. Not to my knowledge, but that is an issue with the contractor and not us. It is up to the contractor to identify locations they think may work best. Senator Peters. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Johnson. Just a quick follow-up on that. So if we have 534 times 708 cases per judge per year, that is 378,000 cases we could adjudicate per year. Is that possible? And then I will ask you, Mr. Benner, but we also need ICE attorneys to be able to adjudicate those cases, correct? Mr. McHenry. We certainly believe it is possible to adjudicate them. Mr. Benner. Yes, absolutely, Senator. So, looking at the current docket, detained, non-detained, we are about 800 attorneys short in the Office of Legal Representative, and as EOIR expands even to areas where we have no attorneys, so you can imagine the challenge of now finding space for the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) attorneys and then getting folks into that to represent the government in immigration court. Second, ERO needs deportation officers and staff to facilitate the movement of people in and out of courts as well. So the ecosystem, it needs to be equally resourced in order to be effective. Chairman Johnson. So, Mr. McHenry, would you kind of agree with that, that this was well intentioned, we are plussing up the judges, which, from the standpoint of the number of judges it looks like we may be able to start knocking down this backlog and handling the flow. By the way, I hate to staff up for that kind of flow. That is putting a Band-Aid on a problem. We have to solve the problem. But that being the case, do you agree with Mr. Benner that we really do need the full team? So we need to fund the adjudicators from ICE as well. Mr. McHenry. I do. Historically, it has sort of been one or the other. For a while DHS was getting funding and immigration judges were not. More recently, immigration judges have been getting funding, but OPLA attorneys have not. They do go together, as someone said, hand-in-glove. Chairman Johnson. We need to make that a really important point. A a lot of things that Senator Peters was just talking about, this whole adjudication process, this is, I think, open for a hearing in and of itself. So I will ask all of you to be thinking about what information, what kind of data, the caseload, the percentage of people getting valid asylum claims. This is data that we absolutely need if we are going to craft legislation to solve that problem. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us, for your thoughtful testimony, and your answers to our questions. I particularly want to thank the men and women that serve with you in your agencies and departments. It is unbelievable to me that law enforcement has come under such attack. It is completely uncalled for. Secretary Kelly, when he was serving as Secretary of Homeland Security, came before us and said, ``I am not going to apologize for the men and women of my Department that are enforcing the law. That is their job. It is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It is border protection. Nobody should apologize for that.'' I thank the men and women who, the people I talk to, show a great deal of compassion to those individuals seeking better opportunity. They are trying to deal with an overwhelming problem. As Secretary Kelly said at that point in time, too, ``If we do not like the law, it is our responsibility to have the skill and courage to change it.'' I do not have colleagues up here, but that is the message I have for my colleagues on this Committee. Let us have the skill and courage to admit we have a problem, go through this process, identify the problem, identify the root causes, establish an achievable goal or goals, and then let us craft legislation on a nonpartisan basis, because I cannot imagine anybody is satisfied with the current situation. We simply cannot. We can argue about how many legal immigrants should come in here to the extent that that depresses American wages. I mean, those are legitimate concerns. But nobody should be arguing that we should allow this uncontrolled flow with all the human suffering that is associated with it and the billions of dollars we are allowing to flow into the pockets of some of the most evil human beings on the planet, these human traffickers. So, again, thank you, thank you to the men and women you serve. With that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until November 28th at 5 o'clock p.m. for the submission of statements and questions for the record. This hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]