[House Report 115-835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 115-835
======================================================================
RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT, AND DIRECTING THE
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY,
CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REFERRING TO THE
SEPARATION OF CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS OR GUARDIANS AS A RESULT OF
THE PRESIDENT'S ``ZERO TOLERANCE'' POLICY
_______
July 18, 2018.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Walden, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H. Res. 982]
The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred
the resolution (H. Res. 982) of inquiry requesting the
President, and directing the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, to transmit, respectively, certain information to the
House of Representatives referring to the separation of
children from their parents or guardians as a result of the
President's ``zero tolerance'' policy, having considered the
same, report thereon without amendment and without
recommendation.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 2
Committee Action................................................. 11
Committee Votes.................................................. 11
Oversight Findings and Recommendations........................... 13
New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures 13
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 13
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 13
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............ 13
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 13
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 13
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 13
Dissenting Views................................................. 14
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
H. Res. 982 requests the President, and directs the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, to transmit to the
House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date
of the adoption of the resolution, records relating to the
President's ``zero tolerance'' policy.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
The Committee began investigating the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee
Resettlement's (ORR) management and treatment of unaccompanied
alien children (UAC) beginning in 2014 after the dramatic surge
in border crossings by UAC from Central America as well as a
series of media reports regarding allegations of abuse,
including sexual abuse, of minors in HHS custody. In 2014, the
Committee held a bipartisan roundtable for members on issues
related to UAC. In 2015 and 2016, the Committee sent three
letters to HHS raising concerns about the treatment of children
while in the care and custody of ORR and the then-lack of
follow up to ensure that children were cared for properly after
being placed with a sponsor.
On June 29, 2018, the Committee sent a letter to HHS
Secretary Alex M. Azar II asking a series of questions and
requesting documents about ORR's operations related to the
management and treatment of UAC, including the reunification of
children with their parents.
On July 9, 2018, Chairman Walden led a bipartisan
delegation of members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
to McAllen, Texas, and surrounding areas, to view border
facilities and the border between the United States and Mexico.
Members visited the following facilities:
Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Centralized
Processing Center (CPC) in McAllen, Texas;
Tour of the border between the United States
and Mexico near McAllen, Texas;
Department of Health and Human Services,
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) grantee facility,
Southwest Key Facility ``Casa Padre'' in Brownsville,
Texas;
DHS, Gateway Bridge Port of Entry in
Brownsville, Texas; and
DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Port
Isabel Detention Center.
This memorandum is compiled from the notes and recollection
of staff who participated in the CODEL. It is not a
comprehensive collection of all information learned during the
trip.
I. THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR AND THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER
Members received a tour of the ``line''--the border--
between the U.S. and Mexico near McAllen, Texas. The Rio Grande
Valley (RGV) sector of the border includes the facilities
visited on July 9. The RGV includes more than 34,000 square
miles of Southeast Texas, including 320 river miles and 250
coastal miles.
The RGV has the highest apprehension rate of UAC and family
units on the Southwest border. According to CBP officials,
cartels and other smugglers send UAC and family units across in
dense refuge areas--areas with thick vegetation along the Rio
Grande river--known to CBP. This means that, while CBP agents
are apprehending family units and UAC from what are effectively
designated areas, cartels and other smugglers can bring in
drugs and other contraband through other areas along the border
in the RGV.
There are approximately 3,100 CBP agents in the RGV. Each
day, roughly 900 agents are at checkpoints or on the border
line, and 200 agents work to process individuals apprehended
crossing the border illegally. CBP estimated that it needs
another 500 agents in just this area of the border to provide
adequately patrol coverage. CBP patrols the RGV border line by
air, boat, on land (by vehicle, horse, and foot), and by
utilizing permanent and mobile surveillance systems.
CBP officials explained the various challenges they face
within the RGV sector due to the variation in the terrain and
characteristics of the Rio Grande river. Examples of those
challenges include dense vegetation and changes in the river's
width and depth. The tools and equipment that they need to
patrol these various terrains are more extensive than other
sectors. For example, the river alone can require different
types of marine vessels or boats given the variations in width
and depth. CBP has a pilot initiative underway to increase the
use of drones on the border, but it is difficult to use drones
because the operator must keep a clear line of site with the
drone. In addition, CBP must operate drones at specified
elevations and obtain permits from the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for missions, especially given the
proximity of the border to McAllen International Airport.
Drones also have limited effectiveness in this sector due to
the dense refuge areas on one or both sides of the border. The
refuge areas on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande river are under
the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife Service. There are
also many areas where private property runs up to the Rio
Grande river. Many of the crops grown in this area are tall
crops, which also makes it difficult to view and detect
individuals (or goods, in the case of drugs and other
contraband materials) moving through the property.
Due to the dense refuge areas on both sides of the border,
individuals crossing the river from Mexico typically cannot be
seen until they are in a raft on the Mexican side, and are
quickly lost in the refuge area. They are often apprehended by
CBP once they emerge from the undergrowth. Family units and UAC
are seeking to be apprehended by CBP officials. One CBP agent
said, ``they arrest us.'' Roughly 100 UAC per day are
apprehended in the RGV. CBP officials could not provide an
average number ofpersons apprehended per day in family units.
Often individuals are apprehended in large groups that include
individuals, UAC, and family units.
CBP officials stated that additional ``enforcement zones''
and additional technology would be helpful to secure the border
in the RGV. The delegation viewed one such ``enforcement zone''
that was previously created. The area allows CBP agents to see
individuals as they exit the refuge area. One CBP agent said
that the creation of a road along the Rio Grande river in the
RGV would be very helpful.
CBP agents emphasized the challenges in the RGV sector but
noted that different areas of the border with Mexico require
different solutions, and something that would be helpful in the
RGV may not be helpful in another part of the border. CBP
showed members a video detailing changes in enforcement and
apprehensions at different border sectors, including the RGV,
from FY 1992 to FY 2016. The video can be found here: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRihEaftS0M.
CBP estimated that 6,000 individuals illegally enter the
U.S. in the RGV each week; CBP apprehends roughly 4,000-4,200
people. Family units and UAC pay roughly $4,000 to smugglers to
make it to the U.S. border. According to CBP, family units and
UAC want to be apprehended by CBP, so their cost is lower. The
smuggler will bring the family unit or UAC to the edge of the
river on the U.S. side of the border and immediately return
across to Mexico. The smuggler typically does not leave the
raft on the river, so it is difficult for CBP to apprehend the
smuggler himself. Individuals who want to get past the
checkpoints further into the U.S., for example, to Houston, pay
roughly $8,000. For even more money, cartels and smugglers will
bring an individual to any city in the U.S. An individual
seeking to enter the U.S. illegally can also pay more money to
avoid having to walk or travel through refuge areas.
CBP estimated that $1.3 billion per year is generated for
the cartels and other smugglers bringing individuals into the
United States through only the RGV. The expenses for the
journeys are roughly $640 million, which includes rafts,
guides, drivers, stash houses, bribes, etc., and the profits
are roughly $658 million.
II. DHS CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTER IN
MCALLEN, TEXAS
The delegation visited a CBP Centralized Processing Center
(CPC) facility in McAllen, Texas and was provided a briefing
and tour of the facility. The briefing included information
regarding the shift in immigration patterns across the southern
border and how those shifts in patterns have been addressed by
the U.S. to date. This CPC facility is an example of the first
facility that a person or family will visit after being
apprehended for an illegal border crossing. There are two
temporary detention facilities at this location. There is a
55,000-square foot facility which houses family units and UAC,
which members viewed. There is a second facility that houses
men and women who are not UAC or part of a family unit. The
facility was quickly built after the surge of UAC in 2014. The
facility can hold 3,300 people. On July 9, 2018, approximately
1,300 people were at the facility.
Prior to the creation of this facility, individuals and
families apprehended at the border were processed at the
McAllen station, which had a capacity of only 250 people. The
video that CBP showed the delegation included images of the CBP
facilities in McAllen prior to the creation of this facility,
beginning at minute 4:12. The video can be found here: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRihEaftS0M.
Individuals are held in this facility for an average of 50
hours for processing. The longest instance of someone being
held in this facility that CBP could recall was one week. Upon
arriving at the facility, the personal belongings of each
individual are taken and stored. Individuals are provided a
``claim check'' for their belongings, which are then returned
upon an individual's departure from the facility. If an adult
or child's clothes need to be laundered, CBP provides new
clothing and launders and then returns the original clothing.
Individuals receive meals and snacks are readily available.
Toilet and shower facilities are available, toiletries and
other items such as diapers are provided, and each individual
is issued a soft mat for sleeping and a hygienic mylar ``space
blanket'' for warmth. Televisions with age-appropriate
entertainment were provided in each of the facility's zones.
Representatives from the consulates of several countries are on
site.
The building is divided into four ``zones''--male head of
household (men traveling with children); female head of
household (women traveling with children); male UAC; and female
UAC. In most situations, family units are held in the same
zone. There are exceptions to this. For example, an older
daughter traveling with her father will not be housed in the
male head of household section. At the time of our visit, there
was one family where the father and one young child were held
in the male head of household section, and an older daughter
was held in the female UAC section. CBP agents said that they
would take them out of the respective areas to talk with each
other any time they asked.
Processing by CBP includes determining whether a family
relationship exists or if there is any evidence of fraud. Most
of the time, CBP does not discern evidence of fraud or
trafficking within the family units. However, there are
exceptions. For example, CBP officials recounted that, just a
few days before the Committee's visit, a man crossed the border
with a four-month-old baby that he claimed was his child. The
demeanor of the man raised suspicions of CBP agents. Upon
questioning, he then said that he was not the child's father,
but the child's uncle. CBP agents searched their records and
found that he had entered the U.S. the previous year with
another child. When CBP agents asked about the whereabouts of
that child, the man said that he did not know. Upon further
questioning, the man admitted that he was not a relative of the
infant at all, and the infant was separated from the man who
brought him or her across the border.
After CBP processes those apprehended at the border, UAC
are sent to HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters.
HHS tells CBP which shelter a UAC should be sent to, and CBP
transfers the UAC. Family units are referred to ICE detention
facilities. If ICE does not have the capacity to detain the
family, then they are released, typically with an ankle
bracelet, and given a notice to appear at a subsequent
immigration hearing. While there are several thousand ICE
detention beds for women traveling with children, there are
less than 90 detention beds for men traveling with children in
the U.S. Adults apprehended illegally entering the country
without minor children are also referred to ICE detention
facilities. If ICE does not have the capacity to detain an
adult, then he or she is released, typically with an ankle
bracelet, and given a notice to appear at a subsequent
immigration hearing.
Members asked about the implementation of the ``zero
tolerance'' initiative and whether there was coordination
between federal agencies prior to the implementation or
announcement of this policy. One CBP official stated that, in
his opinion, the ``zero tolerance'' initiative was a good
deterrent, but expressed that the policy was not well executed.
While CBP did not explicitly state that there was no
coordination between federal agencies prior to the public
announcement of the ``zero tolerance'' initiative, CBP
officials did acknowledge that the implementation of the ``zero
tolerance'' initiative was not great, and did not consider
second, third, and fourth degree impacts, including family
separations. CBP officials told staff that, in the RGV, they
did not separate children under five from their parents unless
there were concerns about fraud or trafficking, or other
endangerment issues for the children. CBP officials also
clarified that families were not separated in the field. CBP
officials could not provide a figure for the number of children
in total separated from their parents at this facility.
III. HHS OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, SOUTHWEST KEY ``CASA PADRE''
FACILITY IN BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS
The delegation visited an HHS ORR facility, managed by HHS
grantee Southwest Key. The ``Casa Padre'' facility is licensed
to hold just under 1,500 boys between the ages of 10 and 17.
The facility originally received a license for 1,200 children,
and received a variance for roughly an additional 240 children.
Approximately half of all UAC, including separated children, in
the RGV are housed at this facility. There are two other
Southwest Key facilities nearby that house female UAC,
including separated children. HHS also has other grantee sites
in the RGV. According to Southwest Key staff, there are 23
other facilities in South Texas, but there isn't another
program as big as Southwest Key. The average length of time
that a child stays at this facility is 48 to 52 days. The
longest amount of time that a child has stayed at this facility
is ``more than a year.'' The Casa Padre facility has
approximately 1,200 employees.
According to Southwest Key, roughly 90 percent of the
children housed in this facility are true UAC, meaning that
they entered the U.S. without a parent or guardian. Roughly 10
percent were separated from a parent or legal guardian. For
purposes of this section, both true UAC and children separated
from their parents are defined as ``UAC.''
As noted above, UAC and children separated from their
parents are first encountered by CBP. CBP notifies HHS ORR that
it has apprehended a UAC. ORR does an ``intake'' out of its
Washington, D.C. office and determines to which facility the
UAC or separated child should go. DHS facilitates the transfer
of the child to that shelter. According to ORR, more than 80
percent of UAC enter the U.S. with information about a
potential sponsor and other paperwork.
ORR staff stated that they did not receive consistent
information from DHS regarding whether a child was
separatedfrom their parents, including information about who that
parent is, upon entry pursuant to the ``zero tolerance'' initiative or
otherwise. Sometimes this information was in the information provided
by DHS, and other times ORR learned about the separation from the child
itself. Case managers work with DHS to obtain additional information
needed about each UAC.
Within 24 hours of arriving at Casa Padre, UAC are assessed
by a clinician and a case manager who immediately starts the
reunification process. Within 48 hours of arrival, children are
seen by a doctor for vaccinations, receive an x-ray for
tuberculosis, are screened for communicable diseases such as
chicken pox, and are screened via interview for information
about sexual activity, sexual abuse, sexually transmitted
diseases (STD), and chronic conditions, among other medical
issues. Southwest Key follows the CDC's catch up schedule for
vaccinations. If a UAC says that he or she received a
vaccination in their home country, Southwest Key asks for
documentation that they received the vaccination. It is rare
that this documentation can be provided. If the UAC claims that
they have been vaccinated, but documentation cannot be
provided, the facility will still vaccinate the UAC. If a UAC
tests positive for a reportable communicable disease or STD
both the doctor and Southwest Key report that to the state. The
sexual abuse screen asks whether a UAC has been sexually abused
either in their home country, en route to the U.S., or in CBP
or ORR care. UAC are also asked about sexual abuse by
clinicians and case managers. UAC receive an educational
assessment within 72 hours and are assigned to one of four
educational levels, with four being roughly a high school
education.
UAC see a clinician at least once a week, sometimes more.
They also regularly meet with their case manager. At Casa
Padre, each UAC can make two ten-minute phone calls a week--one
to someone in their home country (typically a parent) and
another to their potential sponsor in the U.S. UAC receive six
hours of school Monday through Friday and two hours of outdoor
time each day. There are also indoor activity rooms and
gymnasiums. Meals are served in 30-minute shifts. The
facilities viewed by the delegation were clean. Casa Padre is
divided into four quadrants. Each quadrant is identical and
includes bedrooms, classrooms, and activity rooms. Each
quadrant has an elected student council, including a President,
Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, and can voice
concerns and suggestions to Casa Padre management.
As noted above, according to ORR, most UAC arrive in the
U.S. with information about a potential sponsor. The case
manager works with the potential sponsor to determine the
relationship to the child. ORR policy requires a bonafide
relationship--the sponsor must know the UAC in some way. If the
potential sponsor is unable to prove his or her relationship to
the UAC via birth certificates, then DNA testing is used.
Approximately 100-150 UAC at Casa Padre are placed with a
sponsor each week. The vast majority of sponsors are parents,
aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Some sponsors are close family
friends. If a UAC enters the country without an identified
sponsor, ORR works with outside groups to determine whether the
UAC has a likelihood of receiving asylum. If such a UAC is
likely to receive asylum, then he or she would likely be placed
in foster care. If such a UAC is not likely to receive asylum,
then he or she would likely stay at the ORR facility until
their court date. If a UAC turns 18 while in the care of ORR,
they are transferred to DHS custody.
When a sponsor is approved, Southwest Key staff travels
with the UAC so they can meet their sponsor. Many sponsors are
not legally present in the U.S., so they cannot travel to the
Casa Padre facility as it is within the checkpoints in Texas.
After a UAC is released to a sponsor, ORR tracks the UAC for 30
days, including by follow-up phone call. If ORR finds that the
UAC is not doing well, for example, it is found that they
haven't been enrolled in school or are not attending school,
ORR files a report. Members asked why HHS does not follow-up at
subsequent intervals, such as 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, etc.
According to ORR, the UAC must appear for court dates and there
are other systems in place should the UAC not appear in court.
ORR has previously told the Committee that it does not have the
resources necessary to conduct longer-term follow up of UAC
once they are placed with sponsors.
As Casa Padre is not a detention facility, it cannot
forcibly stop UAC from leaving the property. If a UAC indicates
that he wants to leave, staff at Casa Padre speak with the UAC
and encourage him to stay, but does not restrain the UAC should
they elect to leave. Casa Padre staff stated that two UAC have
walked out of the facility since it opened in 2017; one was
subsequently apprehended and was stepped up to a higher
shelter.
ORR monitors the capacity of its grantee shelters daily and
is able to adjust as necessary. For example, Casa Padre applied
for and received a variance to house more UAC when that became
necessary.
According to ORR officials, children that were separated
from their parents and are to be reunified with their parents
would be brought by the shelter where they were placed to a
reunification site, at which point the children would be
transferred to ICE custody and the family unit would be
released by ICE due to a lack of family detention space.
IV. GATEWAY BRIDGE PORT OF ENTRY
The delegation visited the Gateway Bridge Port of Entry in
Brownsville, Texas. The delegation was briefed and provided a
tour by the CBP officials on the Port of Brownsville. The
briefing included information regarding the port's area of
responsibility; operational infrastructure; its processing and
inspection process for passenger, pedestrian, commercial,
seaport, and rail border traffic; and admissibility processing.
The Port of Brownsville is the only port of entry in the
United States with all operational disciplines (land, air, sea,
and rail) under the direction of one port director. The
Brownsville area of responsibility extends over 180 square
miles and has four international border crossings, an
international airport, seaport, rail bridge, and two commercial
import/export lots. The operational infrastructure consists of
17 vehicle lanes, 10 pedestrian lanes, 17 immigration
processing windows, and eight inbound commercial lanes. In 2017
the Brownsville Port ranked 5th in the number of vehicles
processed--4,848,503; 6th in the number of privately owned
vehicle passengers processed--10,003,047; 12th in the number of
commercially operated vehicles processed--222,406; 13th in the
number of trains processed--790; and 12th in the number of
buses processed--6,591. Thus far in FY 2018, the Port of
Brownsville has processed individuals claiming asylum from 91
different countries. Additionally, they processed approximately
12,000 immigration apprehensions. The Port of Brownsville
issues 3,000 to 4,000 I-94s each day.
Port officials cannot turn away individuals or families
seeking asylum once they have crossed the border between the
U.S. and Mexico at the port of entry. CBP officials process
those seeking asylum, creating an ``A-file.'' Individuals or
families can stay at the Port for up to 72 hours, and all
asylees are sent to ICE ERO after processing by CBP at the
port. If the individual or family speaks Spanish, CBP officials
can interview and transfer them to ICE ERO within three hours.
If a translator is needed then the process can take longer,
often six to eight hours. If the Port cannot transfer the
individual or family, then the line quickly backs up. CBP
officials stand outside the facility on the Gateway Bridge
itself and allow people into the facility--both those seeking
asylum and those otherwise entering the U.S.--as space permits.
The CBP officials on the bridge also do a preliminary review of
any paperwork presented by those wanting to enter the U.S. CBP
officials expedite asylum processing for humanitarian reasons,
including a pregnant mother or a family with young children.
There are families waiting to legally claim asylum waiting in
Mexico. CBP officials could not provide an estimate of how many
families are waiting at this facility or the amount of time
that an individual or family typically waits before space is
available to process their asylum claim. According to CBP
officials, they are processing legal asylum claims as quickly
as ICE ERO can pick up the individuals or families. The
delegation did not cross into Mexico.
According to CBP officials, approximately 80 percent of
people seeking asylum are found to have a ``reasonable fear''
of persecution, which allows them to stay in the U.S. while
their asylum case is pending. Ultimately, approximately 20
percent of people seeking asylum meet the ``credible fear''
standard.
CBP officials examine the documents provided by the
individual or family for obvious indicators of fraud. According
to CBP officials, they can often determine if a passport is
fraudulent. It is much harder to determine if a birth
certificate is fraudulent. CBP officials assume the documents
presented are accurate and valid unless there is evidence that
it is fraudulent. If an individual presents fraudulent
documents, CBP refers the individual for prosecution.
The Port of Brownsville facility was last updated in 1983
and the CBP officials expressed concern over the fact that they
don't have a lot of room to handle UACs or family units. The
lack of infrastructure is compounded by the fact that finding a
facility to house families can take 72 hours. During a walking
tour of the facility and bridge, the delegation observed what
was formerly office space that has been converted into a room
to hold UACs and family units until they are able to transfer
them. This room is in the same area as the interview rooms and
holding cells for criminals that are apprehended at the port of
entry.
In addition to the lack of space, the Port of Brownsville
facility is largely using old technologies. According to CBP
officials, the Port does not receive enough electricity to run
newer scanning technologies or magnetometers.
CBP officials told the delegation that there has been an
increase in the male head of household family units coming
across theborder, 200 last year, and officials shared that
there are limited facilities and beds that can accommodate that type of
family unit. According to an ICE official at the Port Isabel Detention
Center, if a male head of household family unit requests asylum at the
Port of Brownsville facility, CBP officials at Brownsville will
interview and process the request and make a request to ICE for male
head of household detention bed space. Given the lack of male head of
household detention space, ICE will deny the request. The family unit
will be sent to a CPC and processed with a notice to appear for a
subsequent immigration hearing. Officials also noted that part of the
CBP delay is due to the ports infrastructure because the facility is
not designed to process the high number of individuals seeking asylum.
V. PORT ISABEL DETENTION CENTER
The delegation visited the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Port
Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas. The delegation
was briefed and provided a tour by the ICE officials at the
Port Isabel Detention Center. The briefing included information
about the history of the facility, the size and classification
of the population at the facility, average length of stay and
the various reasons that individuals are detained at the Port
Isabel facility.
The facility was built in the 1960s and was a former
military base. Some of the infrastructure is new, but the
facility still has parts of the original structure. The
facility is a 1,200-bed facility and only holds adults, both
male and female, who are awaiting removal or going through the
removal process. The facility is authorized to house level 1
(non-criminal), level 2 (convicted of a minor crime), and level
3 (criminal felony) individuals. Individuals wear different
color clothing depending on their level. Individuals classified
as level 1 make up the majority of the facility's population.
Individuals classified as level 1 do not interact with
individuals classified as level 3. Individuals classified as
level 2 can interact with individuals in level 1 or level 3,
depending on the circumstances. Individuals detained at this
facility come from a port of entry after claiming asylum, after
apprehension by CBP after illegally crossing the border, often
after claiming asylum, or an ICE action.
Upon arrival at the facility, individuals receive a quick
medical screening and are classified into levels 1, 2, or 3.
Within the first 12 hours, they receive a more thorough medical
screening; females are also tested for pregnancy. The average
length of stay for an individual is 11 days and on average
there are roughly 500 individuals going in and out of the
facility on a ``good day.'' There are approximately 4-5 charter
flights per week that hold 135 individuals to transport
individuals back to their country of origin. Others are
released into the U.S. after an interview showing that they
have a reasonable fear of persecution if they return to their
home country. Of the facility's population, officials noted
that approximately 20-30 percent of individuals claim fear of
being returned to their country.
According to ICE ERO officials, at this facility, if a
pregnant woman is less than six months pregnant and can be
returned to her home country within a week, she will be
detained at Port Isabel and then deported. If she is more than
six months pregnant, or will not be deported within a week, she
is released with a notice to appear at a subsequent immigration
hearing.
For individuals who are released into the U.S. after a
credible fear screening, ICE ERO asks relatives or other people
a potential asylee knows to procure a bus ticket for the
individual before they are released. Local charitable shelters
also help individuals get to their intended destinations.
Currently there are 371 identified parents in custody at
Port Isabel, both male and female. ICE is working with HHS and
ORR to identify parents and as such HHS is on site conducting
DNA testing and matching them with children to ensure that they
are a legitimate family. The DNA testing started last week and
as of Monday, July 9, ICE officials expected that testing to be
completed in the next 2 days. Despite being designated as a
family reunification site, officials stated that there they are
not equipped to have children at the Port Isabel facility.
Instead, a third facility nearby was designated as a place for
parents and kids to be reunified and they are working with ORR
on that process. ICE ERO officials explained that Port Isabel
had been designated as a family reunification site because it
is a location to which parents have been moved to facilitate
reunification with their children. ICE ERO officials at this
facility did not have detailed information on the process by
which parents separated from their children would be reunified
with the parents at the third facility.
COMMITTEE ACTION
The Committee on Energy and Commerce has not held hearings
on the legislation.
On July 12, 2018, the Committee met in open markup session
and ordered H. Res. 982, without amendment, reported to the
House without recommendation by a record vote of 52 yeas and 0
nays.
COMMITTEE VOTES
Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the
record votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments
thereto. The following reflects the record votes taken during
the Committee consideration:
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII, the findings and recommendations of the Committee
are reflected in this report.
NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX EXPENDITURES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee
finds that H. Res. 982 would result in no new or increased
budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or
revenues.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, at the time this
report was filed, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not available.
FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general
performance goal or objective of this legislation is to request
the President and direct the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to furnish certain records relating to the President's
``zero tolerance'' policy.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION
H. Res. 982 requests the President, and directs the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, to transmit to the
House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date
of the adoption of the resolution, records relating to the
President's ``zero tolerance'' policy.
DISSENTING VIEWS
I submit these dissenting views, as Ranking Member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, in opposition to the failure
by the Republican majority of the Committee to act favorably
upon H. Res. 982.
On June 14, 2018, I sent a letter to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services (HHS) asking him to answer some
questions about the Trump Administration's implementation of a
``zero tolerance'' immigration policy that resulted in the
forcible separation of all minors, including very young
children, from their parents and family members. My letter
requested details about the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement
(ORR) and ORR's ability to track the minors in its care, as
well as the role of ORR Director Scott Lloyd in facilitating
the release of certain minors.
Six days later, on June 20, 2018, every Democratic Member
of the Energy and Commerce Committee signed a hearing request
letter to Chairman Walden and Health Subcommittee Chairman
Burgess emphasizing that the Committee must immediately hold a
hearing to examine the implications of the ``zero tolerance''
policy and ``to gain clarity on what children are being placed
in ORR's custody, how they are being cared for, and the long-
term implications these policies may have on their health.''
The Democratic Members urged Chairman Walden and Chairman
Burgess to invite key officials and other pediatric health care
experts to testify regarding the impacts of this policy.
On June 20, 2018, after sustained public outcry regarding
the Administration's family separation policy, President Trump
signed an Executive Order ending the family separation policy.
Following this action, I again called on Chairman Walden to
schedule a hearing as soon as possible.
Now, nearly a month after my initial request, the Chairman
continues to refuse to schedule a hearing or provide any
assurances that a hearing will be scheduled in the future.
On June 26, 2018, I requested additional information from
the Secretary of HHS and expressed my concern about the ability
of ORR and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reunite
separated children and parents in a timely manner. I asked for
information about the constantly changing numbers of children
in ORR's care that were forcibly separated from their parents,
and whether all family separations had effectively ceased
following the June 20 Executive Order. I also inquired about
the system by which HHS and ORR track those children who are in
its care, and how HHS ensures identifying information is
connected to each child. Additionally, I asked how HHS worked
with DHS and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to obtain
information about a child's parents or family, and who is the
primary Administration official in charge of managing
reunification. Most critically, I further sought information on
whether ORR took or was taking any steps to offer special care
or treatment to children who may have suffered trauma as a
result of being forcibly separated from their family.
Following continued inaction from the Chairman, on June 27,
2018, during a health subcommittee markup, I offered an
amendment to H.R. ___, the Pandemic and All-Hazards
Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2018, which stated that it
is the sense of Congress that:
(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services should
consult with such public health officials as may be
necessary to determine whether the separation of
children from their parent or guardian as a result of
the Trump Administration's ``zero tolerance'' policy is
a public health emergency;
(2) The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives should hold at least one hearing to
examine the current status and welfare of those
children who have been separated from their parent or
guardian as a result of the Trump Administration's
``zero tolerance'' policy and the long-term
implications of such policy on the health of such
children; and
(3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the
Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response
should be called as witnesses for such hearing.''
Collectively, every Republican Member of the Health
Subcommittee who cast a vote on my amendment opposed it. My
amendment failed on a roll-call vote.
Given the Chairman's failure to schedule a hearing and the
Administration's failure to provide sufficient answers to the
questions raised, on July 3, 2018, I introduced H. Res. 982 in
order to obtain documents and other information on the health
and welfare of children forcibly separated from their parents
or guardians as a result of the President's ``zero tolerance''
policy, as well as the long-term implications of this policy on
the health of those children.
One day before the Committee's consideration of H. Res.
982, on July 11, 2018, I received the first and only written
correspondence from HHS on this issue. HHS's response failed to
answer most all of my questions, including details on the
process HHS and DHS are utilizing to facilitate reunification.
Additionally, HHS's written response provided no details on the
long-term health implications of these children or how HHS will
ensure reunification if a parent is deported without his or her
child. These questions remain unanswered.
At the markup of H. Res. 982, I once again called on
Chairman Walden to hold a hearing on this matter and presented
numerous reasons why this resolution should be reported
favorably. First, I explained that the Resolution was neither
premature nor overbroad, as the inadequate responses from the
Administration to my multiple requests on this issue warranted
the Resolution. While the Resolution requested copies of all
documents and other records, given the importance of this issue
and the immense need for oversight of the Administration's
actions and response, the breadth of this request is
appropriate. Additionally, my resolution was not premature as
the Administration was asked to respond in writing to each of
my questions not later than July 6, 2018.
I noted further that my resolution only covers categories
of information that are already in the possession of the
President or HHS Secretary and nothing in the Resolution
threatens any basis upon which the President can assert
Executive Privilege on legally cognizable grounds. The
Resolution was also drafted in the proper parliamentary form to
be respectful to the Constitutional separation of powers
doctrine.
During debate of H. Res. 982 Representative Matsui stated
that ``Congress has the responsibility to hold the President
and his administration accountable for this disaster.'' She
went on to stress that ``the government did this, we have to
find out why, and where the children are going to be. That is
up to us as Congress, we are elected. We are elected
representatives of our constituents and it is up to us to
really learn what happened.'' Additionally, Representative
Sarbanes noted that ``This is a classic case of missing in
action'' and emphasized that the topic ``falls squarely within
the jurisdiction and responsibility and obligation of the
Committee.''
Unfortunately, the Committee ordered H. Res. 982 reported
without recommendation. As a result, this Committee will not
gain access to critical information required by the Resolution.
This information would have enabled the Committee to
conduct essential oversight of the Administration's actions and
ensure the Committee has the documents it needs to understand
the implications of the ``zero tolerance'' policy. The
Administration's failure to provide sufficient information in
response to my requests, coupled with the Chairman's failure to
hold a hearing on this matter, has left Congress in the dark on
the Administration's actions and response, and as a result the
Committee cannot effectively oversee the Agencies responsible
for this policy.
The health and welfare of the children impacted by the
Trump Administration's ``zero tolerance'' policy must be
evaluated immediately.
My resolution of inquiry is ripe for action. H. Res. 982 is
straight-forward and entirely reasonable in what it asks of the
President and directs the Secretary of HHS to provide to our
Committee and the House of Representatives. For better, far
more than worse, family unification is vital to all of as
individuals and to our physical and mental health and overall
well-being. Regardless of one's citizenship status or the
country from which they are migrating to the United States,
happy and stable families are undeniably essential to becoming
and staying healthy. For that reason alone, separating children
from their families, regardless of whose policy it is or the
objectives behind that policy, is suspect on its face and must
be balanced by through our input, as a separate and co-equal
branch of the federal government. Our Committee should not
allow or tolerate further delay by this Administration in
providing answers to our questions or soliciting our advice and
reactions regarding this unabated crisis.
In order to perform our sworn duties as elected
representatives and leaders, we must convene an oversight
hearing as soon as possible. For these reasons, H. Res. 982
should have been favorably reported.
Frank Pallone, Jr.,
Ranking Member.