U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–380 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

THE WAY FORWARD ON BORDER SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Serial No. 116–4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

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


Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

DONALD M. PAYNE, JR., New Jersey 

KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York 

J. LUIS CORREA, California 

XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico 

MAX ROSE, New York 

LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois 

ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGA ́ N, California 

VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PETER T. KING, New York 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana 

DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona 

MARK GREEN, Tennessee 

VAN TAYLOR, Texas 

JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania 

DAN CRENSHAW, Texas 

MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi 

HOPE GOINS, Staff Director 

CHRIS VIESON, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress From 

the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 3 

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 5 

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas: 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

WITNESS

Hon. Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13 

FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Amnesty International ..................................................................... 69 

Statement of the Center for Victims of Torture .................................................... 74 

Statement of CWS ................................................................................................... 77 

Letter From the Electronic Privacy Information Center ...................................... 79 

Statement of First Focus ......................................................................................... 82 

Statement of HIAS .................................................................................................. 84 

Statement of Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) ...................................................... 85 

Statement of Physicians for Human Rights .......................................................... 91 

Letters From Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee ........................................................ 91 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairman Bennie G. Thompson ................................................. 95 

Questions From Honorable Xochitl Torres Small ................................................. 97 

Questions From Honorable Lauren Underwood .................................................... 98 

Questions From Ranking Member Mike Rogers ................................................... 99 

Questions From Honorable Clay Higgins .............................................................. 99 

Question From Honorable Michael Guest ............................................................. 100 

(1) 

THE WAY FORWARD ON BORDER SECURITY 

Tuesday, March 6, 2019 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

310, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson 

(Chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Thompson, Jackson Lee, Langevin, 

Richmond, Payne, Rice, Correa, Torres Small, Rose, Underwood, 

Slotkin, Cleaver, Green of Texas, Clarke, Titus, Watson Coleman, 

Barraga ́n, Demings, Rogers, King, McCaul, Katko, Walker, 

Higgings, Lesko, Green of Tennessee, Taylor, Joyce, Crenshaw, and 

Guest. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Committee on Homeland Security will 

come to order. 

What I would like to do is, for the members of the press, we all 

ask that you part where you are right there and get to the side, 

take your pictures as you like. But before we begin, we would like 

to accommodate the public behind you. 

OK, those press folk who are where you are, we are going to ask 

that you get to the side. 

The committee is meeting today to receive testimony on the way 

forward on border security. 

Now, before I begin, I want to express my condolences to those 

who lost loved ones in the devastating storms in the Southeast on 

Sunday. At least 23 people lost their lives, and still more were injured in Lee County, Alabama, the Ranking Member’s district. I 

would like to speak for the Members of the committee and say that 

our thoughts and prayers are with you and all your constituents 

at this difficult time. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. In addition, I would like to express our 

sympathies to Congressman Katko in the loss of his father last 

week. A lot of us have been there. It is a difficult time. But know 

that we are all in support of you. 

Turning to today’s hearing, I note it has been nearly a year since 

the Secretary of Homeland Security testified before this committee, 

as well as a number of the Members of the committee are meeting 

you for the first time. 

A great deal has happened in that time. The Department of 

Homeland Security separated thousands of children from their parents at the border. Two small children died in the Department’s 

custody. The President shut down the Federal Government over deVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
2 

mands for more taxpayer money for a border wall. Most recently, 

the President declared a non-existent emergency at the border because Congress would not capitulate to his funding demands. 

Clearly, oversight of the Trump administration’s border policy is 

long overdue. 

Under my Chairmanship, the days of lax oversight of the Department by this committee are over. With the hope of informing our 

hearing discussion on January 4, 2019, I wrote to Secretary 

Nielsen asking for documents related to the border wall, the Department’s interference with asylum seekers at ports of entry, separation of families at the border, and treatment of children in their 

custody. 

More than 2 months later, the committee has only received a 

handful of the requested documents. This is unacceptable. The 

committee needs this information for its oversight, and the Department’s failure to provide it raises further questions about this administration’s credibility. Let me be clear. I am prepared to use the 

tools at the committee’s disposal to obtain the information if the 

Secretary fails to comply. 

Today, we will look at what the administration has said and 

done about border security and line it up against the facts. When 

it comes to border security, what the American people have heard 

from the Trump administration is misleading at best. The Secretary has said the administration had no policy to separate children from their parents. But internal memorandum makes clear 

she was aware the administration’s policy would require families to 

be separated. 

No amount of verbal gymnastics will change that she knew the 

Trump administration was implementing a policy to separate families at the border. To make matters worse, the administration bungled implementation of a cruel plan, losing track of children and 

even deporting parents to Central America without their children. 

The Department also began limiting lawful asylum seekers presenting themselves at ports of entry, driving desperate families into 

more remote parts of the border and overwhelming border personnel and resources in those areas. 

Tragically, two young children died when they became ill in custody. Shortly thereafter, the President shut down the Government 

and declared a border emergency, an emergency that does not 

exist, to get more funding for a wall. 

The President himself admitted there is no emergency, even as 

he was announcing his declaration, saying, ‘‘I didn’t need to do this. 

I just want to do it faster.’’ The President wants to build a wall so 

there is something to point to or have his picture taken in front of 

to convince the American people he has border security figured out. 

Real border security cannot be achieved by building a wall on the 

Southern Border, blocking asylum seekers, or separating children 

from their parents. These things are simplistic solutions that may 

have political appeal for some but offer little security value, if any. 

Indeed, focusing on the Southern Border, to the exclusion of 

threats elsewhere, undermines homeland security. Today, the Secretary can choose whether to be complicit in this administration’s 

misinformation campaign or she can correct the record and start a 

3 

serious discussion about the way forward on border security. For 

the sake of our country, I urge her to choose the latter. 

[The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON

MARCH 6, 2019 

I would note it has been nearly a year since the Secretary of Homeland Security 

testified before this committee. A great deal has happened in that time. The Department of Homeland Security separated thousands of children from their parents at 

the border. Two small children died in the Department’s custody. The President 

shut down the Federal Government over demands for more taxpayer money for a 

border wall. And most recently, the President declared a nonexistent ‘‘emergency’’ 

at the border because Congress would not capitulate to his funding demands. 

Clearly, oversight of the Trump administration’s border policy is long overdue. 

Under my Chairmanship, the days of lax oversight of the Department by this committee are over. 

With the hope of informing our hearing discussion, on January 4, 2019, I wrote 

to Secretary Nielsen asking for documents related to the border wall, the Department’s interference with asylum seekers at ports of entry, separation of families at 

the border, and treatment of children in their custody. More than 2 months later, 

the committee has only received a handful of the requested documents. This is unacceptable. 

The committee needs this information for its oversight, and the Department’s failure to provide it raises further questions about this administration’s credibility. Let 

me be clear—I am prepared to use the tools at the committee’s disposal to obtain 

the information if the Secretary fails to comply. 

Today, we will look at what the administration has said and done about border 

security and line it up against the facts. When it comes to border security, what 

the American people have heard from the Trump administration is misleading at 

best. 

The Secretary has said the administration had no policy to separate children from 

their parents, but internal memoranda make clear she was aware the administration’s policy would require families to be separated. No amount of verbal gymnastics 

will change that she knew the Trump administration was implementing policy to 

separate families at the border. To make matters worse, the administration bungled 

implementation of its cruel plan, losing track of children and even deporting parents 

to Central America without their children. The Department also began limiting lawful asylum seekers presenting themselves at ports of entry, driving desperate families into more remote parts of the border and overwhelming border personnel and 

resources in those areas. Tragically, two young children died when they became ill 

in custody. 

Shortly thereafter, the President shut down the Government and declared a border ‘‘emergency’’—an emergency that does not exist—to get more funding for a wall. 

The President himself admitted there is no emergency, even as he was announcing 

his declaration, saying ‘‘I didn’t need to do this. I just want to do it faster.’’ The 

President wants to build a wall so there is something to point to, or have his picture 

taken in front of, to convince the American people he has border security figured 

out. 

Real border security cannot be achieved by building a wall on the Southern Border, blocking asylum seekers, or separating children from their parents. These 

things are simplistic solutions that may have political appeal for some but offer little security value, if any. Indeed, focusing on the Southern Border to the exclusion 

of threats elsewhere undermines homeland security. 

Today, the Secretary can choose whether to be complicit in this administration’s 

misinformation campaign, or she can correct the record and start a serious discussion about the way forward on border security. For the sake of our country, I urge 

her to choose the latter. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking 

Member of the full committee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Rogers, for an opening statement. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you calling 

this hearing today. 

4 

Thank you, Secretary Nielsen, for being here and for your service 

to our country. 

I do appreciate the Chairman and his acknowledgment of what 

happened in my district on Sunday. It really is breathtaking when 

you go down and see the devastation of a tornado that was nearly 

a mile wide and stayed on the ground for 70 miles. 

As the Chairman said, we have 23 dead, 90 injured, and more 

than 100 homes just completely destroyed. This committee should 

take a lot of pride in the fact that we have made a difference in 

this country over the last 15 years. The first responders were just 

wonderful. 

Our local first responders, many of whom got training through 

Federal money, were flawless, worked their hearts out. FEMA did 

a great job. They were ready to go yesterday, nearby, kept us informed. I know they are doing a great job in the rebuilding. 

But we make a difference what we have done in preparing first 

responders around this country. I know the Governor has been in 

touch working with EMA and the FEMA officials and they are 

doing a great job. But I appreciate your prayers as we try to start 

the rebuilding now that we have finished the search and recovery. 

With that, thank you, Secretary Nielsen for everything your Department is doing to assist the citizens of Alabama’s Third Congressional District. 

This hearing comes at an important moment. There is a growing 

crisis at our Southwest Border. First, changing demographics have 

created extraordinary challenges for our Border Patrol. In the past, 

most illegal border crossers were young Mexican men and our laws 

allowed to us swiftly return them to Mexico. 

Today, we see massive rise in the number of families and unaccompanied children from Central America and beyond. Human 

smugglers are exploiting the loopholes in our laws and take advantage of our broken immigration system. Smugglers are telling vulnerable families that your child is your, ‘‘visa’’, to stay in the 

United States if they turn themselves in at the border. 

The smugglers’ propaganda is working. Already, family apprehensions in fiscal year 2019 are more than 800 percent higher than 

2013. We are also seeing migrants arriving at the border in groups 

of record sizes. These massive groups overwhelm everything from 

the remote Border Patrol stations to busy ports of entry. 

Seventy groups of more than 100 migrants each have been apprehended by the Border Patrol since October of last year. Just 5 

months, 70 groups. Some of these are not just a hundred, they are 

thousands. If you are curious, 2 years ago, we only had due 2 

groups of more than 100 people. That has happened in a short 

amount of time. 

Migrants arriving at our border had a long and arduous journey. 

The smugglers and traffickers that advertise a ticket in the United 

States don’t care about their victim’s well-being, they only care 

about making money. They lead these migrants into dangerous 

conditions without a second thought. As a result, Border Patrol 

projects 158 percent increase in migrants needing medical treatment for when they cross the border from last year. 

These change in migrant flows place men and women of CBP and 

Border Patrol in perilous situations. Our officers are in our searchVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
5 

and-rescue teams, paramedics are having to service rescue teams, 

paramedics, and family counselors to groups of over 100 strangers 

at a single time. Gangs and drug cartels are taking advantage of 

our porous border to bring hundreds of thousands of pounds of 

drugs into our country. 

In fiscal year 2018, CBP seized 895,000 pounds of drugs at the 

border. That includes approximately 2,100 pounds of fentanyl. To 

put that in perspective, just 2 milligrams of fentanyl are a fatal 

dose to a person according to the DEA; 2,135 pounds of fentanyl 

represents a lethal dose for 484 million people, more than the entire population of our country. That equals—if that isn’t of an 

emergency, I don’t know what is. 

Contrary to what some say, CBP actually seizes more pounds of 

drugs between ports of entry than at ports of entry. Since fiscal 

year 2012, CBP has seized more than 11 million pounds of drugs 

between ports of entry compared to only 4 million pounds at ports 

of entry. 

Mr. Chairman, we have to stop the flow of illegal immigrants 

and community-destroying drugs across our Southwest Border. We 

must put an end to transnational gangs that profit off these illegal 

enterprises and bring crime to American streets. The only way to 

do that is to secure the border. 

We need an all-of-the-above approach to border security that includes manpower, 21st Century technology, and barriers. With this 

approach, we will deter human trafficking, human smugglers, and 

others from crossing hundreds of miles of open desert with innocent children and putting children in grave danger. Fewer drugs 

will make it into the United States, saving lives and making our 

communities safer. 

We know an all-of-the-above approach works. In areas where we 

built a wall system, illegal traffic has plummeted. In San Diego, illegal traffic dropped 92 percent after the barrier was erected. In El 

Paso, illegal traffic dropped 95 percent. In Tucson, illegal traffic 

dropped 90 percent. 

Let us build on this success. Border security and keeping Americans safe used to be priorities for both our parties. I have been on 

this committee since, just like the Chairman, since its inception. 

We never argued about whether barriers worked until Donald 

Trump wanted them. This is not rocket science. 

Now that today many of my Democrat colleagues are going to be 

calling for the abolition of ICE, and I don’t understand that. Rather 

than use this hearing to score political points, I encourage my colleagues to take this opportunity to hear from the Secretary herself 

about the challenges at our border and what the committee can do 

to address the changing dynamics as I have just described. I welcome the Secretary’s testimony and the excellent work she has 

been doing for our committee and I thank the Chairman for the 

time and yield back. 

[The statement of Ranking Member Rogers follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER MIKE ROGERS

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my constituents in Lee County, 

Alabama whose communities were ravaged by tornado strikes this weekend. Our 

hearts are with them as they begin to rebuild their families and homes. I’d like to 

thank the State and local first responders who were on the scene to aid their neighVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
6 

bors. I know Governor Ivey and others are in touch with FEMA officials and I’m 

sure they’ll do everything they can to help get folks back on their feet. Thank you, 

Secretary Nielsen, for everything your Department is doing to assist the citizens of 

Alabama’s 3rd district. 

This hearing comes at an important moment. There is a growing crisis at our 

Southwest Border. 

First, changing demographics have created extraordinary challenges for our Border Patrol. In the past, most illegal border-crossers were young, Mexican men. And, 

our laws allowed us to swiftly return them back to Mexico. 

Today, we’re seeing a massive rise in the number of families and unaccompanied 

children from Central America and beyond. Human smugglers are exploiting the 

loopholes in our laws and are taking advantage of our broken immigration system. 

Smugglers are telling vulnerable families that a child is their ‘‘visa’’ to stay in the 

United States if they turn themselves in at the border. The smugglers’ propaganda 

is working. 

Already, family apprehensions in fiscal year 2019 are more than 800 percent higher than fiscal year 2013. We’re also seeing migrants arriving at the border in groups 

of record size. 

These massive groups overwhelm everything from remote Border Patrol stations 

to busy ports of entry. Seventy groups of more than 100 migrants each, have been 

apprehended by Border Patrol or presented to CBP since Oct. 1, 2018. 

If you’re curious, there were just TWO migrant groups over 100 people that 

reached our Southwest Border in fiscal year 2017. In the last 5 months, there have 

been 70. 

Migrants arriving at our border have had a long, and arduous journey. The smugglers and traffickers that advertise a ticket into the United States don’t care about 

their victims’ well-being, they only care about making money. They lead them into 

dangerous conditions without a second thought. 

As a result, Border Patrol projects a 158 percent increase in migrants needing 

medical treatment after crossing the border over last year. These changing migrant 

flows place the men and women of CBP and Border Patrol in a perilous situation. 

Our officers are now search-and-rescue teams, paramedics, and family counselors to 

groups of over 100 strangers at a time. 

Gangs and drug cartels are taking advantage of our porous border to bring hundreds of thousands of pounds of drugs into our country. In fiscal year 2018, CBP 

seized 895,011 pounds of drugs at the border. That includes approximately 2,135 

pounds of fentanyl. To put that in perspective, just 2 milligrams of fentanyl are a 

fatal dose to most people according to the DEA. Two thousand, one hundred thirtyfive pounds of fentanyl represents a lethal dose for about 484 MILLION people. 

That equals a lethal dose for more than the entire population of the United States. 

If that isn’t an emergency, I don’t know what is. 

And, contrary to what some say, CBP actually seizes more pounds of drugs BETWEEN ports of entry than AT ports of entry. Since fiscal year 2012, CBP has 

seized more than 11 million pounds of drugs between ports of entry, compared with 

only 4 million pounds at ports of entry. 

Mr. Chairman, we have to stop the flow of illegal immigrants and community-destroying drugs across our Southwest Border. We must put an end to the 

transnational gangs that profit off these illegal enterprises and bring crime to American streets. 

The only way to do that is to secure our border. We need an ‘‘all-of the-above’’ 

approach to border security that includes manpower, 21st-Century technology, and 

barriers. 

With this approach, we will deter human smugglers and others from crossing 

hundreds of miles of open desert with innocent children. And putting those children 

in grave danger. Fewer drugs will make it into the United States, saving lives and 

making our communities safer. 

We know an all-of-the-above approach works. In areas where we have built a wall 

system, illegal traffic has plummeted. 

In San Diego, illegal traffic has dropped 92 percent. In El Paso, illegal traffic has 

dropped 95 percent. And in Tucson, illegal traffic has dropped 90 percent. 

Let’s build on this success. Border security and keeping America safe used to be 

priorities for both Democrats and Republicans. 

We used to hear Democrats calling for consensus. Now many of my Democratic 

colleagues are going as far as calling to abolish ICE. 

Rather than use this hearing to score political points, I encourage my colleagues 

to take this opportunity to hear from the Secretary herself about the challenges at 

our border and what the committee can do to address the changing dynamics I have 

7 

just described. I welcome the Secretary’s testimony about the excellent work she’s 

doing to secure our borders. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

Other Members of the committee are reminded that under the 

committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the 

record. 

[The statement of Honorable Jackson Lee follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

MARCH 6, 2019 

Thank you Chairman Thompson, and Ranking Member Rogers, for convening this 

opportunity for the Homeland Security Committee to hear from Secretary Nielsen 

on ‘‘The Way Forward on Border Security.’’ 

Thank you Secretary Nielsen for joining us for a discussion on how to hold the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) accountable for its border 

security policy, programs, and activities. 

Over the past 17 years we have learned a great deal about the capacity and 

strengthen of the men and women who work at the Department of Homeland Security. 

I hold them in the highest regard for their dedication and service to our country. 

I joined my Democratic colleagues on the House floor in opposition to the President’s Federal Government shutdown in an ill-conceived plan to force Congress to 

pay for his border wall. 

My concern has and will continue to be for the well-being of DHS employees who 

have been impacted by the shutdown on personnel, in particular I want to know: 

• Have all employees received all back pay, including overtime where earned? 

• What steps are being taken to address negative credit damage caused by missed 

bill payments during the 35-day period? and 

• How is the morale of DHS personnel since the shutdown? 

This Nation depends on the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security to protect citizens from those who wish to do them harm. 

Because of the dedication of DHS professional we are better prepared to face these 

challenges as one Nation united against a common foe. 

My primary domestic security concerns are: 

• Making sure that our immigration policies in word and deed reflect that best 

of our Nation’s values and institutions; 

• Separating fact from fiction in the debate over U.S. immigration and border policy; 

• Controlling access to firearms for those who are deemed to be too dangerous to 

fly; 

• Countering international and home-grown violent extremism; 

• preserving Constitutional rights and due process for all persons; 

• protecting critical infrastructure from physical and cyber attack, including technology used in public elections; 

• creating equity and fairness in our Nation’s immigration policies by addressing 

TPS and DACA recipients; and 

• strengthening the capacity of the Department of Homeland Security and the 

Department of Justice to meet the challenges posed by natural disasters. 

As a former Chair and Ranking Member of the Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Transportation Security my commitment to air travel security and 

protecting the homeland from terrorist attacks remains unwavering. 

BORDER SECURITY

Real border security cannot be achieved by building a wall on the Southern Border, blocking asylum seekers, or separating children from their parents. 

These things are in fact making border security more difficult, creating unnecessary tensions with our neighbors in Mexico, Central and South America while here 

at home these policies appeal to anti-American nativist views. 

Our Nation must and should look at all threats, from those who seek to cross our 

borders by air, who may try to exploit our maritime borders, or who cross either 

of our land borders with intent to smuggle or do harm, and develop a strategy to 

implement thoughtful, proven, and fair solutions to keep America secure. 

To further strengthen security along our border the practice of impeding or metering persons outside of our borders in Mexico undermines the enforcement of immiVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
8 

gration law, treaties, and proper application of Federal regulations intended to assure safety and security. 

The practice is called ‘‘metering’’ and is creating unnecessary hardship for people 

seeking entry and fermenting a toxic environment where men, women, and children 

are being held under conditions that can easily lead to deteriorating health and 

safety conditions. 

We should not be wasting resources on fabricated threats such as a fake National 

Emergency, but seek out ways to identify domestic threats and prevent the type of 

attacks that are becoming all too common. 

By any metric, the spate of mass shootings in the last many years has killed more 

Americans than ISIS or any other group. 

Often, the shooters are born within our country’s borders and have ready access 

to high-powered, high-capacity weapons. 

It is no coincidence that the rate of these shootings has dramatically increased 

since the lapse of legislation banning assault weapons. 

TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS AND DREAMERS

I strongly advocate for a crucial legislative fix for debate and vote that will provide permanent legal residence and a path to citizenship to the more than 800,000 

Dreamers, including the 124,000 who live in Texas, whose lives have been turned 

upside down because of this administration’s cruel, unwise, and reckless termination of DACA, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. 

And in connection with legislation to protect Dreamers, I will insist that the administration rescind the revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti, 

El Salvador, and Honduras, or failing that, TPS for those countries be extended by 

Congressional legislation. 

There are 44,800 residents of Texas who are TPS holders from El Salvador 

(36,300), Honduras (8,400), and Haiti, who combined are parents of 53,800 U.S.-born 

children in Texas and 14,000 of whom have home mortgages. 

These TPS holders are integral members of the Texas’s social fabric, having lived 

in Texas an average of 20 years, and contribute an aggregate $2.2 billion to the 

Texas economy. 

I, along with other Members who have served on this committee since its inception, made a commitment that a terrorist attack of the magnitude that occurred on 

September 11, 2001 would never happen again. 

We needed that collaboration and cooperation with the public to succeed in identifying and ultimately stopping the attackers; for this reason, I believe that more can 

and must be done to get and maintain public trust and support. 

For this reason, it is imperative that the 28-minute video left by the bomber be 

part of a comprehensive briefing on the Austin attacks. 

Community involvement and support for the investigation and prevention of violent acts should be uppermost in the minds of law enforcement and policy makers. 

A delay in having a similar briefing on the Austin bombing only causes further 

complications because it will contribute to a public perception that the lives lost did 

not matter. 

The nature of the attacks and the skill of the bomb maker make this briefing on 

the Austin bombings of vital importance to the work of this committee. 

This, coupled with the issuance of a Black Identity Extremism report by the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ Domestic Terrorism Analysis Unit, leaves the AfricanAmerican community once again questioning the motivations of the Nation’s premier Federal law enforcement agency. 

DOMESTIC TERRORIST THREATS AND ATTACKS

The FBI recently arrested Christopher Paul Hasson, a U.S. Coast Guard lieutenant and self-identified white nationalist, after Federal investigators uncovered a 

cache of weapons and ammunition in his Maryland home that authorities say he 

stockpiled to launch a wide-spread domestic terrorist attack targeting politicians 

and journalists. 

Mr. Hasson, according to court records called for ‘‘focused violence’’ to ‘‘establish 

a white homeland’’ and said, he dreamed of a way to kill almost every last person 

on the earth, according to court records filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland. 

Unlike Dylann Storm Roof, the white supremacist who murdered 9 parishioners 

in a church because they were African American, Mr. Hansson’s plans for mass 

murder were stopped by investigators before they could be carried out. 

Unfortunately, these incidents do not seem to be isolated—as you know during the 

last 9 days of last year’s general election, Cesar Sayoc sent bombs in the mail perceived enemies of President Trump. 

9 

Also, last year a series of bombing attacks in Austin, Texas that killed 2 and injured 5 others has raised concerns about domestic terrorists and their efforts to impose by violence their view of American society. 

Three of the deadliest mass shootings in American history have occurred within 

the 2 years, including one in a church in Sutherland Springs, in my home State of 

Texas. 

The shooting in Las Vegas, where over 50 were killed and over 400 injured, to 

the shootings at high schools around the Nation and there seems to be no end or 

solution in sights. 

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, is the eighteenth 

such mass shooting event in the first month-and-a-half of 2018. 

We must do more to protect the American public from real threats and spend less 

time on non-emergencies—and we do need to know that the leadership at the Department of Homeland Security understand the difference. 

I look forward to the Secretary’s testimony before the committee. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Chair also wishes to remind Members 

of the committee and members of the audience that Rule 10(A) prohibits breaches of committee decorum and allows the Chair to respond accordingly. 

With that, let me introduce our witness today. Secretary Kirstjen 

Nielsen has been the Secretary of Homeland Security since December 2017 and was last before the committee in April 2018. I want 

to thank her for joining us today and look forward to her testimony. 

I now ask the Secretary to rise and be sworn in. Please raise 

your right hand. Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury 

that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the 

best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God? 

[Witness sworn.] 

Chairman THOMPSON. I want to thank the Secretary without objection. The witness’ full statement will be incremented in the 

record. I now recognize the Secretary to summarize her statement 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, SECRETARY, 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. Chairman Thompson, Ranking 

Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of the committee it is 

my honor to appear before you today. 

Before I begin, I want to note that our Department has many 

missions. Our people work tirelessly every day around the clock to 

strengthen the safety and security of the American people against 

terrorists, transnational criminal organizations, hackers, rogue nation-states, natural disasters, and more. I want to applaud them always for their extraordinary vigilance in protecting us all from persistent and emerge threats. 

But today I want to focus on one core mission in particular—our 

duty to secure our borders. This is one of the highest priorities of 

our President, this administration, and my Department. Indeed, it 

is among the most fundamental responsibilities of any sovereign 

nation. 

I want to start by stressing that our country remains a beacon 

of hope, freedom, and opportunity to the world. We welcome more 

immigrants, temporary workers, and foreign travelers every year 

than any other nation on Earth. Each year, more than 1 million 

10 

people become lawful permanent residents of the United States. 

Legal immigration has been a bedrock of this country. 

We want to strengthen legal immigration and welcome more individuals through a merit-based system that enhances our economic vitality and the vibrancy of our diverse Nation. 

We also continue to uphold our humanitarian ideals, but illegal 

immigration is simply spiraling out of control and threatening public safety and National security. We face a crisis, a real serious and 

sustained crisis at our borders. We have tens of thousands of illegal 

aliens arriving at our doorstep every month. 

We have drugs, criminals, and violence spilling into our country 

every week, and we have smugglers and traffickers profiting from 

human misery every single day by exploiting people who are seeking a better life, deceiving them about our laws, and fielding everything from sexual slavery to child explication to the smuggling of 

illicit goods. 

Make no mistake—this chain of human misery is getting worse. 

Yesterday we announced that the numbers of apprehension at our 

Southern Border have spiked again substantially. Since last year, 

we had been seeing 50,000 to 60,000 migrants arrive at our Southern Border each month. But in February, we saw a 30 percent 

jump over the previous month with agents apprehending or encountering nearly 75,000 aliens. 

This is an 80 percent increase over the same time last year, and 

I report today that CBP is forecasting the problem will get even 

worse this spring as the weather warms up. 

The projections are dire. The agency is now on track to apprehend more migrants crossing illegally in the first 6 months of this 

fiscal year than the entirety of fiscal year 2017. At the current pace 

we are on track to encounter close to 1 million illegal aliens at our 

Southern Border this year. 

Our capacity is already severely restrained, but these increases 

will overwhelm the system entirely. This is not a manufactured crisis. This is truly an emergency. 

What is different about the current migrant flows—and this is 

important—is not just how many people are coming but who is arriving. 

Historically illegal aliens crossing into the United States are predominantly single adult males from Mexico with no legal rights to 

stay and who we could quickly detain and removed within 48 

hours, but in recent years we have seen the numbers of vulnerable 

populations, children, and families skyrocket. Over 60 percent of 

the current flows are family units and unaccompanied alien children and 60 percent are non-Mexican. 

Because of outdated laws, misguided court decisions, and a massive backlog of cases, we are often forced to release these groups 

into the United States and we have virtually no hope of removing 

them in the future. Importantly, our ability to help those truly in 

need is severely limited. 

The vast majority of these individuals are from Central America. 

While many of them initially claim asylum and are let into the 

United States, only 1 in 10 are ultimately granted asylum by an 

immigration judge. Unfortunately, when it comes time to remove 

11 

the other 90 percent, they have often disappeared into the interior 

of our country. 

Smugglers and traffickers have caught on, realizing that the outdated laws, lack of resources, and bad court decisions effectively 

give them a free ticket into America. Information about the weaknesses in our system has spread quickly in Central America. In 

fact, they are advertised. Our booming economy under President 

Trump has made the dangerous journey even more attractive to 

migrants. 

As a result, the flow of families and children has become a flood. 

In the past 5 years, we have seen a 620 percent increase in families or those posing as families apprehended at the border. This 

last fiscal year was the highest on record, and of great concern to 

me is that the children are being used as pawns to get into our 

country. 

We have encountered recycling rings where innocent young people are used multiple times to help aliens gain illegal entry. As a 

Nation, we simply cannot stand for this. We must fix the system. 

Today’s migrant flows have created a humanitarian catastrophe. 

In one study, more than 30 percent of women reported sexual assault along the way and 70 percent of all migrants reported experiencing violence. 

Smugglers and traffickers are forcing migrants into inhumane 

conditions, demanding extraordinary sums of money, and putting 

their lives in danger. Vulnerable populations, especially children, 

are coming into DHS sicker than ever before. 

This is also a public safety and National security crisis. TCOs are 

using the situation to line their pockets, fueling a rise in other illegal activity and the spread of violent crime into our country. Gang 

members are smuggling new recruits into the United States, with 

CBP recording a 50 percent spike over the last fiscal year in the 

number of gang members apprehended at the Southern Border 

alone. DHS personnel are grappling daily with the movement of 

drugs, illicit goods, and unknown threat actors coming across the 

borders. 

So what are we doing about this? At the President’s direction we 

are confronting it head-on in many ways. Let me try to quickly 

summarize. 

We have championed a border wall system which includes infrastructure technology and additional personnel. We have implemented virtually every measure within our authority to end catchand-release to keep aliens with no legal right to stay from being 

released into our country. We worked with the Pentagon to deploy 

troops to the Southern Border, which has helped us achieve tens 

of thousands of apprehensions and turn-backs of illegal aliens. We 

have dramatically increased referrals for prosecutions of single 

adults illegally crossing the border from 12 percent at the start of 

the administration to nearly 50 percent today. 

We have worked tirelessly with the Northern Triangle countries. 

I myself can attest to the many trips that I have made and the conversations and negotiations I have had, to deal with the root causes 

of migration and to address the challenges at the source. 

I talk to my counterparts in Central America almost weekly. I 

travel down there regularly. This month I am happy to report that 

12 

we expect to sign a historic regional compact, the first ever with 

those countries, to counter irregular migration, human smuggling, 

trafficking, and the formation of caravans. This is something I have 

been pursuing for years and will have a real effect on this crisis. 

We have stepped up efforts to protect women and children from 

being abused, kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and exploited upon 

the dangerous journey and are doing more to dismantle TCOs, including through concerted interagency action and deeper foreign 

partnerships. 

We have intensified operations to seize illicit drugs, especially 

opioids, as they are smuggled into the United States, including the 

deployment of new technology. We are putting in place important 

measures to reduce asylum fraud, so we can better help those who 

are truly fleeing persecution. This includes having certain individuals wait in Mexico until their claims are processed and where 

they are afforded humanitarian protection to ensure that the flow 

is safe and orderly. 

But it is simply still not enough. We need Congress to act so that 

we can take operational control of the border, as Congress directed 

us in law to do, to protect vulnerable populations, to reduce the 

life-ending flow of drugs into America, and to confront the scourge 

of human trafficking. 

Without Congressional action, America’s borders will never be secure. Until we deal with the outdated laws that contribute to this 

problem, the situation will only get worse. Simply put, the laws are 

not keeping up with the migrant flows. The gaps in the system are 

obvious. 

Just as laws must be revised to address technological advances 

and emerging threats, so, too, must the laws be changed to address 

vastly different circumstances at the border. 

If migrants arrive with children, we can only detain them for 

days and then we have to release them. Even when they have no 

legal right to stay, we cannot keep them together as a family. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Please summarize your statement. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Please. 

So what do we need? We need Congress to change the law to promote family unity, to ensure the safe and prompt return of UACs 

back to their home countries, and to close loopholes that allow dangerous criminals to get released into our communities. 

Happy to, in response to questions, talk more about our activities 

with the Northern Triangle. But I would just like to conclude my 

remarks by asking for Congress to work with me. I am happy to 

meet with anyone that has a suggested solution. 

No rational person would design an immigration system like we 

have today. It is dangerous for Americans, it is dangerous for migrants, it undermines our Nation’s values, and it fails to uphold 

our fundamental obligations to the American people. 

Although we may disagree on solutions, I hope there can be a 

consensus that the current system isn’t working and that this is an 

emergency we must address together. 

I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Nielsen follows:] 

13 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HONORABLE KIRSTJEN NIELSEN

MARCH 6, 2019 

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of the 

committee: It is an honor to appear before you today. 

I want to start by thanking the men and women of the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) for their exceptional service to our Nation. Last week, we celebrated 

the Department’s 16th anniversary, and we marked the extraordinary progress that 

has been made to protect our Nation against a vast array of threats and hazards. 

In the past year alone, DHS has made notable strides and reached new milestones. 

For example, we: • Responded decisively to record-breaking natural disasters and helped Americans rebuild when they needed our help the most; • Prevented the hacking of U.S. elections and guarded against foreign interference in our democracy; • Hardened our digital defenses, organized ourselves for the interconnected era 

with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and pushed for 

tougher consequences against cyber adversaries; • Created a new hub—the National Risk Management Center—to identify and 

mitigate the most serious risks to our Nation’s critical infrastructure; • Thwarted terrorist plotting and helped bring dangerous individuals to justice; • Launched new, sophisticated efforts to block terrorists and criminals from 

reaching the United States, including through our new National Vetting Center; • Ramped up security measures to protect Americans against emerging threats— 

from weaponized drones to chemical and biological weapons; • Reorganized our intelligence and science & technology organizations to better 

meet the needs of front-line defenders; • Strengthened our campaigns against human trafficking and smuggling, child 

exploitation, drugs, and transnational criminal organizations; • Raised the baseline of aviation security across the board—and around the 

world; • Took decisive action to enhance school safety and security Nation-wide in order 

to stop attacks before they happen; • . . . and much, much more. 

We have also undertaken historic efforts to secure our borders and enforce our 

Nation’s immigration laws. This is the subject of today’s hearing, and this morning 

I want to outline for you the very real humanitarian and security crisis we face, 

how we are responding, and what’s urgently needed from Congress to fix the situation. 

The men and women of my Department will tell you that it is no easy task to 

secure the more than 7,000 miles of America’s shared border with Mexico and Canada while facilitating legal trade and travel. Each day, dedicated DHS officers and 

agents inspect hundreds of tons of cargo for illegal substances or explosives, process 

thousands of individuals for admission, and patrol many miles of remote border. 

They do this in order to answer a crucial question: Who and what is coming into 

the country? This mission—safeguarding our territory—is one of the most critical 

charges of our Department and one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any 

government. 

THE HUMANITARIAN AND SECURITY CRISIS AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER

Let me start by saying, the United States leads the world in welcoming individuals fleeing persecution. In the 2017 calendar year, the United States granted asylum and refugee status to more individuals than any other country in the world. 

We welcome those who come to us legally, especially those who are truly fleeing persecution and who seek refuge in our country. 

Illegal and uncontrolled migration, however, poses a serious and growing risk to 

U.S. public safety, National security, and the rule of law. This cannot be a partisan 

issue. Every Secretary of this Department has sounded the alarm about our unsecured border and highlighted the associated threats and consequences to our National security. Today we are seeing the results of a failure to act and a broken system. 

Our Nation is facing a dire humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern Border. In the first 4 months of the fiscal year, we saw approximately 60,000 migrants 

each month cross illegally or present at ports of entry without documents. Moreover, 

the numbers are rising. In February, agents apprehended or encountered more than 

76,000 aliens, a 31 percent increase over January, and CBP is forecasting the problem will get even worse this spring. The agency is now on track to apprehend more 

14 

migrants crossing illegally in the first 6 months of this fiscal year than the entirety 

of fiscal year 2017. Our capacity is already severely strained, but these increases 

will overwhelm it completely. 

What’s different about the current migration flow is not just how many people are 

coming but who is arriving. For most of recent history, the majority of individuals 

arriving illegally or without documentation were single adults, who we could quickly 

detain and remove. This is how the immigration system is supposed to work. However, in recent years we have seen the proportion of vulnerable populations—children and families—skyrocket. Because of outdated laws and misguided court decisions, we are often forced to release these groups into the interior of the United 

States and we have virtually no hope of removing them. 

The details here are critically important. Historically, illegal aliens crossing into 

the United States were predominantly single adult males from Mexico, and they 

were generally removed within 48 hours if they had no legal right to stay. Now over 

60 percent are family units and unaccompanied alien children, and 60 percent are 

non-Mexican. Many of these families are from the Northern Triangle countries 

(Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador) and claim asylum, so they are released into the 

United States—as required by the Flores court decision—while they await a court 

date that can be years away. Only 1 in 10 individuals from the Northern Triangle 

are ultimately granted asylum by an immigration judge. Unfortunately, when it 

comes time to remove the other 90 percent—who have been determined by an immigration judge to have no legal right to stay in the United States—they have absconded from their last known location. And we do not have sufficient resources to 

find and remove them. 

Make no mistake: The problem is getting worse. The smugglers and traffickers 

have caught on, realizing this is a ‘‘free ticket’’ into America. As a result, the flow 

of families and children has become a flood. In the past 5 years, we have seen a 

620 percent increase in families—or those posing as families—apprehended at the 

border. This last fiscal year was the highest on record. Children are being used as 

pawns to get into our country. We have even uncovered ‘‘recycling rings’’ where innocent young people are used multiple times to help aliens fraudulently gain entry. 

As a Nation, we cannot stand for this. 

The phenomenon of large groups (which is defined as a group of 100 or more 

aliens apprehended together in a single event) of migrants organized into caravans 

arriving along our Southern Border provides a window into the wide-spread challenges faced everyday by DHS personnel. For example, in fiscal year 2017, CBP encountered only two large groups. By fiscal year 2018, this grew to 13 groups. And 

this fiscal year through February 28, CBP has experienced 68 groups in the U.S. 

Border Patrol’s El Paso, Rio Grande Valley, Tucson, and Yuma Sectors. This is not 

a manufactured crisis. It is real, it is serious, and it is overwhelming our front-line 

personnel. 

Apprehending large groups places a tremendous strain on CBP’s limited resources, pulling front-line personnel to conduct humanitarian efforts and drawing 

resources away from front-line enforcement, effectively placing border security at 

risk. Associated with the increase in large groups and caravans, we saw a 21 percent increase in the number of unaccompanied alien minors from the year prior, and 

a 40 percent increase in number of family units in fiscal year 2018 compared to fiscal year 2017. To make matters worse, we know that transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) are taking advantage of these large groups as a distraction in order 

to conduct criminal activity elsewhere on the border, as they know CBP resources 

will be tied up. 

Today’s migration flows have created a humanitarian catastrophe. Criminals are 

targeting vulnerable populations along the dangerous journey to our borders. In one 

study, more than 30 percent of women reported sexual assault along the way, and 

70 percent of all migrants reported experiencing violence. Smugglers and traffickers 

are exploiting these migrants. They are forcing them into inhumane conditions, demanding large sums of money, and putting their lives in danger every day. Vulnerable populations—especially children—are coming into DHS custody sicker than 

ever before, arriving with illnesses and injuries. In recent weeks, an average of 56 

aliens a day have required emergency medical care at the Southern Border. 

The care of those in DHS custody is paramount, and the United States Border 

Patrol is doing everything in its power to handle this crisis, but our facilities along 

the Southern Border were not designed to support such large vulnerable populations. These facilities are short-term processing facilities, designed to hold individuals for 72 hours or less. I am grateful for the $415 million in humanitarian assistance Congress provided in the most recent DHS appropriations bill. The bottom line 

is that Border Patrol stations built decades ago are not designed to handle this criVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
15 

sis and are not the best facilities to house children with their parents for extended 

periods. 

This is also a public safety and National security crisis. TCOs are using this situation to line their pockets, fueling a rise in other illegal activity and the spread of 

violent crime into our country. The results are disturbing. Across the Nation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers made approximately 266,000 arrests of aliens with various criminal charges or convictions in 2017 and 2018—which 

included roughly 100,000 charges or convictions for assault, 30,000 for sex crimes, 

and 4,000 for homicides. Many of these were individuals who came across illegally 

at our Southern Border. 

DHS personnel have also witnessed an increase in the trafficking of illegal drugs 

into our communities. Alarmingly, CBP has reported that fentanyl smuggling between ports of entry at the Southern Border has more than doubled over our last 

fiscal year, from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018. Although these seizures represent just a quarter of fentanyl seizures along the border, the rate at which they 

have increased is concerning. Fentanyl was responsible for more than 28,400 overdose deaths of Americans in 2017. Just a few weeks ago, CBP made its largest 

fentanyl bust in U.S. history, seizing 254 pounds of fentanyl—enough for 115 million fatal doses—in a truck trailer compartment. These drugs are smuggled at and 

between ports of entry, but our officers and agents are not able to devote the full 

resources and attention they could to interdicting them because of the migration crisis that is taxing our resources. 

A tough border security posture is essential to keep other potential threat actors 

out of the United States. There are thousands of individuals on the terrorist watch 

list that traveled through our Hemisphere last year alone, and we work very hard 

to keep these individuals from traveling on illicit pathways to our country. While 

most terror suspects attempting to reach the United States do so by air, terrorist 

groups are clearly interested in exploiting deficiencies along our borders to enter the 

United States. We must vigilantly guard against any such efforts. 

Moreover, last year alone, DHS encountered 3,000+ ‘‘special interest aliens’’ 

(SIAs)—individuals with suspicious travel patterns who could pose a National security risk—at our Southern Border. Foreign partners throughout the Western Hemisphere continue to share their concerns with me about the growing volume of SIAs. 

Often these partners lack the ability to determine the identities and intentions of 

such individuals before they cross international borders and make their way toward 

our own. 

RESPONDING TO THE CRISIS

DHS is grateful that Congress was finally able to pass a budget for the Department, but the crisis is getting worse and our current funding neither provides adequate resources nor the additional authorities that our DHS personnel need to gain 

full operational control of our border. Congress has repeatedly failed to give DHS 

the resources needed to confront this situation and to handle the influx of aliens, 

drugs, and other illicit traffic into our country. That is why I strongly support the 

President’s decision to unlock additional funding for physical barriers, including resources from the Department of Treasury and the Department of Defense. 

Moreover, I applaud the President’s decision to declare a National emergency. 

This is a crisis—pure and simple—and we need to respond accordingly. We cannot 

stand idly by as our border security is further compromised and our immigration 

laws are exploited. Now is the time to act and to uphold our fundamental responsibility to our citizens and our Nation to safeguard U.S. territory. Although we may 

disagree on solutions, I hope there can be a consensus that the current system requires immediate attention. 

Despite these challenges, DHS personnel have worked hard to keep our communities safe and have done their best to uphold our Nation’s laws. Our agents, officers, and enlisted personnel—those from CBP, ICE, USCIS, USCG, and beyond— 

have done an extraordinary job of prioritizing the highest threats and risks in their 

operating areas and going after them. Whether they are apprehending illegal aliens, 

interdicting smugglers, conducting life-saving rescues of migrants, or arresting dangerous individuals sneaking between our ports of entry—the work by our DHS personnel on the border is imperative to our continued security and prosperity as a Nation. DHS is taking an end-to-end approach to the humanitarian and security crisis 

at our Southern Border. Below are examples of the actions we have been taking: 

Constructing Border Barriers and Leveraging Technology.—The United States has 

long built barriers along its Southern Border, first in 1909 and regularly since then 

according to need. DHS is now constructing the first new border wall in nearly a 

decade, which will improve our ability to impede and deny illegal entry. Since the 

16 

first barriers were constructed in San Diego in 1991, U.S. Border Patrol field commanders have continued to advocate for border wall and the enduring capability it 

creates to prevent illegal entry while allowing additional time for agents to respond. 

At the same time, we are aggressively pursuing the deployment of new technology 

at our borders to increase the situational awareness of our agents and officers and 

to detect illicit activity. 

Deploying the U.S. Military.—DHS is grateful for the robust involvement of Department of Defense (DOD) and National Guard personnel who have been deployed 

to support our border security mission. Every administration since President Ronald 

Reagan has sent troops to the border, and other Presidents before him, including 

President Woodrow Wilson who deployed 150,000 guardsmen to secure our Southern 

Border in 1916. Our Nation’s troops and enabling personnel are assisting with surveillance, force protection, logistics, medical response, and much more. Already 

these deployments have enabled thousands of drug interdictions and apprehensions 

of illegal aliens. We are continuing to work closely with DOD on expanding barrier 

protections, as well as exploring additional ways to collaborate to ensure CBP personnel are freed up to perform their border security mission effectively and supported in crisis conditions. 

Amplifying Regional Cooperation.—As Secretary, I engage almost weekly with my 

counterparts in Mexico and the Northern Triangle governments of Central America 

to work toward addressing the migration crisis at the source. Last month, I met 

with security ministers from the Northern Triangle in El Salvador to discuss an action plan to deal with the crisis. I am pleased to report we reached a breakthrough 

and agreed to negotiate a Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) to address the smuggling, trafficking, irregular migration, and formation of caravans. These efforts will 

include a whole-of-Government approach to addressing the security-related drivers 

of migration and improving border security in the region. Our joint statement, 

which outlined a clear path toward increased collaboration between the United 

States and Northern Triangle, emphasized four areas of increased collaboration: 

Combatting Human Trafficking and Migrant Smuggling, Countering Organized 

Crime and Gangs, Expanding Information and Intelligence Sharing, and Strengthening Border Security. I look forward to reporting back to Congress on the signing 

of the final regional MOC. 

Instituting the Migrant Protection Protocols.—Late last year, we announced a 

major milestone—the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)—to address the urgent 

humanitarian and security crisis at the Southern Border. We have begun to implement MPP, which relies on long-standing statutory authority to allow us to return 

migrants to Mexico to await the conclusion of their U.S. immigration proceedings 

while ensuring they receive all appropriate humanitarian protections. Ultimately, 

MPP will allow us to focus more attention on individuals legitimately fleeing persecution, dissuade those who intend to file false claims, and bring order to a chaotic 

flow. 

Protecting Vulnerable Populations.—At my direction, DHS personnel have put in 

place new policies, procedures, and resources to protect children and families. This 

includes surging medical assistance to the Southern Border to deal with the arrival 

of large groups and sick individuals, as well as protocols to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are not held with individuals who could pose a danger to them 

while in DHS custody. We have also doubled-down on our efforts to crack down on 

human smuggling and trafficking, including the abuse of children. And every day 

the extraordinary men and women of CBP go above and beyond the call of duty to 

save lives of migrants in trouble, including women, children, and infants found 

abandoned in the desert by smugglers. These rescue missions, which take place between ports of entry in remote locations on our Southern Border, are extremely difficult but also demonstrate our commitment to upholding America’s values and rescuing those who need our protection. 

Combating Transnational Criminals.—DHS is stepping up its efforts to dismantle 

TCOs. We have reached agreements with governments in the region to increase action against TCOs, including through greater intelligence sharing, integrated units 

of U.S. personnel and partner agencies, joint investigations, and more. Here at 

home, we have also worked with other departments and agencies to take a more 

holistic approach to combating TCOs, including improving interagency coordination 

structures to take down nefarious groups with greater precision and coordination. 

Countering Illegal Drug Smuggling.—DHS continues to seize thousands of pounds 

of illegal and dangerous drugs, including fentanyl, as they are smuggled into the 

United States. We are deploying additional technology and resources at the Southern Border both at and between ports of entry to help detect and disrupt drug-smuggling activity. This also includes deeper cooperation throughout the U.S. GovernVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
17 

ment and with regional partners to find and bring drug smugglers to justice and 

dismantle cartels. 

Confronting Asylum Fraud.—DHS is putting in place important measures to reduce asylum fraud and frivolous filings. For example, we have implemented a ‘‘Last 

In, First Out’’ approach, which means we prioritize the most recently filed applications when scheduling affirmative asylum interviews. The aim is to deter individuals from using our Nation’s large asylum backlogs solely to obtain employment. By 

cutting down on asylum fraud, we will be able to devote more attention to applicants who are legitimately fleeing persecution and require U.S. protection under our 

laws. 

Increased Local Cooperation.—DHS recognizes the inordinate impact that the 

surge of illegal migration has had on our border communities, and we have stepped 

up cooperation to enlist State and local officials in our border security efforts. For 

instance, DHS has doubled the number of 287(g) agreements with local law enforcement to enlist their voluntary cooperation on immigration enforcement. At the same 

time, we have increased available funds for Southwest Border localities to provide 

assistance on border protection through grant programs. DHS is also working with 

partner agencies in States, and especially with county, local, and Tribal agencies to 

share information, provide resources, and build communication capacity. 

A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION

Despite all of our efforts, DHS cannot fix this crisis on its own. That is why I 

respectfully request, and will continue to ask, that Congress pass legislation to fix 

outdated laws and gaps in our authorities. These legal impediments hamper enforcement of the law, weaken border security, and endanger both the American public and the illegal aliens making the dangerous journey to the Southwest Border. 

They are also ‘‘pull’’ factors that drive illegal migration and undermine the territorial integrity of the United States. Only Congress has the Constitutional authority 

to enact immigration law. We are, therefore, completely dependent on Congress to 

change the outdated statutes that impede our ability to enforce the law and that 

handicap our ability to keep America safe. 

There are several key legislative reforms that we need to address this crisis. 

Among other actions, we ask Congress to do the following: 

Promote Family Unity.—One of the main challenges is the inability of DHS to 

keep families together during the immigration proceedings. In 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) entered into the Flores settlement agreement 

relating to detention of minors and their release. Since that time, litigation on this 

agreement has continued, and multiple court decisions interpreting the agreement 

have impeded the United States Government’s ability to maintain custody of minors 

and, now, based on the most recent interpretation, families. The provisions of the 

settlement agreement should be superseded by legislation. Legislation on this issue 

should be focused on allowing us to keep families together during their immigration 

proceedings and promoting a uniform standard of care and accommodation for minors in custody, while ensuring our laws are enforced. 

Ensure the Safe and Prompt Return of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC).— 

We must also update our laws to ensure that all UACs who are not victims of trafficking or persecution (regardless of their country of origin) can be returned home 

and reunited with their families. Current law has created a financial incentive for 

TCOs, smugglers, and traffickers to transport UACs to and across our border. The 

result is that children are exploited by criminals for their own gain, and are put 

in danger. We must stop this exploitation and ensure the safe and prompt removal 

of UACs. Government officials in Central America continue to express to me their 

urgent desire to have their children returned home, not harbored in the United 

States. This requires a legislative fix. 

Crack Down on Asylum Fraud and Protect Those Who Need It.—We have requested that Congress reform asylum standards to deter fraud and otherwise ensure 

that those truly eligible for protection have prompt access to the judicial system to 

adjudicate their claim. Specifically, Congress should legislate a standard that requires that it is more probable than not that the statements made by the alien in 

support of the alien’s claims are true. Reforming this standard helps promote the 

adjudication of meritorious asylum claims by ensuring those who are statutorily ineligible for asylum are not found to have a credible fear of removal. 

Safeguard Americans from Dangerous, Criminal Aliens.—We also need Congressional assistance to update laws that allow criminal aliens to circumvent the removal process. Right now, the system is broken, and because of a series of misguided court decisions, DHS is forced to release dangerous criminal aliens from custody and is unable to remove others from the United States even when they have 

18 

been convicted of serious criminal offenses. Specifically, we must clarify the definition of ‘‘conviction’’ in the Immigration and Nationality Act to address aliens who 

receive post-conviction relief or sentence modifications for the purpose of flouting 

immigration consequences. In addition, we must remedy U.S. Courts of Appeals and 

U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 

(2016), that have made it increasingly difficult for ICE to remove convicted aliens 

on criminal grounds of removal. 

We must also urgently close loopholes created by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). This decision generally requires that 

DHS release a criminal alien ordered removed who has been detained for 180 days 

after the period for removal began unless DHS can show that there is a significant 

likelihood that removal can be effectuated in the reasonably foreseeable future. The 

result is that we have been forced to release dangerous individuals—including those 

responsible for terrible crimes—back into the population. We must close loopholes 

created by the Zadvydas decision to give DHS authority to keep dangerous criminal 

aliens who are subject to final orders of removal off our streets and keep our communities safe. Finally, for the safety and security of the American people, Congress 

should ensure that DHS has full authority to detain and remove alien criminal gang 

members, alien gang associates, and aliens who participate in gang-related activities. We must be able to safeguard Americans from aliens associated with criminal 

gangs, including detaining and removing violent gang members such as MS–13. 

CONCLUSION

Make no mistake: Despite the challenges DHS faces, we welcome those who come 

to us legally—including those who are truly fleeing persecution. America is a beacon 

of hope and freedom to the entire world, and we welcome more immigrants every 

year than any other nation on earth. Nevertheless, we must be able to uphold our 

values and the rule of law while also maintaining our security. 

That is why I call for common-sense solutions—including physical barriers, fixes 

to outdated laws, and the resources needed to bring order to the chaos. Today, I implore Congress to listen to the solutions offered by those who see this security crisis 

up close. The humanitarian crisis can no longer be ignored. The security crisis cannot be wished away. We must change the status quo now. It will require bold action 

to address gaps in our border security that are being taken advantage of every day. 

I thank this committee again for its leadership on this issue, and I look forward 

to your questions. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

We allowed you to go over because some people need to hear you 

for the first time. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I greatly appreciate that, sir. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. As I said in my opening statements, Madam Secretary, we have sent requests for a number of 

information to you and we have not gotten the information back. 

Can you commit to this committee to get that information back? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman THOMPSON. It is in detail. It is not where it needs to 

be, so I want to encourage you there. 

Asylum seekers. A lot of us have had an opportunity to talk to 

a number of people involved. Can you tell the committee why asylum seekers are being turned around, contrary to law? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, all asylum seekers have the opportunity 

to present their case. We are not turning anybody around. 

What we are doing is exercising statutory authority that enables 

us, in conjunction with Mexico, to return to Mexico migrants who 

have arrived from that country to await their processing. This is 

to assure a safe and orderly flow and to ensure that their humanitarian rights are protected. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So your testimony is that, to your knowledge, no one presents themselves for asylum and is not presented 

their rights as to what they have to do? 

19 

Secretary NIELSEN. Our policy and processes when we encounter, 

as you know, an alien, is we do provide them with information on 

their legal rights, their ability to access counsel. 

I am not sure if you are referring to credible fear. If you do not 

pass that initial credible fear screening, obviously then you do 

not—you can appeal that. But generally speaking, you do not go on 

to meet before an immigration judge for your asylum claim. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So is that something you do in writing? Or 

you do it orally? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Both. Both. They are presented with information in writing, and then we also, of course, advise them orally. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Can you present this committee with the 

written direction that asylum seekers receive from your Department when they present themselves? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The other situation is, the President made 

a comment that he really didn’t need to do the emergency declaration, he just wanted to do it faster. Do you have any information 

for the committee as to what he was talking about? 

Secretary NIELSEN. My conversations, of course, with the President, generally speaking, are protected under privilege. 

But what I would say is his explanation in general in public has 

been that he hoped Congress would act, that it didn’t have to come 

to issuing the emergency declaration if Congress had met his request to fund the resources that CBP has requested. 

Chairman THOMPSON. To your knowledge, are you aware of family members who have been separated from their children and deported back to a country without their children? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Can you provide this committee with a list 

of those individuals? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am happy to do that with the one caveat 

that, as you know, that is part of on-going litigation in Ms. L, and 

as long as there are no privacy concerns from the court, of course 

we are happy to provide that. A lot of the information is in the Ms. 

L court with respect to each migrant. 

I would also just note that, consistent with long-standing practice 

and the law, before we deport any alien after they have gone 

through the process and receive a final order of removal, we do ask 

them if they would like to take their children with them. At that 

same time, their consulate or embassy, for purposes of issuing 

them travel papers, also asks them, Would you like to be removed 

with your children as you are removed? As part of Ms. L, the judge 

also asked us to go back—ask the parents again, in conjunction 

with the ACLU, which we did. 

So there was no parent who has been deported, to my knowledge, 

without multiple opportunities to take their children with them. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So is this with counsel present? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am sorry? 

Chairman THOMPSON. Is this with their attorney present? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I can’t speak to every case with that, sir. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So what is—— 

20 

Secretary NIELSEN. They have the right to a counsel, as you 

know, but the U.S. Government does not pay for that, pursuant to 

the law. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So explain how one would acquire counsel 

if they don’t know it. 

Secretary NIELSEN. We give them lists of available resources, 

legal resources in the area. We work closely with the NGO’s to ensure that they understand the options for that. Then certainly, 

when they work with the consulates and embassies as part of that 

removal process to receive the travel authorization, the embassies 

and consulates also provide them with information and ability to 

access counsel. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Some of us have had an opportunity to see 

some of the enhanced barriers being placed on ports of entry. We 

tried to find a policy directive that said we should close lanes and 

put barriers on those, concrete barriers and barbed wire. Are you 

familiar with any such policy? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The general direction for the safety of the migrants and the officers who work at the ports of entry is to ensure 

a controlled environment, particularly after we saw the violence 

from one of the caravans in the fall. Many of the local border 

chiefs, border—excuse me, the OFO officers at the ports determined what was needed to ensure that there was safety and security at the ports. So that is for the migrants, that is for the officers. 

So generally speaking, that was done on a case-by-case situation 

with the overall direction to ensure the integrity and safety of that 

area. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So there is no written policy? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is not a policy, sir, per se. But the direction is clear—to protect officers and migrants and ensure a safe 

and orderly flow. 

To do that, we have to make sure that the migrants go through 

the designated area. So the enhancements to the port of entry was 

to disable them from at their own risk, which we have seen many 

times, running across lanes of traffic or trying to go around a port 

of entry. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to follow up on something you referenced in your opening 

statement and then the Chairman probed you on, to more fully understand this asylum-seeker circumstance. 

You made reference in your statement that for many of—well, 

first of all, that 90 percent of the asylum seekers are denied when 

they actually finally have their hearing. Those 90 percent generally 

have already blended into the society. We can’t get rid of them. 

If we know only 10 percent are going to be approved based on 

history, I just don’t understand why we are letting people in while 

they wait on their hearing. You made reference in your statement 

that many of them are allowed to stay in Mexico until their hearing date. 

My question is, why aren’t all of them required to stay in Mexico 

until their hearing date, so that way we can monitor them while 

they are here for the hearing and if they are approved, they can 

21 

stay, if they can’t, they go back to Mexico? Is that because of some 

statutory reason or why? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is actually more based around we are trying to do this in a very reasoned way. So we are expanding that 

program across the border. We work and notify the Mexicans as we 

do that. You have seen statements made by their equivalent to Secretary Pompeo and my equivalent that they are determined to protect the humanitarian rights. 

So we do it in conjunction with them. As we expand the program, 

we are doing it in a systematic way. But the goal is to expand that 

across the border. 

Mr. ROGERS. So you are trying to get to the point where only people can get in for the hearing at the time of the hearing? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Excellent. 

What can we help you with to make that happen more rapidly? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So we have all of the authority we need from 

the underlying INA statute. What we are looking for is additional 

requests, if any, that we need to come back to you with. This requires some new things—for example, transportation from the 

ports to the courts. So when we have the court date, we will go 

back to the port to pick up the migrant, take he or she to the court. 

That is not a transportation need we have had in the past. 

So that is just one example, but we are looking through to see 

if we can fund those as we expand the program with our current 

resources. If not, we would come back with a request. 

Mr. ROGERS. My understanding is that the Mexican government 

has made available asylum to all asylum seekers who have been 

coming from south of Mexico into the country trying to get to the 

United States. Is that accurate? 

Secretary NIELSEN. My understanding is they have offered both 

asylum to the vast majority, if not all, of the migrants but they 

have also offered work permits. 

Mr. ROGERS. So if somebody is fleeing Venezuela or Honduras because of their concerns over safety, and they get into Mexico, by 

the time they get to Mexico’s northern border to come in our country, there is no danger to them and their safety. 

Secretary NIELSEN. My plea to anybody that chooses to take this 

journey is to please seek protection as soon in the journey as possible. It is an extraordinarily dangerous journey. So my advice to 

migrants throughout the region is please accept protection as soon 

as possible. 

Mr. ROGERS. OK. 

I would like to give you some time—you made reference to the 

Northern Triangle that you—in your opening statement—if you 

would like to talk more about it, would you tell us what you had 

in mind? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. So beginning about 9 months ago, I 

traveled to the region many times between the border and the 

Northern Triangle in Mexico. I have been there about 25 times and 

have had multiple discussions with my partners in the Northern 

Triangle. 

What we are working on together are ways to dismantle 

transnational criminal organizations, to identify the criminals who 

22 

are preying on the vulnerable populations, to work with international organizations such as UNHCR to increase asylum capacity 

in the region, to make sure that we are sharing information so we 

understand who is in the flow—that latter relates to the increases 

in special interest aliens that are in the flow—and to make sure 

that we can keep families together. So how can we design a system 

that begins at the start to make sure that migrants are protected 

and they don’t need to take this dangerous journey? 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. Do you know how much the smugglers 

charge people to get across the border generally? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So it varies. Our estimates and then most recently as last week what we heard from Mexican counterparts is 

about $6,000 a migrant. It is more for families. 

Mr. ROGERS. To your knowledge do they coach the migrants as 

to what to say when they get to the border to be able to get in? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have seen instances, absolutely, throughout the region where they are provided information on pieces of 

paper. There are also advertisements through social media. There 

is a WhatsApp conversation particular to this, to give them, if you 

will, specific words to claim credible fear once they reach our border. 

Mr. ROGERS. Great. 

Thank you. My time is expired. I appreciate your service. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member for holding this hearing and the Chairman’s leadership on 

the issues. 

Madam Secretary, let me thank you for your service. 

Over of the past couple of months, I am very proud of the Members of this committee, particularly my colleagues on the Democratic side, who almost everyone have been to the border because 

of their desire to be proficient and efficient on making the right decisions. 

So my knowledge of this committee has been that every single 

Secretary of Homeland Security I have had a terrific working relationship with regardless of the Presidential politics or party, because our commitment here is to secure the Nation. I believe if a 

horrific tragedy happens again, it is this committee and that in the 

Senate that will be looked to by the American people to devise the 

right approach. 

Do you believe that you, as Secretary of Homeland Security, have 

the independence of the White House to make the right decisions? 

Can you independently make a decision in contrary to the President of the United States on behalf of the American people for 

what is best for them? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am, what I can tell you is I take my oath 

with utmost extreme importance. I always do my best. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Is that your oath to the American people or 

your oath to the President of the United States? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, ma’am. The oath, as you know, is to the 

Constitution and the people. 

23 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right, and in that vein, do you have the ability to make independent determinations? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do what I believe is best for the men and 

women of DHS and this country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Have you advised the President on his emergency declaration? Have you given him the grounds for this emergency declaration in the context of what emergency means? 

Secretary NIELSEN. What I have done is I have given him all the 

facts from the men and women working at the border, many of 

whom I know you have met with, and thank you for that. So what 

I do is I give him the operational reality. Here is what we are facing, here is what we are seeing, here are the facts. By my read of 

it, it is an emergency, it is a dual crisis. That is the information 

I provide. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, if there is any data that you have given 

him in particular, I am going to request that it be made available 

to this committee, whether in a Classified session, or not, in writing. If there have been any memos that you have directed to the 

President that would have given him the basis of calling for, in my 

opinion, a false emergency declaration, I will not judge your data, 

and you are giving facts, then I would like that to be submitted to 

this committee. Let me—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am, if I could, I would be remiss if I 

didn’t say, much of the information that I give in private to the 

President, of course, is covered under confidentiality privileges. We 

are happy to give you any information that we work on from the 

operators, we are very transparent. Most of that information, as 

you know, is published on our website. Happy to give you that. But 

I would not be able to speak to any particular conversation I had 

with the President. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, I will not dwell on that. I will leave this 

to the Chairman of the full committee on the question of confidentiality. I think Members of Congress are due Classified information 

and there is a question of confidentiality or privilege. I am not sure 

what you are exerting here. But I would offer that—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am not—it is not mine to exert or waive. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. So I would say that I would want the 

material that you had provided to the President of the United 

States to make his decision. 

Let me ask you, do you have a census of all of the children that 

are being detained in the various facilities, both the ones at the 

border and others, that are in partnership with HHS? Do you know 

how many young people are detained? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am. I don’t have that number in 

front of me. We have all of the numbers—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you provide that for me? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The next question is, what is the pathway of 

reuniting those children detained? My number is about 12,000- 

plus. What is the pathway for reuniting those children presently 

existing in detention centers who have been there for 1 year, 2 

year, 3 years-plus? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So, the best data that we have is the data 

that is been approved from the Ms. L case. I believe you all have 

24 

access to that. I don’t want to take up time, unless you would like 

me to, in reading it. But it walks through how many children remain in the custody—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But can you give me a number for the record? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So, there is—sure. It breaks down two— 

of the original 2,816 that the court identified, 2,735 have been discharged. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right. But I am asking you for those that are 

in the partnership between Homeland Security and HHS, you have 

centers around the Nation, some run by Southwest Keys, upwards 

of 12,000 children. Have you tried to reunite them with some 

guardian or family member? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So, HHS is, as you know, under TVPRA, 

it is required to find a sponsor for the child. That is what they do. 

So that is part of—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is a program that I designed and I believe that it should be in cooperation. I would ask you on the record 

not to give the answer now but I need to know the numbers and 

how many are being reunited. Because ICE has represented that 

they are stopping those families from being reunited. 

Secretary NIELSEN. ICE is not stopping families from being represented. There are 3—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Reunited. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Reunited. There are 3 instances, long-standing practice, which CBP, not ICE, encounters a family unit presenting as a family unit, where separation may be necessary. The 

first one is if the adult accompanying that child is not a parent or 

legal guardian. The second, if there is a risk to the child. The third 

is if the parent otherwise needs to go to a custodial prosecutorial 

setting. 

Long-standing process, the numbers are not high, happy to provide them with you. But that is what CBP does at the border for 

the protection of the child. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will have questions for the record. Thank you. The answers have not been given. 

Thank you so very much. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Chair recognizes 

the gentleman from New York, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary, thank you for your service and I appreciate you being 

here today. I would like to focus, if we could, on unaccompanied minors, specifically involving MS–13. My district, unfortunately, is 

probably the epicenter of MS–13. We had a series of 25 murders 

within 18 months in the fall of 2015 to the spring of 2017. I think 

almost all the victims were immigrants, documented and undocumented. 

So it was a slaughter within the immigrant community. What we 

found was that many of those murders were carried out by unaccompanied minors. I think in the most recent series of indictments, 

of the 11 indicted for murder, 7 of them had come across as unaccompanied minors. 

Let me commend your Department and others. Since April 2017, 

there have been no murders. There are 25 in the previous 18 

months, none in Suffolk County since then. I commend you for 

25 

that. HSI has done an outstanding job. FBI, Justice Department, 

are working in conjunction with the Suffolk and Nassau County police. So I thank you for that. 

But what was found at the time was that these minors coming 

across, a number of them, were actually sent by MS–13 or—if they 

weren’t sent by MS–13, the families that volunteered to take them 

in from HHS were either supporters of MS–13 or had relatives 

back in Central America whose lives were being threatened if they 

did not take them in. Then they went into the schools and in certain schools, there are actually areas of the school that were taken 

over by MS–13 young people. 

Again, as I said, a series of the—and lots of those murders were 

carried out by MS–13. What the police said at the time was, they 

were concerned that there was no vetting when these unaccompanied minors—I know they get turned over to HHS so this is 

more—maybe more of an HHS issue than yours. 

But again, as to whether or not they had any MS–13 connections, 

nor was there any vetting of the families who were volunteering to 

take them. Nor were the local police notified when these unaccompanied minors were coming into these school districts. The school 

district had no choice but to take them. 

So, I ask you now, is there increased vetting as to knowing 

whether or not these unaccompanied minors have any MS–13 connections, whether or not the families volunteering to take them 

have MS–13 connections, and are local law enforcement notified 

when these unaccompanied minors come into their districts? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Thank you. Let me take them in bite sizes. 

We do now do background checks. One of the things I was very 

concerned about when I came in as Secretary is that we were not 

doing enough to protect children to ensure that the adult coming 

to pick them up out of HHS care did not pose them a threat. Certainly one of the threats that could be posed would be if that adult 

was part of MS–13. 

We now do background checks. HHS uses the information on 

that background check to determine the suitability of the sponsor 

before they release the child. I am not aware, and I am happy to 

get back to you, for the record, I am not aware of HHS consistently 

tells communities where UACs are placed and if there is a concern 

that the UAC might have gang ties. I am not aware of that but I 

am happy to get you that information from HHS. 

On the front end, when we encounter UACs, certainly if we believe they are a risk in any way, the brief time that we have them 

before we transfer them to HHS, we will separate them out from 

the other population of children for the safety of the other children. 

But other than that, we do not have a systematic way to ask UACs 

or look into their background while they are in our custody. 

Mr. KING. Do you feel there is enough cooperation between DHS 

and HHS? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We do work very closely together. Day to 

day, we share the modeling, the projections, what children are coming in, what children they are releasing. It does, in my opinion, 

need to be a bit stronger with respect to ensuring that the sponsors 

do not pose a threat. 

Mr. KING. OK. Thank you, Secretary. 

26 

Again, thank you for your efforts. It has been—again, that dropoff for murders has been phenomenal. From 25 to zero. So thank 

you very much. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome. Thank you for being here today. 

Now let me establish, from the outset, that we all want stronger 

border security. The question is what is the most efficacious way 

of getting us there and not creating a solution that fills a political 

promise but doesn’t really achieve strong border security. 

So I want to just follow up on an issue brought up by the Chairman earlier regarding border crossings. Look, I have long held that 

and I have an interest in ensuring that we are making policy based 

on sound data and credible threats. So it is my understanding, and 

you have testified to some of this this morning, that your Department keeps accurate statistics of the number of apprehensions at 

the border. Is that correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is, yes. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. These statistics are compiled annually by U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection and published publicly on its 

website. That is correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. We actually compile them monthly and 

publish them, but yes. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. According to this report, so the number of apprehensions at the border in 2000 was 1.6 million. Does that sound 

right? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It was over a million. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. These statistics show that in 2018 the number of apprehensions had fallen to just under 400,000. That is a 

drop of 75 percent. Is that right? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sounds about right. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. So I have a chart that I would like to display 

that shows the change in apprehensions. So I want to ask you 

about what the President had said about border apprehensions. 

While touring the South Texas border on January 10, the President 

stated of the Border Patrol, there were so many apprehensions ever 

in our history. So, Secretary Nielsen, what the President said was 

not accurate, was it? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I apologize. I don’t know the full context of 

that. What I can tell you is we have encountered more family units 

per month than ever in history. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. No, no. What the President said, is it accurate or 

not? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I just don’t know the context of his statement, sir. If he was talking about family units in a particular sector, that is—— 

Mr. LANGEVIN. No, no. I am talking about the number. We went 

from 1.6 million in 2000, apprehensions, and 400,000 in 2018. The 

President said that there were never so many apprehensions at the 

border in history, up until now. Is that accurate? Was the President accurate? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Again, it depends on the context, because it 

depends on the type of migrant, sir. 

27 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. It is either—the 400,000 figure is either accurate or it is not. If it is accurate then the President was not accurate. Is that correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Again, we have had monumental high numbers in some areas of the border—— 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to get a yes or 

a no. It seems self-evident—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, I just don’t know the—— 

Mr. LANGEVIN [continuing]. To me. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I just don’t know the context of his statement. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I am trying to give you my most accurate 

testimony. What I can tell you is that, in some places, we have had 

record months of families. In some areas, we have had record numbers of apprehensions. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. Well—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentleman, I think he is asking for 

the total number, not a selected category. 

Secretary NIELSEN. The total number, we are on track for this 

year for 900,000 apprehensions at the border. 

Chairman THOMPSON. But that wasn’t the question. 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Is the President misleading the American people? 

Is he accurate in what he is saying? It is the largest amount of detentions or is it not, apprehensions at the border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. In some categories, we have had recordbreaking apprehensions. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. OK. Well, the President has claimed—and the 

way I read it, it has misled the American people. It gave the public 

fundamentally flawed factual information on a key border question. 

Did you take any steps to correct the information when the President stated what he did? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We provide information that we gather from 

CBP and, well, all of our components for that matter. We provide 

them as a matter of course, to the White House, and we try to put 

those numbers in context. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, Madam Secretary, you know, the reason I 

ask these questions is they really go directly to the heart of the rationale for the President’s emergency declaration. The President 

has been telling the public that there is an emergency at the border because crossings and apprehensions are at record-high levels. 

But as you really have conceded yourself in the testimony, the 

facts are exactly the opposite when you are talking—looking at the 

actual number. Apprehensions today are substantially smaller than 

they were 20 years ago. So my time is expired, but it is inaccurate. 

It is deceitful, I believe, to be inflating numbers or making statements that are not accurate. The President is just wrong. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Chairman, would you mind if I just responded briefly? What I would say, sir, if the larger question is 

about the emergency, unfortunately, what we are seeing is a very 

different situation. So it is not just the number. It is the abuse of 

the migrants along the way. It is the sexual abuse. It is the vioVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
28 

lence. It is the new phenomenon that we see of large groups coming, which the system was not prepared to care for. 

Many of our facilities were made for maybe 100 people a day. We 

are seeing 1,800 family units in a given sector on a given day. So 

when you put all of the facts together, the problem is not just the 

vastly increasing numbers, and again, we jumped another 30 percent from last month. But it is the type of migrant that our system 

is not set up to protect. 

Originally, it was single adults from Mexico; now it is mostly 

Central Americans, and the vast majority are vulnerable populations, which are families and children. All of that together is a 

crisis, because the system is not built for that type of flow. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Well, Mr. Langevin, we will follow up with 

some more direct information on that. I would ask the Secretary 

if yes or no would be very helpful in some of the questions that you 

asked. I think that is what Mr. Langevin was really trying to get 

to. Not anything else. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, welcome to this committee. I have been following the border probably longer than I care to—back when I was 

a U.S. attorney, Western District of Texas, to 15 years on this committee, a Chairman of this committee. Hard to get a good solution, 

but I can tell you, at least as I see it, and I just want to get your 

understanding, that the threat has changed. 

It used to be in the old days, we had predominantly males crossing for work. Now we have more family units than ever crossing 

because the coyotes understand the legal loopholes that we talked 

about. They now know how to exploit them and they are. They are 

making a heck of a lot of money off it in the process and putting 

children in harm’s way up that dangerous journey as they go 

northbound. In fact, in February, I think the apprehensions were 

76,000 immigrants that were apprehended at the border. 

Then you throw on the fentanyls, the meth labs, dangerous drugs 

coming into this country, the human sex trafficking. I think it is 

a crisis. I think the President is correct in saying it is an emergency and that we need dire action now. 

I am disappointed we didn’t pass the Goodlatte-McCaul bill last 

November. I think it would have solved a lot of these problems. But 

about every Democrat voted against it and 20 Republicans voted 

against it. That was a historic opportunity and here we are talking 

about this problem when we know that the laws are the magnet 

that draw them into the United States of America. 

Until Congress acts—I look at you and I feel not sorry but—it 

is not your fault. It is Congress that has failed to act to solve this 

problem. Until Congress acts to solve the problem, we are going to 

continue to have this constant problem on our border. 

I think the President is doing everything he can, in a creative 

way, as well, to get security down there that I think is very important. But I want to also talk about root causes. You talk about the 

Northern Triangle. You spent a lot of time down there, I am going 

down with the—put my foreign affairs hat on, the Chairman of 

Foreign Affairs Committee and I are going down to Colombia, to 

Venezuela. You have got 3 million migrants coming out of VenVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
29 

ezuela into Colombia and they are probably going to start heading 

up north. 

This is a humanitarian crisis and it is worse. We are going down 

there, and we are also going to go to the Northern Triangle. Can 

you tell us the latest on this Central American Security Initiative 

and how we can stop these families from making—paying $6,000— 

you must be very desperate to say, Here, Coyote, let me give you 

$6,000 to take my child up north. Very desperate situation. What 

can we do to stop that desperation? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would just—in the time that I have, let me 

just give you a couple examples and I can also refer back to a question that Congresswoman Jackson Lee asked me. The number of 

unaccompanied children is part of the humanitarian crisis. These 

are children whose parents decided to send them alone on a very, 

very dangerous journey at the hands of, most often, smugglers and 

coyotes or traffickers, into the United States. 

What we hear from the Northern Triangle governments, they 

have said this publicly, I am sure that they will tell you when you 

visit them, is they want their children back. Our laws uniquely 

allow us to send Mexican children back home after they have gone 

through a process, and/but do not have a legal right to stay. But 

under the law, we cannot send children from other countries back 

except for Mexico and Canada. 

So the Northern Triangle governments have said to us, they will 

say to you, Please send us our children back. We want them reunited with their families and communities here. We don’t want 

the smugglers to be able to convince parents to send children on 

this perilous journey where they are absolutely victims of violence 

and abuse. 

As you know, sir, very unfortunately, because of the increase of 

violence, at ICE, when we have families with children, we have to 

give every girl a pregnancy test over 10. This is not a safe journey. 

So I ask again that we change the law, we treat all children the 

same, and we afford them the opportunity to go back home if they 

have no legal right to be in the United States. 

The other part of this that I think we need to do is we need to 

find a way to be able to keep families together. Families need to 

be able to be kept together, go through the process. If they have 

a legal right to stay, we will welcome them here. If they don’t have 

a legal right to stay, the most humanitarian thing to do is to remove them efficiently and effectively. Both of those changes we 

need from Congress. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Madam Secretary. I see my time is expired. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Miss Rice. 

Miss RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I just want to ask you to qualify the question 

that was asked before. Can you confirm that there has never been 

a parent deported under your tenure without finding out if they 

want their children to go with them? Simply yes or no. Can you 

confirm that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. To the best of my knowledge, every parent 

was afforded that option. 

30 

Miss RICE. OK. Secretary Nielsen, on June 17, 2018, you 

tweeted, We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period. Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the 

Justice Department’s zero tolerance policy to prosecute all individuals who crossed the border outside of ports of entry. He made that 

announcement on April 6, 2018. 

In a memo to you, dated April 23, regarding the Justice Department’s zero tolerance policy, CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, 

USCIS Director Francis Cissna, and then-ICE Acting Director 

Thomas Homan stated DHS could also permissibly direct the separation of parents or legal guardians and minors held in immigration detention so that the parent or legal guardian can be prosecuted pursuant to these authorities. Did you read that memo? Yes 

or no. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Miss RICE. Did you concur with this assessment made by your 

component agency leaders? Yes or no. 

Secretary NIELSEN. There are many assessments in there. I concurred with their recommendation on what to do to increase consequences for those crossing the border illegally. 

Miss RICE. The piece that I just read, do you concur with that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am sorry, could you read that particular—— 

Miss RICE. DHS could also permissibly direct the separation of 

parents or legal guardians and minors held in immigration detention so that the parent or legal guardian can be prosecuted pursuant to these authorities. That specific statement—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. As I understand it, we have the legal authority to do that, yes. 

Miss RICE. Did you agree with that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. What I agreed to do is—— 

Miss RICE. No, did you agree with that—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. But that wasn’t—— 

Miss RICE [continuing]. Assessment that they made? 

Secretary NIELSEN. That wasn’t a recommendation, ma’am. It is 

a legal—it is a legal statement. We do have the legal authority to 

do it, as I understand it. 

Miss RICE. Were you aware that the zero-tolerance policy would 

lead to minors being separated from their parents? Yes or no. 

Secretary NIELSEN. As we increased consequences for those who 

break the law, just as everywhere—— 

Miss RICE. Yes or—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am—— 

Miss RICE. I have such limited time, Madam Secretary. I am 

sure you can appreciate that. Can you please—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. As a—as a consequence—— 

Miss RICE. Just answer yes or no? 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. For a parent going to jail, we in 

this country do not take the children to jail. 

Miss RICE. So I take that as a yes, that you understood that the 

zero tolerance policy was going to lead to minors being separated 

from their parents? 

Secretary NIELSEN. As it has in the last three administrations. 

31 

Miss RICE. OK. So the answer is yes. At the end of February, 

Buzzfeed News reported that you did not issue guidance on how to 

implement the zero-tolerance policy until May 4, which was about 

a month after the Attorney General Sessions announced the policy. 

Did you discuss this policy with Attorney General Sessions before 

he announced it on April 6? Yes or no. 

Secretary NIELSEN. This was an on-going discussion. 

Miss RICE. No, yes or no. Did you discuss the zero-tolerance policy with the then-Attorney General Sessions before he made the 

announcement on April 6? Yes or no. 

Secretary NIELSEN. At some time before the announcement, we 

had the conversation. I did not know he was making that announcement that day. 

Miss RICE. But you knew—you had a conversation with him 

about the zero-tolerance policy, yes or no? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Zero tolerance means prosecuting those who 

break the law, yes, we as law enforcement agencies—— 

Miss RICE. Yes, thank you. 

Secretary NIELSEN [continuing]. Talk about prosecuting those 

who break the law—— 

Miss RICE. Thank you. Thank you. So then why did you wait 

until May 4 to issue implementation guidelines? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Because we wanted to work within the Department to ensure we could do it in an appropriately safe way 

with compassion. As you mentioned the memo from my component 

heads came April 23. I then issued after many consultations with 

them the direction to increase prosecution between ports of entry, 

which is the only place where that is against the law, for all adults 

coming across the border illegally. 

Miss RICE. So we all know the results of the policy, and the compassionate, lack of compassion—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am, it is not a policy, it is the law. We 

enforce the law. 

Miss RICE. The policy is a policy. You just talked about discussing that policy with the then-attorney general. So I have 1 

minute left, I have three quick questions. During your tenure as 

Secretary, how many times have you waived environmental regulations required under the Endangered Species Act for border barrier 

construction? 

Secretary NIELSEN. There are multiple laws that we look at, I 

can get you—— 

Miss RICE. I am asking you specifically about this—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I understand, and I am trying to answer it. 

I believe 4 or 5—— 

Miss RICE. Four or 5—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. But I will get you the exact answer. 

Miss RICE. During your—thank you. During your tenure as Secretary, how many times have you waived environmental regulations under the Clean Water Act for border barrier construction? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It would be the same number. Again, I am 

happy to get you the exact number. 

Miss RICE. OK. During your tenure as Secretary how many times 

have you waived environmental regulations under the Clean Air 

Act for border barrier construction? 

32 

Secretary NIELSEN. It should be the same. I will get you the 

number. 

Miss RICE. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

kind words about my father, I very much appreciate it. Welcome, 

Ms. Nielsen, it is nice to see you again. I have a rather unique perspective on the border and I know a lot of people are going to talking about the immigration component. 

But the crisis isn’t just—not with respect to immigration, it is 

with respect to the drugs that are pouring across this border and 

that are killing our kids at a rate of 5 an hour for heroin alone, 

which is frightening. 

One of the big components of that fentanyl, and just a tiny 

amount of fentanyl is what is proving fatal, most of the heroin 

overdoses now because fentanyl is being mixed with the heroin. 

Can you tell me if there has been any significant seizures of 

fentanyl at the border recently? 

Secretary NIELSEN. At the border, yes. In the interior as well— 

ICE overall interdicted more—enough fentanyl last year to kill 

every American twice over—— 

Mr. KATKO. That is frightening. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Substantial amounts of fentanyl. 

Mr. KATKO. So that is enough to kill every single American? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Twice, yes, sir. 

Mr. KATKO. Amazing. Now when I was on the border, I was a 

Federal prosecutor in El Paso, Texas and I was charged with going 

after a cartel-level drug traffickers and we could literally get on the 

roof of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in El Paso with binoculars and see 

one of the cartel member’s houses across the border in Juarez. 

So—and I am intimately familiar—based on the prosecutions I 

did there, about their patterns and practices. I know that they use 

oftentimes the same smuggling routes for drugs that they use those 

for human traffickers, as well. 

But I also know that when you beef up security and you beef up 

scrutiny at the ports of entry, at least back when I was there in 

the mid-1990’s that they often just simply went around and avoided the ports of entry. Can you tell me, is that still holding true 

today, where if you put a pressure point in one place, they find the 

other holes in the border and go across there? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir, that is still true. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. So with respect to that, is it important—isn’t it 

fair to say it is important that if you have—if you increase the 

scrutiny at the ports of entry, which is absolutely critical, that you 

also need to beef up the other parts of the border with barriers 

where necessary, and sensors and all the other things? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is not an either/or—— 

Mr. KATKO. That is exactly right—that is my point. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. So I think it is incumbent when we have this 

discussion to understand that we all agree—both sides of the 

aisle—that beefing up the ports of entry and the security, and 

using the highest technologies we can there is critically important. 

33 

I was always amazed at the ingenuity of the drug traffickers in 

secreting the drugs—and humans in vehicles coming into the ports 

of entry, so we have got to do that. But as soon as you do that they 

are going to go out to the areas where the weak points are. Can 

you tell me where some of the weak points are now that need barriers? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley 

which is one of the areas that we will focus on with the new border 

funding. El Paso is a particular area where we see increased flow, 

particularly with the number of families, it is well over 1,000 increase in families traveling through that particular area. Of course 

when I say El Paso—you know I mean the sector—— 

Mr. KATKO. El Paso sector, I understand. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir, through the ports of entry. So those 

are the two main areas. As you know we have a border security 

improvement plan that we provide, that we update each year and 

we go in a risk-based way as to where those smuggling routes and 

violence are. 

Mr. KATKO. Now the barrier that is being contemplated, that has 

been a subject in much consternation over last several months, it 

is not for the entire Southern Border, is it? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. KATKO. How much are we really talking about? How many 

more additional miles of barrier are we talking about? 

Secretary NIELSEN. About 700—a little more than 700. 

Mr. KATKO. That—and is it fair to say that up until this administration it is been a pretty bipartisan agreement that barriers are 

needed at certain points along the border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KATKO. OK. I want to switch gears, if I may, just for a moment with respect to cybersecurity, which I am the Ranking Member of that subcommittee right now. There is a bill that we are 

going to be submitting next week that suggests and asks that a 

Cyber Security Infrastructure Advisory Committee be created, 

similar to what we did with TSA—the ASAC Committee. Are you 

familiar at all with that bill, and are you—do you think an advisory committee is necessary? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So we are happy to work with you on that. 

We do have a critical infrastructure advisory council already, but 

we have been looking into whether we need something that can 

focus more specifically on cyber because it is a unique expertise as 

you all know. So we are happy to continue to have our staff work 

with you on technical assistance on that. 

Mr. KATKO. Right, and as far as saying that cybersecurity is 

probably one of the biggest threats to our country right now overall, and so the more we can have information flowing going back 

and forth between the stakeholders and Homeland Security, the 

better it is going to be. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. I know it is not the particular topic 

today, but I will just say as I have said before—the threat to cybersecurity is blinking red, it is absolutely one of—if not the highest 

threat that we have faced in the homeland. 

Mr. KATKO. Thank you, Ms. Nielsen. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

34 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. Chair now recognizes gentleman from California, Mr. Correa. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this most important hearing, and, Secretary Nielsen, thank you 

very much for being here as well, ma’am. We just wanted to very 

quickly follow up with some of the comments made from my colleague—learned colleague from New York, Mr. Katko. 

Ma’am would you say as they continue to squeeze the Southern 

Border, are we going to look—there is so much money in drugs 

now. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CORREA. You just came back from the Northern Triangle, 

you know what’s causing all kinds of problems is our U.S. dollars 

corrupting those systems in Central America. 

So as you continue to squeeze the Southern Border, would you 

say our sea ports are also going to be susceptible as being areas 

of the smuggling, and possibly the Northern Border—Canadian 

border, would you say that is also a place that could be used—if 

not now, but in very near future by smugglers to bring in drugs? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We do it all based on risk, but yes, sir, criminals will find a way unfortunately to do whatever their criminal 

act—— 

Mr. CORREA. As long as we keep use—paying for those—unfortunately those illicit drugs people are going to find a way. 

Secretary NIELSEN. The drug demand is a very large problem, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you. I am going to shift very quickly ma’am, 

and last year, Secretary Nielsen, I sent you a letter regarding family separation dated June 20, 2018. I have not gotten a response 

yet from your office that is satisfactory. These are black-and-white 

questions. 

I resubmitted this letter to your Border Patrol Chief Carla Provost last week, and I am going to submit the same letter to you 

today. I am hoping that we can work together to find some answers 

to these questions on family separations. One of my new assignments is I am going to be Chair of a subcommittee on TSA security. 

Like everybody else in this committee, we are all concerned 

about safety, especially terrorists, anti-terrorists activities. You 

stated recently that, to Congress, in fiscal 2017, DHS prevented 

3,700 known or suspected terrorists from coming into the United 

States. I think most of these were being stopped at our airports. 

Is that correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CORREA. Something like 3,700 were actually stopped by our 

TSA agents at airports, maybe less than 100 Southern Border—excuse me—less than 10 at the Southern Border and more like 100 

at our Northern Borders. That sound about right? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The majority were through the air environment. The only thing I would just add is many of them are actually 

identified by CBP as part of the vetting before they travel. So they 

are either stopped from traveling or, as you say, stopped by TSA 

or CBP once they arrive. 

35 

Mr. CORREA. So this is the work that you do in coordination with 

other nations around the world? Brazil—I know Brazil is a very 

popular jump-off point to the United States, in terms of possible 

suspected terrorists. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Brazil has a much more open visa enterprise. 

So, because of that, yes, sir, we do see it being exploited, unfortunately. 

Mr. CORREA. The reason I ask this is because I want to do a 

deeper dive into some of these numbers to really put our resources 

where we really need to focus on stopping terrorists. In fiscal year 

2018, open-source reporting by CBP data, only 6 suspects caught 

at the Southern Border. I presume you continue to have the vast 

number being stopped at our airports? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I can’t speak to the—as you can understand, I can’t speak to the particular number of terrorists stopped 

at the Southern Border because that is Classified, at least not in 

this setting. 

Mr. CORREA. Correct. I will look forward to working with you in 

a Classified setting to address these issues. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would be happy to. Just really quickly, for 

perspective, though. I would say, as you know, there is another category called special interest aliens, where those who have been 

identified as individuals who travel or have other aspects that are 

very similar to a terrorist. We do have increasing numbers of those 

coming throughout the system—— 

Mr. CORREA. Let me say, I am running out of time. I want to 

work with you on these issues—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I understand. 

Mr. CORREA [continuing]. And deeper dive. But our TSA officers, 

I am concerned because TSA was put together after 9/11. They 

were actually being paid by the airports at that time. Now, we find 

out, TSA officers have to be professionals. They have to be welltrained because we see where the challenge is when it comes to 

stopping terrorists coming into the United States. 

So I look forward to working with you and coming up with a 

package for some of these officers to make sure they are the best 

of the best. Finally, I wanted to say, I was in the Northern Triangle, I think, the day or so before you were there. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. CORREA. I want to say, hats off to those northern tribal countries trying to work with us. I know Honduras, for example, the 

jump off point to a couple of those caravans, the president of Honduras told us that 90 percent of that first caravan, those folks had 

actually been returned to Honduras. 

The second caravan, about 5,000, 60 percent had actually been 

returned, and the rest has actually stayed in Mexico. What I am 

trying to say, if I would make factual—if I had more time is, this 

is not a border issue. This is a regional refugee challenge. 

My colleague, Mr. McCaul, talked about all the refugees from 

Venezuela to Colombia, but this is a refugee issue. Mexico, I understand, is holding a lot of those refugees and offering them, in your 

words, permits to stay, work permits. I am hoping we can turn the 

discussion from building a wall to border security to addressing a 

refugee crisis in this continent. 

36 

The one—if I may, Mr. Chairman, the one word people in Central America kept repeating to me was folks in Central America 

want hope, hope for a better life, a better job, some security. I hope 

you can sit down and put the political rhetoric aside and focus on 

giving these human beings a little bit of hope of staying and building lives. 

Mr. Chair, I yield. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Walker. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Nielsen, for being here today. Secretary Nielsen, what is the volume of drugs that is coming through the Southern Border illegally? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I don’t have—I don’t have the exact figure at 

my fingertips, but it is going up, particularly cocaine, 

methamphetamines and, unfortunately, fentanyl. 

Mr. WALKER. Our numbers show, since fiscal year 2012, about 15 

million pounds seized. Does that sound—that is in the ballpark? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It does, but it sounds like it might not include the Coast Guard. 

Mr. WALKER. OK. So, 15 million pounds, that—would you say 

that is a crises, 15 million pounds? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALKER. We talked about fentanyl a little bit earlier, a drug 

so powerful that less than 5 pounds can kill over a million people. 

Our numbers show that almost 1,700 pounds in fiscal year 2018. 

Is that somewhere in the ballpark? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. Would that be a crisis to the DHS? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is because it is a extraordinary danger to 

our communities, but it is also a danger to those who are inspecting packages. We have spent a lot of time on training. We had to 

do a lot of things differently, even for the dogs who were dying just 

by virtue of breathing the fumes from the fentanyl. 

Mr. WALKER. We have talked about the massive amount of individuals—or people coming across the Southern Border. Do you have 

any estimates per year of what that looks like? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are on track right now to be at 900,000 

this year. 

Mr. WALKER. Are apprehensions of family units and aliens of accompanied alien children increasing or decreasing right now? 

Secretary NIELSEN. They are increasing extraordinarily rapidly. 

Family units went up about 30 percent from last month, and the 

same for UACs. Those are the two vulnerable populations that are 

dramatically increasing. 

Mr. WALKER. Yes, I think in the fiscal year 2018, the number 

was 107,000. Already, the first 4 months of fiscal year 2019 that 

starts in October is 99,000. Now, have you had a chance to meet 

former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. WALKER. OK. I wonder if we would also consider this a crisis, because, since the previous administration, that number has 

increased 572 percent. My question, at what point does it become 

a crisis? 

37 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, if you ask the men and women of DHS 

they would tell you, when one migrant dies, when one person is not 

afforded the opportunity to efficiently claim asylum, they would tell 

you—for a community that has been the victim of violence due to 

criminals that come in that flow, they would tell you, any—it just 

takes one. It takes one terrorist, it takes one criminal to ruin a 

family’s lives, and it takes one overdose to kill an American. 

Mr. WALKER. Did you have any idea of the level of how difficult 

and dangerous the issue was just a few years ago before you took 

the position? Or has this been something that has been sort-of a 

knowledge that you have ascertained since you have been in the 

position of Secretary? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I, before becoming Secretary, did not have 

the opportunity to speak in detail to the men and women on the 

front lines. No, I was not aware of how dangerous a situation it is. 

Mr. WALKER. Do you think most Americans truly understand 

how dangerous this situation is? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not, no. 

Mr. WALKER. If most Americans had a chance to go to the border, 

would they consider this a crisis? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir, just by the pure numbers coming in 

and our inability of the system to properly take care of them. 

Mr. WALKER. What kind of job do you say the men and women 

that work for Immigrations Custom and Enforcement, ICE, what 

kind of job on the front lines are they doing? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Extraordinary. They work every day, many 

times at risk of their own lives. Assault on Border Patrol agents 

continue—or, excuse me, on Border Patrol officials continue to rise. 

They do it with compassion. They live in these communities. 

They enforce the law, but they want to make sure and continue to 

ask me to ask to Congress to change the laws so that the system 

can be more humane. 

Mr. WALKER. You know, we talk a lot about as far as people having input who actually are on the front lines doing the work. I— 

according to our numbers—in 2017—we talk a lot about children 

and we should. 

We should make sure that we restore as many children as we 

can. I did hear the three reasons of why that may be a problem 

sometimes prosecutorial, the guardian poses a risk or there is another issue that you have to take a look at. 

But according to our numbers there were 906 children that were 

rescued from exploitation just in 2017. Does that number match 

your numbers, as well? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. Human trafficking and child exploitation are something that we are working on. We are about to release the first ever DHS strategy to combat that. But yes, the numbers are going up. 

Mr. WALKER. So all of these numbers continue to go up, whether 

it is the human trafficking or it is the drug smuggling. The former 

colleague just talked about the more we squeeze the border. Well, 

evidently the numbers continue to rise. So as we look at all these 

numbers, in summary, can you tell the American people this is not 

manufactured crisis, this a legitimate National emergency? 

38 

Secretary NIELSEN. This is a legitimate National emergency, this 

is a twin crisis, and we can do better as a country. We have to have 

a system where we can protect vulnerable populations, we can secure our border which is our sovereign responsibility, we can protect communities, while facilitating legal trade and travel. 

Mr. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the young lady from New Mexico, Ms. 

Torres Small. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am the only Member on this committee that 

represents a Southern Border district. In fact, I include—and it includes 180 miles, almost, of that Southern Border and a lot of it 

is remote, rugged terrain. We have seen in recent months that my 

district has experienced more migrant families showing up between 

ports of entry and—such as the boot heel of New Mexico. 

As we have learned through the tragedy of two migrant children 

deaths under CBP custody, most of the CBP facilities near these 

rural areas aren’t equipped to process large groups of migrants. We 

have to ensure that our agents on the ground have the adequate 

resources and technology to effectively patrol these areas, keep our 

communities safe, and provide quality care to migrants voluntarily 

presenting at our border. 

What changes in policies and procedures have you implemented 

to ensure that CBP can adequately adapt to the rise of people voluntarily presenting at the border and who are showing up between 

ports of entry, specifically in these remote areas? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So what we have done, I would take it a couple different ways. On the health screening, as you know, unfortunately particularly because of those remote areas, many of the migrants when they reach our border are very sick. 

So I have worked with CDC, we have worked with HHS, we have 

worked with the local communities. I have spoken to your previous 

Governor and your current Governor about this exact issue. I have 

asked my bipartisan advisory council to look at this particular 

issue on families and children and what we can do better. 

We have increased our medical screening. We screen every child 

that comes into CBP care. ICE, as you know, if the migrants proceed onto ICE detention, do receive, within 7 days, a full medical 

checkup. So we focused a lot on the—on the medical part. 

In terms of the ability to understand what migrants are coming 

through remote areas, we are working much more closely with 

Mexico to identify the flows so that we can have CBP there to rescue them as soon as possible. As you know, we rescued 4,300 in 

distress last year alone, many of them coming through remote 

areas where they are dehydrated, they are cold, they are otherwise 

sick, they haven’t had adequate resources and food for quite some 

time. 

So we continue to look at all of the processes, but this is something that we are trying to do the best we can within the limited 

resources that we have. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. One of the issues that I didn’t quite hear addressed there is transportation. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

39 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. As you know, one of the children who died, 

part of the challenge was the transportation to a medical facility. 

So sometimes the hardest but most-learned lessons come from past 

failures. What is the status of the investigation into the deaths of 

those two children? When will you release the results of those? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So, as I understand, the status of the investigation right now is with the medical examiner. So until the medical examiner in both cases releases their final findings, our Office 

of Professional Responsibility and our investigator general cannot 

complete their report. I did ask this question recently, I have not 

been able to ascertain from the ME when that will be done. But 

as soon as that will be done, the other parts of the oversight will 

wrap up their investigations and I am sure they will provide, as 

appropriate, their findings. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Do you have any sense of a time line? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I don’t. I have asked, of course, that we do 

it as quickly as possible. There are some extenuating circumstances 

there. I think the ME is trying to look at information about the 

health of the child as they traveled along the journey. So I really 

don’t. I wouldn’t want to speak for them. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. What can you do to make sure that it 

comes—happens as quickly as possible, as you said? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I can just keep bugging them and ask that 

we do it very speedily so that we can incorporate any lessons 

learned into our processes and procedures. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. Are you looking into the policy 

of metering at the ports and how that might increase the role of 

human traffickers to take migrants between ports of entry and also 

drive them to these rural areas? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So, it does—as I mentioned earlier, it does 

have to be an ‘‘and’’ approach, it can’t be an ‘‘either/or’’ approach. 

The queue management at the ports is simply to ensure that CBP 

can perform all its statutory missions but, very importantly, to protect the migrants coming in. As you know, when you have seen the 

facilities, they were built for maybe 100 people a day. They are just 

not adequate to process and hold large numbers of people. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. One of the challenges, though, is if you are 

controlling it at the ports of entry, they can still go to a place between the ports of entry where there is the same lack of facilities 

and sometimes worse. So are you looking at that impact? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am, and that is why our operators 

have asked for impedance and denial in the form of obstacles. 

Ms. TORRES SMALL. Thank you. What has done—CBP done to 

minimize attrition in hard-to-fill locations such as Lordsburg or 

Deming to make sure that we have agents in our most remote stations? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So, we continue to look at this, I know we are 

running short on time. I am happy to work with you. We work 

closely with the unions on this issue. We are looking at everything 

from retention bonuses to ability to add additional salary when we 

transfer, additional benefits on the backend, but, yes, this is a 

problem that we take very seriously and where we are working 

with all parties on. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

40 

Chair now recognizes gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, 

thank you for your time, your dedication to our country and for 

your devotion to restore sovereignty along our Southern Border. My 

colleague earlier, Representative Langevin, put a graph up. 

I have asked that it be put back up, that request had been declined. But I will refer to it because it certainly shows that an allof-the-above strategy to secure our border works. Since 2000, our 

colleague’s graph showed a decrease in illegal apprehensions. 

Since 2000, 19 years ago, we have built more than 650 miles of 

physical barriers along the border to help control illegal crossings. 

We have deployed sensor technology and increased Border Patrol 

staffing. This is exactly why—and a bipartisan solution exists before us, my friends, and it does not make sense to me why this has 

become a partisan issue since President Trump’s election. Physical 

barriers, technology, enhanced capacity to respond, they work. 

This does not mean the current crisis does not exist. Let me just 

put this in context for the American people. Perhaps the most famous invasion in the history of the world, D-Day, 73,000 American 

troops landed in the D-Day invasion. We have 76,103, according to 

my numbers, apprehensions along our Southern Border last month. 

We have a D-Day every month on our Southern Border. 

Just to put this in context for America, yes, physical barriers 

work. Enhanced technology works. The ability to respond and arrest, to process works. Of course, none of us want to separate families. We, as Congress, we have to fix the laws and allow these law 

enforcement professionals to do their job. I know the men and 

women of Border Patrol be highly professional and patriotic in 

their mission to secure our border. 

I know first-hand from my experience as a cop, from my service 

on this committee, and from standing alongside front-line defenders, our border agents deserve respect. They certainly have mine. 

I would like to highlight two cases, Mr. Chairman, which exemplify the professional manner in which border agents conduct themselves. On the morning of January 22, a Honduran gentleman, 

along with his elderly wife, illegally crossed into the United States. 

They were apprehended and taken into custody by Border Patrol. 

A few days later, while still in U.S. custody, the Honduran gentleman complained he didn’t feel well. He had received medical 

care, he was immediately brought to a hospital, medical center in 

El Paso. Within hours, the Honduran gentleman was treated by a 

team of American doctors less than 12 hours after reporting his 

discomfort. He had a brand-new pacemaker surgically implanted. 

The next day, he was given medical clearance and his follow-up 

prescriptions. 

American taxpayers gave this man a pacemaker that crossed into 

our country illegally. We are certainly a compassionate and generous Nation. 

Another such example involves a forced separation of a mother 

and her child by coyotes which, by the way, human coyotes give our 

animal friends a bad name. The smugglers convinced a mother that 

it was easier to move the pair separately. They separated the child 

from their parents, they left the 3-year-old child on the banks of 

the Rio Grande. 

41 

It was Border Patrol agents who rescued that child. It is Border 

Patrol agents who rescue thousands of people from smuggling and 

trafficking routes every year. The Southwest Border is arduous terrain, difficult, inhospitable terrain. Those who choose to come here 

illegally do so at great risk to themselves, their families, and certainly their children if they bring them. 

Madam Secretary, please share with America—how many rescues did Border Patrol successfully perform last year? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Over 4,000, sir. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Over 4,000 rescues. Madam Secretary, if you were 

given more funding and additional qualified agents, would you be 

able to better secure our border and more compassionately enforce 

the laws that you have sworn to uphold? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir, again what is important to understand is first of all this is a National security concern to protect 

our border. Second, Congress has directed DHS to take operational 

control of the border. I cannot do that with these laws and with 

these resources. 

Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Madam. It is our responsibility to 

change the laws where they need to be changed. I am committed 

to work with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner, Mr. Chairman, 

to change the laws as necessary. It is the law enforcement professional’s job to uphold those laws and they are doing so now. I yield. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. The gentleman 

from Louisiana complimented our men and women who are doing 

this job. For the record, Madam Secretary, how many vacancies to 

you have in CBP as of this hearing? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am happy to get back to you—what I can 

tell you, the good news is last year was the first year that we were 

able to hire more than who left. So we are reversing the trend 

there. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Give me a guesstimate. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, I don’t want to guess under oath, I am 

happy to get you the number. 

Chairman THOMPSON. So if I said you had over 2,000 vacancies 

what would you say? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would say I would be happy to get you— 

respectfully sir, I just—I don’t have—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. Does that sound about right? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I will get you the number. 

Chairman THOMPSON. A thousand? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, I will get you the number. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Please get me the number. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Underwood. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a lot of 

lawyers in this room and I am not a lawyer, I am a nurse. Madam 

Secretary, I want to be very clear about what the family separation 

policy is doing to children’s mental and physical health. I want to 

know if DHS even considered their health when developing these 

policies. 

So I only have 5 minutes, so for these questions I am looking for 

a yes or no answer if you could? When you officially began family 

42 

separation in spring 2018 were you aware of research showing it 

causes trauma that can do both immediate and long-term damage 

to children’s health? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The information that I was aware of at the 

time was that the trauma is from part of the journey to come up 

to the border illegally. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK—so again, we are looking for yes or no answers, ma’am. 

Secretary NIELSEN. That was what I do know within the context 

of the question. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK. Were you aware that the trauma of family 

separation is connected to something called toxic stress? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I have—not familiar with that term, no. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK, were you aware that toxic stress can actually change a child’s brain because it is still developing? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I wasn’t familiar with the term. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK, were you aware that the effects of these 

traumas are accumulative, they get worse the longer the trauma 

goes on? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Can I—yes, I will—sorry. I would like to clarify because we are missing a bigger point here, but yes, ma’am, I 

am sorry respectfully let me answer your questions. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Were you aware that the traumatic effects 

don’t go away, even if a child is reunited with their family? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I understand that they are—no. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK. Were you aware that family separation 

can lead to behavioral changes and learning delays for children? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Just to be clear, family separation includes 

the 60,000 UACs who are separated by their parents before they 

ever got to the border. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. I understand. My question is about the traumatic effects. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am—so let me just say this and maybe it 

will help you with your questions. Families need to be put together, 

children should never be put in this situation. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. 

Secretary NIELSEN. We need to fix the systems so that they are 

not. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Were you aware that family separation can lead to behavioral changes and learning delays for children? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Again, kids should be with their families. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. I—OK, so I will take that as a no. Were you 

aware that it increases a child’s risk of heart disease, diabetes, and 

cancer? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would ask all parents to go to ports of 

entry, not to separate their children and send them on the journey 

alone. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. And not to break U.S. law. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Were you aware that it increases 

a child’s risk of anxiety, depression, and substance abuse? As a reminder, these are yes or no questions. 

43 

Secretary NIELSEN. I—ma’am, if I just cut to the chase, I think 

we are agreeing children need to be with their families. We need 

to fix the system so that we can enable them to do that—— 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. I understand. Ma’am I am trying to ascertain 

your knowledge—your prior knowledge of the health impacts of 

these children when they are separated at the border. 

The American Psychological Association reports that family separation is on par with beating and torture in terms of its relationship to mental health. Were you aware of that research prior to instituting the policy of family separation? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We—there is no policy of family separation. 

What we did was increase the number of parents that we referred 

for prosecution. That is what we have done for the last three administrations because it is the law—— 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. I will take that as a no. Let’s go 

back even further to the El Paso pilot program for family separation that reportedly began in 2017. Yes or no, did DHS consult 

with any pediatric health experts before beginning the pilot? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I was not at DHS at that time, I was there 

in July. I was not aware of the pilot at that time. Then I was working in a different department. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK, so that would be a no. 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, ma’am, I just can’t speak to it—I wasn’t 

there—— 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am not going to speak to what I don’t know. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. Yes or no, did DHS collect or analyze any medical data from the pilot program to evaluate how family separation affects a child’s physical and mental health? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, as I said I have advisory council looking 

at it right now who includes a well-known doctor who is looking at 

these issues. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Can you provide a copy of that data and DHS’s 

analysis to our committee? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Of course. The report is not finished, but it 

is a FACA body, so everything is public. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Great. Did you consult with any pediatric experts before this policy officially began in the spring of 2018? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We generally and regularly work with them, 

as you know the children are cared for by Health and Human Services—— 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Right. 

Secretary NIELSEN. But to the extent that we have children in 

DHS detention centers we follow all guidelines by the AMA—— 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Right. 

Secretary NIELSEN. We work very closely with the medical community. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK, so then would you provide a copy of that 

communication from DHS with those experts to the committee? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure, when it becomes available. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. OK. Thank you. So the American Academy of 

Pediatrics wrote to DHS 6 times to explain how family separation 

hurts children, and made a number of public statements—yes or 

no, are you aware of those warnings? 

44 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am, which is why I continue to ask this 

committee to work with me so that parents do not separate their 

children. There were 60,000 last year that were separated by their 

parents. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. 

Secretary NIELSEN. You are talking about 2,000 children that resulted from their parents choosing to break the law which is why 

I have continually asked parents to go to a port of entry. 

Ms. UNDERWOOD. Thank you. So from what I have heard today, 

I am not sure if DHS was so negligent that they didn’t know how 

traumatic family separation was for children or if they knew and 

did it anyways. But in my opinion, both are unacceptable. 

Tearing kids and their parents apart like this immoral—ma’am, 

it is un-American and it is just plain wrong. Thank you for holding 

this hearing, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Nielsen, I will be following 

up. I yield back. 

Secretary NIELSEN. So, sir, I would like to respond briefly, if I 

could—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Lesko. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, if I could just—if I could just really 

quickly because I think it is very important to just put this in a 

brief context. 

Chairman THOMPSON. No. 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I didn’t have any time, just to be clear, to respond. But OK, thank you, with respect. I appreciate that. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Madam Secretary. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Oh, thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Editorializing is not part of the rules. So 

I would just remind you of that. The gentlelady from Arizona, Congresswoman Lesko. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary, for being here. You have a very difficult job, and I believe 

you are doing a good job. I have 5 minutes, I have a question, but 

I do want you to follow up on what you just wanted to say. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I just want to clarify really quickly. There is 

so much misunderstanding. There was—the only instances at 

which children have ever been separated in the last 2 years is the 

3 instances that I went over, which is long-standing practice, and 

when the parents chose to break the law. 

Just like when parents break the law in the United States of 

America, we do not put the children in jail with the parents. So the 

parents came illegally. If they would come to a port of entry, there 

is no family separation. If we pick up a family in the interior, there 

is no family separation, which is why there has never been a comprehensive policy of family separation. I am sorry, ma’am. Please. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you categorize 

or believe that the men and women that are with the Border Patrol 

and ICE are experts on illegal immigration and what is happening 

at the border, since they are there each and every day and dealing 

with these items? Would you believe they are experts on this? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do. Yes, ma’am. 

45 

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Secretary—Mr. Chairman—Madam Secretary, do you believe—would you say that these men and women 

who work for Department of Homeland Security, who have the 

boots on the ground each and every day, and are dealing with this, 

do they believe that there is a crisis on our Southern Border and 

a National humanitarian and security crisis? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. Madam Secretary, as you—as someone 

who is the head of this agency, who I assume has gone to the border numerous times, has talked to Border Patrol agents and ICE 

agents and other DHS employees on numerous occasions, do you 

consider yourself well-versed in what is happening at our Southern 

Border, and what is happening about illegal immigration in our 

country? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do, yes. I have taken substantial opportunities to meet with the experts and to understand the problem and 

the complexity of the laws. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you. So, therefore, Madam Secretary, I would 

ask you, do you believe that we are in a—that there is a crisis on 

our Southern Border, that there is a National security and humanitarian crisis at our Southern Border? Do you believe that the President of the United States was justified in declaring a National 

emergency? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am, it is an emergency. As a Secretary of 

Homeland Security, I can no longer assure you of who is coming 

into this country. That is a direct National security threat. We are 

on par to have over 900,000 this year, first of all. 

Second of all, I have seen the vulnerable populations. I have been 

to Mexico; I have talked to the Northern Triangle countries. This 

is a true humanitarian crisis that the system is enabling. We have 

to change the laws. 

Mrs. LESKO. Thank you, Madam Secretary. You know, I was here 

when we tried to pass immigration law last year, which would have 

combined common-sense immigration reforms that would have 

helped solve some of these problems, especially the cartels abusing 

our loose immigration laws on asylum claims. 

It would have helped decrease the number of people that are 

traipsing thousands of miles to get into the United States, that you 

have said 30 percent of the women are being sexually assaulted. I 

believe you said, the children—the girls, at 10 years old, have to 

be tested for pregnancy because of these sexual assaults that are 

going on. 

This is just—please, my colleagues, please, let’s work in a bipartisan fashion. We were trying to be bipartisan last year when we 

tried to pass immigration reform, combined with border security 

funding. Unfortunately, not one of my Democratic colleagues voted 

for that. 

The bill did not pass. Would we please stop being so partisan on 

this issue and against President Trump and please, let’s try to 

solve this problem for the sake of our entire Nation? Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

To the gentlelady from Arizona, there is no question about bipartisan, but if—it is just one side. You know, Democrats do have 

46 

opinions, and when our opinions are not valued, then we vote 

against it. A genuine bipartisan effort in this area and in other 

areas would be more than appreciated. 

Madam Secretary, according to your records, at the end of fiscal 

year 2018, there were 3,740 vacancies in CBP, there was 1,815 vacancies in Border Patrol. So I await your numbers, but that is a 

lot of vacancies. If we have some problems, some of us would say, 

let’s fill the vacancies that Congress has been so graciously supportive of accommodating you. But almost 5,000 vacancies is a lot 

of vacancies. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, if I could really quickly. We would be 

happy to work with you on that. As you know, we do have new hiring strategies. I will just note that it is a very difficult environment 

right now. It is a very dangerous job. We have an increase of 40 

percent in assaults on Border Patrol. We are working to hire, having more fairs, more ways. So, happy to work with you on that. We 

agree on the need for additional—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. Madam Secretary, I look forward to working with you. If you bring it to our attention, that it is a problem, 

we will work with you. But to my knowledge, it has not been 

brought to my attention, as Chair, nor have we ever had a hearing 

talking about the problems with filling vacancies within that Department. If there is an issue to go with it, we would be more than 

happy to work with you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Congresswoman Slotkin. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Secretary 

Nielsen for coming before us. I represent Michigan, so the Northern 

Border. I know we are talking a lot about the Southern Border. 

Let’s remember that we have significant border locations to our 

north, and they shouldn’t be ignored. 

I am also a former CIA officer and DOD official, so I am a big 

believer in border security and have spent my life preventing 

homeland attacks. But I also believe we have to be a country of 

morals and values. The separation of children, it didn’t matter who 

you were, where you got your news, the vision of a small child in 

a cage, separated and crying, I think just hits everyone’s heart. We 

cannot be a country that perpetuates that. 

So I just want to understand, separated out from the situation, 

the unaccompanied minors, which are a large group of people. 

There are parents, you are right, send them up here on their own 

coming across the border. Leave that aside, because that was a big 

problem under the Obama administration, many administrations 

before. The separation of families, the purposeful separation of 

families once they arrived as a family unit. Did you initiate the 

separation of families for the express purpose of deterring families 

from coming to the United States? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No. I did not. Again, the whole purpose of 

that was to increase consequences for those who choose to break 

the law. That is a bedrock of our criminal—as you know—the way 

that our criminal system works. If there is no consequence, we do 

not see the instances of the crime decreasing. 

So what we did was we increased the number of prosecutions. 

We didn’t make up the law, the law was already there. Former adVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
47 

ministrations also referred adult parents for prosecution. We took 

the prosecution numbers from about 20 percent to about 55 percent. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So what did you do? I understand it is complicated, 

we have a big bureaucratic system. When you saw those pictures 

of babies in cages, what did you do? What did you do, to just 

scream bloody murder up the chain to the President, to say, I cannot represent an agency that is forcing its Border Patrol to do this? 

What did you do? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I went to the border. I spoke to the men 

and women there. I looked at the facilities myself. I talked to HHS, 

to understand and visited their facilities, as well, to understand the 

care that they provide to the children once they are in their custody. Then I spent a tremendous amount of time working with the 

Northern Triangle in Mexico to stop the phenomena closer to the 

source to help stabilize those areas so that the children and families are not traveling here. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. OK. It just feels like it potentially wasn’t enough 

if we are still dealing with those separations. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Just to be clear, we are not. We do not refer 

parents currently for prosecution, even when they break the law by 

entering our country between ports of entry. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. So switching gears to the Northern Border. So, I 

am also very concerned—our border agents do amazing things 

every day. We have a much higher volume of traffic of trade coming through our Northern Border than through our Southern Border, and I am concerned about the vacancies. Have any border personnel from the Northern Border been moved and detailed to the 

Southern Border to fill staffing gaps? Can you give me a couple of 

details on that, if so? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. We did have—we have surge models 

throughout the Department, whether it is FEMA, whether it is 

TSA, we do everything based on risk. So when we saw risk in gaps, 

we move around the personnel in a temporary fashion to address 

that gap. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. I just feel like the attention has all been focused 

on the Southern Border when in reality the volume of trade and 

then also the people watch-listed, the volume is much higher coming through the Northern Border. 

I think you made some misleading statements, and I think it is 

important to be very, very specific when we are talking about a terrorist threat or watch-listed individuals, some misleading information about the number of watch-listed individuals coming through 

our Southern Border. Can you state for the record, are more watchlisted individuals coming through our Northern Border or our 

Southern Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So I don’t remember actually answering that 

question. I think the question was about the known or suspected 

terrorists that we stop a day on the Southern Border, what I was 

saying is there were about 3,000 special interest aliens that we 

stopped at that border compared to the Northern Border. Again, as 

you know, the number of terrorists actually crossing the border is 

Classified. Happy to do that in a different setting. 

48 

Ms. SLOTKIN. OK. I will look forward to doing that and I yield 

the rest of my time to Congresswoman Rice. 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would say really quickly, we do take the 

Northern Border seriously. I just met with your colleagues on the 

Senate side from Michigan. We have the border strategy implementation plan coming out soon. We do have a Northern Border strategy, which you know focuses on security, critical infrastructure and 

all of the interdependences between, so happy to come talk to you 

more about that. 

Ms. SLOTKIN. Thank you for not forgetting about us. I appreciate 

that. 

Chairman THOMPSON. The gentlelady from New York. 

Miss RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 

Slotkin. I think it is really important, taking—continuing what 

Congresswoman Slotkin was talking about, about making the 

record very clear and not allowing any misleading statements. 

It was a policy announced by the attorney general of this country 

that families were going to be separated. That was a policy. He did 

not say we are going to start enforcing a law. It was a policy by 

this administration that only ended when there were pictures of little kids in cages that had been ripped away from their parents. 

So I think it is really important, Madam Secretary, that you talk 

about it and you use the right language. This was not the law, OK? 

This was a policy that the attorney general of this country announced was a new policy they were going to rip kids away from 

their parents. So I think it is very important that the record reflect 

that. I thank my colleague, Ms. Slotkin, and I yield back. 

Secretary NIELSEN. OK. So, respectfully, sir, I would like to respond to that, because—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. Let me just say, do it in writing so we 

won’t have the confusion—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would like to respond quickly, because I can 

tell you—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. No, no, no, gentlelady. We have been back 

and forth. 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have. But it is appropriate for me to clarify for the record, because I think you are trying to get to the truth. 

I think that is what you were, too. So I just want to just quickly 

say that the AG memo that was issued directed all U.S. attorney 

offices along the Southwest Border to prosecute all adults who were 

referred for prosecution. That is what it did. 

Miss RICE. That is a policy. That is a policy. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Not as you described it. 

Miss RICE. Madam Secretary, that is a policy, when you knew 

that that policy was going to result in children having to be taken 

away from their parents. That is a policy. You should admit it. 

Secretary NIELSEN. The consequence of any adult going to jail in 

this country is they are separated from their child. That wasn’t the 

point of it. The point was to increase prosecutions for those breaking the law and not exempt any class of aliens. That is what the 

AG directed. 

Miss RICE. It was very clear what the attorney general meant. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Well, we will follow up with that. For the 

record, Madam Secretary, are we still using cages for children? 

49 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, we don’t use cages for children. In the 

border facilities that you have been to, they were not made to detain children. As the children are processed through, they are in 

some parts of those facilities. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Madam Secretary—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. I am being as clear as I can, sir. Respectfully, I am trying to answer your question. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Just yes or no. Are we still putting children in cages? 

Secretary NIELSEN. To my knowledge, CBP never purposely put 

a child in a cage, if you mean a cage like this. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Purposely or whatever, are we putting 

children in cages as of today? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Children are processed at the border facility 

stations that you have been at, some of the—— 

Chairman THOMPSON. I have seen the cages. I just want you to 

admit that the cages exist. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, they are not cages. 

Chairman THOMPSON. What are they? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Areas of the border facility that are carved 

out for the safety and protection of those who remain there while 

they are being processed. If we have two gangs, we separate them 

into separate areas of that facility. 

Chairman THOMPSON. No, no, no. Madam Secretary—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. A father and daughter, we separate that 

from another son. 

Chairman THOMPSON. We are not going to go through the semantics. Now, I saw the cyclone fences that were made as cages. You 

did, too. All you have to do is admit it. If it is a bad policy, then 

change it. But don’t mislead the committee. Do not mislead the 

committee. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member and Secretary, thank you for the hard work that you 

do leading probably one of the most diverse departments in all of 

our Government. As an emergency medicine physician, I trained in 

my emergency medicine residency down in Texas, did some rotations in Austin, Texas. I have pronounced opiate overdoses. I have 

pronounced those people dead and it is a horrific thing to have to 

do. 

As I understand it, 300 deaths a week in this country are happening due to heroin overdose and that 90 percent of that heroin 

is coming across the Southern Border. It has been suggested by the 

folks on the other side of the aisle that that is only at points of 

entry. I would like to ask you, if you could tell us about what is 

happening between the points of entry, the drugs that you guys are 

seizing, and what you are expecting is going though. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sure. So, first of all, this is another example 

of it is not an either/or. We thank this committee and others who 

supported our request for additional non-intrusive inspection equipment, which will vastly help our interdiction efforts at the ports. 

We do see criminals continuing to take advantage of gaps between 

the ports of entry where there is no barrier and smuggle drugs in. 

50 

We also unfortunately see them using families and children as 

pawns. So often they will send a group of migrants across the border in one area where there is no barrier, while CBP is responding 

to that location. They then will smuggle drugs nearby through another vulnerable part of the border. 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. There is a—changing the subject a little bit, there is a New York Times article this—I believe it was Saturday. The title of the article is ‘‘You Have to Pay with Your Body’’. 

It is about a woman who hired a coyote to bring her over the border. Of course, she was assaulted many times during that process. 

The New York Times article then said that she was held once she 

got to the United States and repeatedly raped by the coyotes. I just 

ask the question, I guess it is 31 percent of women that are coming 

across the border this was are having to face similar experiences. 

How many women does it take being raped before this really is a 

crisis? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, if you are asking my opinion, it is one. 

It is one child who dies, it is one woman who is raped, because this 

system doesn’t need to work that way. We can fix the system to 

protect venerable populations. 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Thank you, I would agree 100 percent 

with you. In regard to the child separation, and we have talked 

about the cages here, as I recall, the images that circulated around 

the internet were actually from the Obama administration. They 

later found out that the picture that circulated the internet of a 

child in a cage came from the time frame when it was the Obama 

administration. 

My question, doesn’t it seem reasonable that if all the investigations that are going on—and you just recently have been subpoenaed to provide information about the names of children that have 

been separated. Unfortunately, they only ask you to go back to the 

Trump—you know the window of the Trump administration in 

those subpoenas. 

It seems to me that if it were—because we are concerned about 

the children, if the images are really from back in the Obama administration, why wouldn’t we ask for that data going back further 

than just the Trump administration? 

It is really about protecting and caring for and making sure the 

safety of the children. Why wouldn’t we go back to when the separations really started? 

Let me just stop you, you don’t have to answer that question. I 

will answer it for you. It is because this isn’t about just the safety 

of children, it is about slamming the President. 

Let me ask you this question, it is a hypothetical, I only have a 

little bit of time left. How many lives could we actually save—yes, 

how many lives could we save if we really secured our border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. You know, again I would be hazarding a 

guess here, sir, but we have 4,300 that we have saved if you extrapolate out those unfortunately that we find have died along the 

journey, hundreds of thousands. 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. Yes, I would think it would be that 

number, too. How many women in that—if we were going to multiply the 31 percent times just this year, how many women in the 

51 

first few months of this year have come across the border illegally 

that way that you have processed? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I don’t have the breakdown of women from 

family units—— 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. OK. 

Secretary NIELSEN. But the family units have continued to go 

up—— 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee. It would be great to know that number, 

and then we can multiply it times Doctors Without Borders as 31 

percent and come up with that many women probably got raped 

this year, because of our failed policies. Thank you. I yield. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I have been sitting here listening to this for quite a while, and just want to make 

a couple of observations. One is the choreography is just amazing. 

When the Democrats ask a question, Madam Secretary, you never 

have the answer. 

You don’t have any of the numbers and you are going to get back 

to us, but when the Republicans ask a question, boy, you are right 

on top of that with the statistics and the numbers, you have got 

it all right down there in front of you. I wonder if this has kindof been orchestrated. 

Second, there is a great deal of obfuscation. We talk about the 

zero tolerance or family separation—you say, it is not a policy, it 

is the law, you are obeying the law, no, it is a policy, you are not 

doing it now. If you are not doing it, are you breaking the law— 

which is it? 

Then you said that cybersecurity is a red light that is blinking 

that is the most dangerous thing that is facing this country. Yet 

you requested $8 billion for a wall and only $1.35 billion to deal 

with cybersecurity. That seems to me a, kind-of a misplaced priorities there. 

Then going back to the Chairman’s point about the number of vacancies in the border—and our personnel, I would ask you and I 

know this is a topic for tomorrow but it is kind-of interesting that 

you paid $1.9 million to Accenture to help you with that problem 

and they have hired 35 agents. So yes, I would say there is a pretty 

big management problem. 

But my question is a broader one. We know that we need comprehensive immigration reform, we would like to see it bipartisan. 

We are reached across the aisles since I was first elected here and 

got nothing in return. 

But it is more than just border control. We need to deal with the 

DREAMers, the DACA recipients, TPS—they are all living in the 

situation of uncertainty. You testified that you had never met a 

DREAMer last year. I wonder is that still true? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, ma’am. As you know they have under the 

court case right now they are legally present and we continue to 

renew those who are part of the original application process. 

Ms. TITUS. So have you talked to this DREAMer, do you know 

anything about their story? I mean, I have got thousands of— 

13,000, actually—DREAMers in my district, I know their life stoVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
52 

ries, I know about their families. I am not just sitting across a 

courtroom from them. Have you met with any of them? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I think that is why we agree that they deserve a legal status, which is what I have said every time I have 

testified. I support a legal status for the DACA population. 

Ms. TITUS. So you don’t think the DREAMers are a security 

threat to this country? 

Secretary NIELSEN. When they commit a crime, or they otherwise 

fail a background check, as you know, they no longer are covered 

under the DACA program. 

Ms. TITUS. Do you feel that they are a security threat to this 

country? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Some of them have committed crimes, they 

are no longer part of DACA. So by definition, if you are a DACA 

recipient, you have not committed a crime. 

Ms. TITUS. Do you feel like they are a threat to our economy? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am, I support their legal status. 

Ms. TITUS. So that means you would support a clean bill to give 

DACA recipients a pathway to citizenship? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, I would not. The reason for that is because we can’t handle that situation without handling the situation 

that brought them here to begin with. I don’t want to inadvertently 

create a new pull factor. I want to make sure that we secure the 

border and that we are able to give legal status to the DACA population. 

Ms. TITUS. So you don’t think they are a security threat, you 

don’t think they are an economic threat, but you wouldn’t support 

any kind of pathway to citizenship? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I won’t support things that will continue the 

crisis that we have at the border by serving as a pull factor alone, 

no ma’am. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, what about the people who are TPS, who are 

here now? They are not—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I also—— 

Ms. TITUS. They live here now, they have been here 20 years. We 

have many families that are mixed status, do you see them as a 

security threat, or an economic threat? Would you support some 

kind of protection for them as a pathway to citizenship? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am, and in the letter to Senator 

Shelby from the White House during the appropriations negations, 

the administration also supports that. 

Ms. TITUS. If we brought a clean bill to give TPS pathway to citizenship, you and the administration, and your colleagues across 

the aisle would support that? Because there is a bill that is on the 

table right now, Promise Bill, I believe, is the acronym for it. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am, as the Secretary for Homeland Security, I can’t support something that will automatically—I mean, 

every time we have done a program that provides additional paths 

for citizenship for those who are illegally present, it does serve as 

a pull factor. 

Ms. TITUS. TPS is not illegally present. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Their status—we have a court case, as you 

know, but the program itself was temporary. So they do not have 

the temporary protected status, but we of course are not deporting 

53 

them as we work through the court case. But I agree with you that, 

yes, we need to provide a legal status. 

What I am concerned about is I want to make sure that we secure the border at the same time, and reduce the pull factor so that 

people are under the impression they can come here without any 

legal right to stay, to then be subject to protections later. 

Ms. TITUS. In your opening statement you said you want to encourage and support legal immigration. It is the illegal immigration you are worried about. Is not TPS, and are not the DREAMers—are not they under the category of legal immigration? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The TPS was a protected temporary status, 

as you know. They—— 

Ms. TITUS. Legal, or illegal? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is neither, they are—— 

Ms. TITUS. It is not legal? 

Secretary NIELSEN. They are legally present—— 

Ms. TITUS. Yes. 

Secretary NIELSEN. But they are not immigrants. 

Ms. TITUS. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for 

your patience. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Taylor. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I would like 

to thank you, Secretary Nielsen, for appearing before this committee to speak on the vital issue of border security, particularly 

on the Southern Border. 

The consistent inability of Congress to comprehensively address 

this matter has left you and the President with the inability to 

take the actions that are necessary, to provide what we need for 

protection. Lack of border security has downstream consequences 

in our country. 

One of these I would like to refocus on and that is the opioid crisis and the devastation and the heartbreak it has created particularly in my home State of Pennsylvania. I, too, have met with coroners. As a doctor, as a legislator the opioid-related deaths in my 

home State are on the upswing and are consistently above the National average. 

Some reports, as we have discussed, indicate that almost 90 percent of heroin is illegally smuggled into our country through our 

Southern Border. Secretary Nielsen, do you believe that a physical 

barrier is necessary in places of high risk along our Southern Border to stem the flood of narcotics into our country? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. As a doctor, as a legislator facing this incredible opioid crisis, watching families separated, watching children and young adults die, do you and other experts believe that 

the construction of additional barriers and walls will help combat 

the opioid flow into our country? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentlelady from New Jersey, Mrs. Watson Coleman. 

54 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. In a bipartisan fashion. Thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here. 

I have got a whole bunch of questions, and I am going to ask that 

where you can you just tell me yes or no. Question, what does a 

chain link fence enclosed into a chamber on a concrete floor represent to you? Is that a cage? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is a detention space, ma’am, that you know 

has existed for decades. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Does it differ from the cages you put 

your dogs in when you let them stay outside? Is it different? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. In what sense? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is larger. It has facilities. It provides room 

to sit, to stand, to lie down. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So did my dog’s cage. Are the jails different than the cages that you have allowed the children to be put 

in? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am sorry. Which jails? 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Are the jails that you put their parents 

in? Or the adults that come here with children that you say are 

coming here illegally? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The detention centers, most of them, no, 

ma’am. They have a border around the outside. But they essentially sleep in dorm-like conditions. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So they live in better conditions than 

the children. 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, ma’am. I just want to be very clear on 

this. As migrants are processed through the Border Patrol station, 

which were not built, again, for vulnerable populations, they are 

there for up to 72 hours. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. I just want to know if the children are 

in cages, what do you consider the detention facilities to be? Because I am suspecting that you are putting children in places that 

seem to be less livable than these adults. 

I want to have—I have a number of questions. I want to start 

by discussing Maria Juarez, a toddler who died in my home State 

of New Jersey, after being detained by DHS. After fleeing violence 

in Guatemala, she and her mother were detained by CBP and held 

in ICE custody at a private facility in Texas. Within a week, Maria 

began to exhibit upper respiratory symptoms, including congestion, 

a cough, and severe fever of 104 degrees. Maria and her mother 

were released after 3 weeks in custody and cleared for travel to 

New Jersey by personnel in Texas who did not have the requisite 

credentials doctors to provide medical clearance. 

After arriving, her mother took Maria to an emergency room almost immediately. She remained hospitalized for the rest of her 

life, 6 weeks, dying on Mother’s Day last year. Outside doctors 

made it clear that Maria did not receive the medical care she deserved while in custody of DHS. 

Secretary, after learning of Maria’s death, did you immediately 

take any action to improve access through the quality of health 

care at DHS facilities, yes or no? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, we continue to do all we can to improve 

within our resources. 

55 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Is there an outside investigation every 

time someone dies in DHS custody so that we can understand what 

happened? 

Secretary NIELSEN. OPR investigates every one under—either in 

addition to or under direction of the IG. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. On a different topic, we all should know, 

border security isn’t just about the Southern Border, and this has 

been raised a couple of times. So I want to ask about a concerning 

program I recently learned about where TSA is working with the 

Saudi government to create a Saudi Arabian Federal air marshal 

program that would have Saudi government agents fly armed on 

flights to the United States. 

The Saudis are actually paying the salaries of several full-time 

TSA employees working on this program. As a section of the 9/11 

Commission report stated, while in the United States, some of the 

9/11 hijackers were in contact with and received support or assistance from individuals who may be connected with the Saudi government. 

Madam Secretary, is this really happening, No. 1? Will you commit to provide this committee any and all documentation of this 

program, including training materials being shared with the 

Saudis and who is being trained? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are happy to provide you materials, 

ma’am, and come brief you. I am happy to have the TSA administrator—— 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. All right, how long would I have to wait 

to get this information? 

Secretary NIELSEN. That I can’t answer, but what I can do is get 

you an answer today as to when we could be able to provide that 

to you. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Thank you. I don’t know if I asked 

this—I was talking so fast. Do you continue to separate parents 

from children as they are coming across the border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. In 3 instances, when the child is at risk, the 

adult accompanying them is not a parent or guardian, and the 

third instance is when the parent needs to go to a custodial environment. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. So are any of these coming at the port 

of entry, seeking asylum? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Some of—sure. Some of them might be claiming asylum, yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. OK. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Guest. 

Mr. GUEST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, I first want to thank you and the men and 

women that serve under you for the important role that you provide in protecting our country. I want to ask you a couple of questions as it relates to the current situation at our Southwest Border. 

Do you believe that we are currently seeing an immigration crisis 

on our Southwest Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, I do. The numbers are increasing so 

quickly that our system, which I have testified to before, was at the 

breaking point. It is clearly breaking. 

56 

Mr. GUEST. Do you believe we are also facing a human trafficking crisis on our Southwest Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUEST. Finally, do you also believe that we are facing a drug 

trafficking crisis on our Southwest Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. GUEST. Particularly I want to turn my attention through the 

remainder of my questioning toward the drug trafficking. As I look 

at the figures that have been provided, it appears that we are on 

track to seize a record number of illegal narcotics that are being 

attempted to be introduced into our country. Does that seem correct? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. GUEST. What can we do as a country? What is the single 

most effective thing that you believe that we can do to prevent illegal drugs from entering America? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We need to take operational control of the 

Southern Border. So that is increasing our ability to detect at the 

ports of entry. It is also having situational awareness, impedance 

and denial and responsibilities between the ports of entry. 

Mr. GUEST. Do you believe that a physical barrier is an important part of our strategy to decrease the flow of illegal drugs from 

entering America? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I believe that. But more importantly, the 

men and women and professionals of CBP believe that. 

Mr. GUEST. I think there was a question earlier about what we 

are doing along our Northern Border. Do we have the same type 

of crisis at our Northern Border that we are currently seeing on 

our Southern Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We do not have a humanitarian crisis and we 

certainly do not have the numbers of those trying to enter illegally 

without a legal right to stay. 

Mr. GUEST. I believe you talked in your official testimony about 

the transnational criminal organizations, or what we commonly 

refer to as drug cartels. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUEST. What can we do as a Congress to provide you additional support as we seek to fight drug cartels from bringing their 

controlled substances into our country? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Congress has been extraordinarily helpful, 

thank you, with both the INTERDICT Act and the STOP Act. 

Those have been very helpful in giving us additional authorities to 

comprehensively look at the drug issue. 

At this time, we believe we have all the authorities we need. We 

work throughout the Department to combat this. This is part of 

that regional compact that I mentioned that we hope to sign soon 

with the Northern Triangle. 

But we also work very closely with international partners 

throughout the world to dismantle all of the illicit marketplaces. 

ICE alone has over 200 investigations into the illicit marketplaces 

to take them down where they are selling the drugs. 

Mr. GUEST. Just in general, would you agree that we as a Congress have not given you the tools that you and your officers need 

57 

to prevent drugs from illegally entering the country across our 

Southwest Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, we need a barrier. We cannot take operational control of the border without it. 

Mr. GUEST. So—and I would agree. Is your opinion, the opinion 

of experts that you have spoken with, without a physical barrier, 

it would be all but impossible for us to secure our border from 

those people seeking to introduce the poison that we know as 

whether it be cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, fentanyl, from 

entering our country through our Southwest Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. The professionals speak in terms on 

a risk-based way of vanishing time. In other words, there are parts 

of the border where the cities in Mexico and the United States are 

so close together that a drug smuggler or a mule can disappear in 

a matter of seconds into the United States, without a physical barrier. 

Mr. GUEST. Ma’am—Madam Secretary, wouldn’t it be advantageous if we were able to funnel all of traffic, whether it be commercial, passenger, traffic, through our ports of entry where we 

could then concentrate our technology and our manpower on 

screening individuals and vehicles entering the country there instead of having to spend man-hours and manpower securing the 

unsecured portion of our border that do not currently have a physical barrier? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir, and it would reduce the humanitarian crisis. 

Mr. GUEST. One final question, Madam Secretary. Some Members of Congress have advocated abolishing ICE, the Immigrations 

and Customs Enforcement, which is an agency that is under your 

control. My question is, would this make our communities safer? Or 

would the American public be placed at greater risk if we as a Congress took the unprecedented move to abolish this needed law enforcement agency? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I can say with absolute certainty that the 

United States would be unsafer, sir. Part of their mission is antitrafficking, they do counter-child exploitation, they do counterweapons of mass destruction proliferation. They also help with antiquities and returning illicit goods because they also have Customs 

enforcement. 

But they are a top-notch investigative unit of the U.S. Government. They are mimicked as a best practice throughout the world. 

Without them, we would not be able to protect children and victims 

of trafficking. 

Mr. GUEST. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. Chair now recognizes the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Barraga ́n. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Thank you. Madam Secretary, I serve as the second vice chair for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. It has been 

some time since you have come and you have met with us. Will you 

commit today to coming back to meet with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK, do that soon? 

Secretary NIELSEN. If—yes. 

58 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Great, thank you. Madam Secretary, we know 

that ex-FBI Director James Comey took contemporaneous memos 

on his meeting with Trump and his interactions. We also know 

that your former boss, Secretary John Kelly, also wrote contemporaneous internal memos about his interactions with the President, in particular, how he was ordered to give Mr. Kushner the 

top security clearance. 

My question is very simple, and I remind you, Ms. Secretary, 

that you are under oath. Have you taken any contemporaneous 

memos about your interactions with President Trump? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, I have not. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Madam Secretary, do you know how many children have died in CBP custody under your tenure as Secretary? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. So we have the numbers for CBP and 

ICE. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Can you give me the numbers of how many children have died? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, I can, if you will give me 1 second. I just 

don’t want to misspeak. But this last year we had—or so far this 

year, we have had 3, as you know, in CBP custody—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So far, Madam Secretary? Are you expecting 

more children to die? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, ma’am. I just want to be accurate with 

the time. To be clear, any death is a tragedy. Any death should be 

prevented. Part of what I have asked this body to do is change the 

laws so that we have a better chance—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Do you know the names of the children that have 

died? 

Secretary NIELSEN. One was a stillborn death, but the other two 

were Felipe and Jakelin. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Have you spoken to their families at all, Madam 

Secretary? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I have not spoken with their families, no, 

ma’am. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. I want to turn to—I want to turn to a slide 

that I have, if we can put it up. There it is. You testified that asylum seekers are not being turned away at the ports of entry. Is 

that your testimony here today? 

Secretary NIELSEN. They are not turned away, they are brought 

in—I am not sure if you are talking about the migrant protection 

protocol. But in that case—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Any asylum seeker who comes to a port of entry, 

you—you basically have just said—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. They are allowed to make their claim. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. Well, let me tell you, Madam Secretary, either you are lying to this committee or you don’t know what is happening at the border. I have been there first-hand, and I have seen 

it twice. More recently, it just happened on Saturday, when I happened to be crossing the border with my mother. I heard a gentleman say, I am from Honduras. I want to apply for asylum. He 

was already at the turnstile, at the PedWest entry. 

The agent said, Sir, unless you have a visa, you need to leave. 

You need to go away. They didn’t say what you just said people do. 

They didn’t say, Here is where you go get on a list. They didn’t say, 

59 

Here is the information where you go get access to counsel. As a 

matter of fact, I pulled out my phone, I started to record. You know 

what? I was asked to stop recording. 

Why? Because they don’t want the American people knowing 

what is happening at that Southern Border. Madam Secretary, I 

don’t know if you know what is happening, or if this is happening 

without you knowing, but it is totally unacceptable. As a Member 

of this committee, you are darn right I am going to hold this—you 

accountable for knowing what is happening at the border. 

Do you know—do you know that two Members of Congress had 

to sleep overnight and spent 14 hours in the cold, on the concrete, 

at the Otay Mesa point of entry so that Maria, the woman who was 

tear-gassed at the port of entry, would be allowed to present herself 

because she was on U.S. soil and legally that is what asylum allows? Did you know that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Ma’am, what I know is I would ask you—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Yes or no, did you know that two Members of 

Congress had to do that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I know that we have a process, as I—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK, you obviously don’t know. But see, this is 

what I am saying. You don’t know these things. Two Members of 

Congress. Does it take two Members of Congress to be there to witness somebody presenting themselves for asylum at the port of 

entry? That is not what the law says. Are you familiar with the 

asylum laws, Madam Secretary? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Where in the asylum law does it say that when 

you present yourself at a port of entry—and by the way, when you 

are on U.S. soil, that you can be sent by another agent to another 

port of entry? Is it anywhere in the asylum law? 

Secretary NIELSEN. What we are trying to do is—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. It is not in there. I know—it is a yes or no. It 

is not in there. 

Secretary NIELSEN. What we are—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Because what you all are doing is not within the 

confines of the law. You talk about a list. Under what authority is 

there, in U.S. law, that a list could be started to have people wait 

in Mexico? Do you have that authority? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. What is—under the—what authority? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The authority is to do all that we can to protect the migrants coming here. It says—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK, well that is not what—that is not what the 

asylum law says—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Asylum law says—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. I would ask, can you produce—can you produce 

every single list at the port of entry that is under U.S.—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do not—we do not have the list, to be clear. 

The list is in Mexico. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So you have the authority to do a list but you 

don’t have access to a list? You don’t control that list? 

Secretary NIELSEN. What I mean by the list, ma’am, is that 

we—— 

60 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So you are basically farming this out to the Mexican authorities—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Would you like me to answer any of your 

questions, Congresswoman—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Well, you don’t have answers. You—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. But how do you know? Because you are not 

giving me the opportunity—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Because these are simply yes or no questions. 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. It is authority—there is this law, this is what it 

is under, and you haven’t done that. The very last thing I want to 

say because my time is up is you said that you waited to give direction on how to implement the zero tolerance policy because you 

wanted to do it with compassion. Do you know how outrageous that 

sounds? You wanted to separate children and families and you 

wanted to do it with compassion? So in the mean time, you didn’t 

do anything at all and you let kids be separated without tracking 

them. 

Do you know how outrageous that is, Madam Secretary? You 

have no feeling, no compassion, no empathy here. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Gentlelady’s time has expired—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. I yield back. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you. 

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Crenshaw. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Madam 

Secretary, for being here and helping us answer the fundamental 

question of whether we care about our sovereignty and the rule of 

law in our country. Unfortunately, the now cynical view that I am 

not so sure we all agree on that, that we all value the rule of law 

and value the ability to manage our border effectively. 

A lot of questions have come up about the humanity of our policies, as they should. There is some rightful anger about family separation. But unfortunately, it is myopic because nobody ever talks 

about the other issues that we might have when it comes to our 

humanity. 

There was a young woman in my office yesterday, she is from 

Mexico, she is about 18 years old. She was taken across the border, 

kidnapped about 5 years ago, on the third attempt, because they 

were turned back twice by Border Patrol. The third attempt, they 

made it through and she was brought to New York City where she 

was raped approximately 30 times a day for 5 years. I don’t know 

why nobody talks about that kind of stuff. 

When I was at the border in McAllen, in 1 day, in 1 location, 16 

kids came across with adults that didn’t—that were not their parents. Further questioning and follow-through led to a stash house 

of 54 people kidnapped inside in Houston. Nobody talks about that 

humanity. 

Those are direct results of the fact that our asylum laws are 

taken advantage of, those are direct results of the fact that that 

woman in my office was allowed to walk straight across the border, 

nobody stopped her, there is no wall, nothing, would have been 

turned back otherwise and not been in New York City to suffer the 

absolute nightmare that she did. 

61 

Then we get to the question of whether walls work and this has 

been a really fun conversation over the last couple months. Do 

walls work? Madam Secretary, would you agree that there is 3 

parts to security—personnel, technology, and barriers? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Absolutely. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Can you just take one of those away? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. When I was down at McAllen and Brownsville, 

what we see is Brownsville has about 35 miles worth of barriers, 

and as a result, only 6 percent of the crossings in that sector take 

place because walls work. Would you agree with that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Walls work, yes, sir, as evidenced. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. McAllen, about a thousand people were crossing 

in—on some days, because they don’t have the infrastructure. 

Would you agree that the biggest difference between the McAllen 

corridor and the Brownsville corridor would be the physical barriers? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The wall system, yes, sir. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Been a lot of red herrings that have been thrown 

out there to argue these points. Drugs like fentanyl come through 

ports of entry, yes, we know. You would agree with that, right? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Does that have anything to do with the conversation about whether we need barriers between ports of entry? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It does not, because it is not an either/or. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. There is a—there is always the conversation 

about we just need more technology, because then the border 

agents can just chase people around, as we see—because we can 

sense them coming through. 

Is that the only solution, or do you need that plus barriers plus 

personnel? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, we need all three. We also need the ability to detain and remove when there is no legal right to stay. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. There is the point often made that the border 

crossings are the lowest in years—we had about 400,000 last year, 

although that is quickly on the rise of—as you have noted, 76,000 

just this last month. The point is often made that because it is 

lower than in the year 2000 that there is no crisis. 

Is that accurate? Is 400,000 a year a low number? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, it is not, but again, if I could, respectfully, it is because of the flow, it is because these are families, it 

is because these are children, that is why it is a crisis. It is a terrible, horrific journey that they undertake. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Let’s get to that. As these arguments are made 

against points that, frankly, we are not even making, you mention 

the children and why that is the nexus of this crisis. 

Why does that happen? Is it because of our asylum laws? Is it 

because of the fact that if you bring a child across the border, 

well—and I think, as you mentioned this before, if you bring a 

child with you, it is your ticket into the United States, all you have 

to do is claim asylum. 

Would you agree that our asylum process is completely taken advantage of? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. 

62 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Would you agree that if we were to put more resources at ports of entry so that we could humanely bring people 

in and hear their asylum case but not let them loose into the country, would that dramatically reduce these illegal crossings, as well? 

Would that be part of the solution, as well, to reform the actual 

asylum process? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Are there any other issues in the last 20 seconds 

I have that—that you want to mention or follow up on? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I appreciate that. I would just say that my 

heart breaks for the system that we have. It does not allow us to 

help vulnerable populations as soon in their journey as we need to 

help them. 

There is nothing humane about a system that contemplates what 

we see today, that contemplates 60,000 children coming across the 

border unaccompanied, that contemplates the rape and abuse, the 

trafficking, the child exploitation, the 70,000 Americans who died 

last year from drugs. 

I am extraordinarily compassionate in my job, which is why I am 

asking Congress to work with me to change the laws so that we 

can have a safe and orderly flow, so we can take care of those who 

need asylum, so that we can take care of the vulnerable populations who believe they have no options in their country. 

That is why I spend so much time in the Northern Triangle, to 

help them build resilience and stability. Apologies, but thank you 

for the time, I just wanted to clarify. 

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you, I yield. 

Mr. CORREA [presiding]. Thank you. Ms. Nielsen, before I move 

to Mr. Rose, just very quickly, any thoughts on a matrix to measure the efficiency of all these taxpayer-invested dollars? Does the 

wall work? How efficient is that versus, you know, investing, for 

example, in a fusion center in the Northern Triangle? 

Any thoughts? Are we putting one together, these matrix and 

how these investments work? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, sir. A lot of it is covered in the border 

security improvement plan, but we are happy to come brief you in 

detail on anything you would like us to come—— 

Mr. CORREA. Love to have a detailed deep dive on these matrices 

on the efficiency. Now, Mr. Rose, if I can, please? 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you, Chairman. Madam Secretary, it is good to 

see you again and, you know, I want to start off, first of all, I don’t 

doubt your love of this country and I understand that you are serving it. That is not what this is about. 

But what this is about here is solving problems and saving lives 

and upholding our values. My district, Staten Island and South 

Brooklyn, has lost an ungodly number of people to the opioid epidemic. My district has lost an ungodly number of people to terrorist 

attacks. 

So as we look at the facts, I want to make sure that we are operating on the same plane here. First of all, is it true that your 

data—your own Department’s data shows that the vast majority of 

drugs coming through the border—heroin, methamphetamine, 

fentanyl—are found at ports of entry? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Where we can detect it, yes, sir. 

63 

Mr. ROSE. In most cases, it is over 80 percent? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Right, but I just want to clarify we don’t 

know what is coming between—— 

Mr. ROSE. Well so—so that—that is what I wanted to get into 

next. So now you could easily say in response to that that is true, 

but that is just what we are measuring. 

Do you have any sense then of across the entire border, across 

our entire—the entire country, hypothetically, theoretically, based 

off your simulations, what percentage of our drugs is coming in 

from ports of entry or any other sources? What is the breakdown? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The breakdown—and I am happy to show 

you the—the modeling, we would love to come in and chat more. 

What I can tell you is the instances of interdiction of illicit drugs 

has gone up across the board. 

So it has gone up at the ports of entry thanks to new technology, 

but it has also unfortunately gone up between ports of entry. When 

you try to compare the two, the majority of the drugs continues to 

come through the ports of entry, but we are seeing the amount increase between the ports of entry. 

Mr. ROSE. So the vast majority are still coming in through the 

ports of entry based off these models? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes, and thank you for the NII equipment. 

Mr. ROSE. Yes, so then what my question is, is what are your 

priorities based off that model? Please—please, for the respect of 

all of our intelligence, because I am doing my best to respect yours 

and your service—what are your priorities based off that model to 

address fentanyl streaming into our country and killing our kids? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So what we do, we look at it from a riskbased perspective of today’s threats, but we also have to anticipate 

where the flows go tomorrow, which is why between the ports is 

concerning. But as you know, we also look at the mail, so we have 

also used the authorities that we have to work to identify the 

fentanyl coming from China. 

We are working with China on—they have agreed to make illegal 

some of the precursors to fentanyl, so we are working there. We 

have border enforcement security teams throughout the Nation, 

where we work with State and locals on investigations to really get 

at the cartels and the trafficking within the country. 

Then we work at the source through the National Targeting Center with our international partners to ensure as much as we 

can—— 

Mr. ROSE. But what I—what I did ask—and again, I am trying 

not to be adversarial here—is in terms of, based off this model and 

the fact that you are dealing with limited or not zero sum amount 

of funds, your priorities, as my understanding, are mail, ports of 

entry. 

I did not hear you say, though, that my priority to prevent the 

children in Staten Island and throughout this country from dying 

from overdoses is the border, is the border wall. So I want to understand here, because that is what we have declared a state of 

emergency around. That is what declared it around. 

So I want to understand how many less children will be dying 

because of this border wall. I do not understand the math or the 

science or the planning behind this. That is my issue. I do not unVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
64 

derstand how this leads to any positive effect on the opioid epidemic, to any positive effect in terms of our efforts at counterterrorism. What models are this based off of? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We are happy to come share with you in detail, sir, but in general, the impedance and denial prevents that 

smuggling through that part of the border where we have physical 

barrier. So the criminal then has a choice. They can try to smuggle 

through the ports of entry where we are also increasing technology, 

or they go and find another part of the border that is unsecured. 

Mr. ROSE. So you think that our current stance with this additional investment at ports of entry is satisfactory at this point? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, sir. I think it helps us at the ports of 

entry, but what we see is the increase of interdiction of drugs between ports of entry. 

Mr. ROSE. How much more money do you need at our ports of 

entry? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Right now we have this wonderful influx to 

get NII machines. So I would love to get back to you. We are going 

to see how much more that improves our ability to interdict. 

Mr. ROSE. Thank you. 

Mr. CORREA. Thank you, Mr. Rose. 

If I can call now on Mr. Green, State of Texas? 

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Thank you. 

Madam Secretary, what happened to give me your tired, your 

poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched 

refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, the tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door? What happened? 

Madam Secretary, asylees are not illegals. Madam Secretary, do 

you know the number of people who came through Ellis Island? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, sir, not—— 

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I do. Twelve million. Do you know where 

they came from? 

Secretary NIELSEN. All over the world. 

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I do. Germany, Ireland, Britain, Scandinavian countries, Southern and Eastern Europe. They were not 

illegals. There was no flotilla in New York Harbor to prevent them 

from coming to Ellis Island. There was no family separation at 

Ellis Island. 

Past administrations have, when asylees were trying to get to 

this country, found ways to accommodate asylees. They didn’t build 

walls. When the Cubans were fleeing Castro, we created wet foot, 

dry foot. One foot on dry land and you could walk on in to a pathway to citizenship. 

Madam Secretary, you know who Scarface is? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am sorry—— 

Mr. GREEN of Texas. I will tell you. Al Capone, the son of Italian 

immigrants. Not all of those people who came through Ellis Island 

were saints. Scarface was a bootlegger, dealt in prostitution, gambling, one of the greatest criminals this country has ever suffered. 

The son of immigrants, it is unfortunate. I would never want a 

Scarface in our country, I don’t want MS–13 in our country, but I 

also don’t want to see a wall as a solution to a humanitarian crisis. 

65 

Madam Secretary, these Border Patrol agents are also victims. 

The children, but the agents are victims, too, because they are required to enforce a corrupt policy, a policy that separates babies 

from their mothers, places them in cages. 

I was at the border, I saw those babies locked up on top of each 

other. We would not treat animals, the Humane Society wouldn’t 

allow it, the way those babies were treated. Madam Secretary, they 

are victims. 

You have all of these vacancies in part because a good many people don’t want to be a part of that kind of circumstance. They are 

victims, too. The children are victims, and the people who are 

forced to do what they are doing to these babies are victims, too. 

Madam Secretary, here is the problem. We have surpassed our 

color quota. There are those who believe that we already have too 

many people of color in this country. And these, one of whom happens to be the President of the United States of America, would institute policies that would prevent people of color from coming to 

this country. 

White babies would not be treated the way these babies of color 

are being treated, Madam Secretary. This is about color. We have 

opened our doors. Your tired, your poor, huddled masses yearning 

to breathe free, except we now have our quota of people of color. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, if I could just respond to a couple of 

things. We do—— 

Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if she responds, I would like 

to have the opportunity to respond to her response. 

Chairman THOMPSON [presiding]. Well, the gentleman made 

statements. He really didn’t ask any questions, so in interest of 

time we will—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. But—OK. 

Chairman THOMPSON. We will go to the gentleman from Kansas 

City, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being here today. I am conflicted. In seminary, we were required to study Robert Frost and 

Dr. John Swomley, a legendary author and theologian, forced us to 

study all the writings of Robert Frost. 

One of them is called Mending Wall, which you may be familiar 

with. One of his most famous—he wrote it in 1914, just outside of 

Boston. When you have to dissect that, what did Robert Frost 

mean in the opening line, which says, and I quote, ‘‘Something 

there is that does not love a wall.’’ Something there is that does 

not love a wall, Robert Frost, 1914. 

So you dissect it, Frost is saying nature—shorten this—nature or 

God does not love a wall. We can speak euphemistically, metaphorically that walls don’t make good neighbors. Walls make longterm enemies. 

I may be wrong about everything. You know, I have studied seminary through college and then spent 31⁄2 years in seminary. So, we 

started this whole issue. I mean, if you look at the Great Wall of 

China, do you have any idea how many times China has been invaded since they built the wall? 

Secretary NIELSEN. No, sir. 

66 

Mr. CLEAVER. I mean, you wouldn’t know that. I am not trying— 

so I am not—it is not—most historians would say a lot, because 

there is no—we—I mean, we can’t even figure out—historians can’t 

figure out how many times they have been invaded. 

Started building on it 200 B.C., primarily to keep the Hans out, 

the aliens, I guess we would call them today. As you know, that 

didn’t help. It went all the way through the Ming Dynasty. 

What I am trying to come to the conclusion for of my question 

is, do you see anything wrong with the United States of America, 

the most powerful nation that God has allowed to exist, building 

a wall? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Sir, the idea in part of the wall is actually 

to ensure safe and orderly flow, which actually protects those traveling. When they come through the desert or they come through 

more remote areas, they put themselves at risk and they almost always do that by paying a smuggler who then further preys upon 

them. 

So the idea of a barrier is a safe and orderly flow so that migrants who choose to come here come through a legal port of entry 

where they can be cared for. That is where the resources are, that 

is where we can provide them the best medical care, and that is 

where we can most quickly process their claim. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. The busiest and the longest land border in the world is what? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would say it is ours. 

Mr. CLEAVER. The busiest and the largest, the longest land border in the world is between the United States and Canada. 

Secretary NIELSEN. But that is not the busiest, sir, but it is the 

longer—though it is the longer border, yes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. We might have to have an argument about the 

busiest based on—I don’t want to get into the trade amounts coming across the border from Canada, but it is 5,525 miles, and we 

have a lot of illegal people coming across the border, particularly 

between Vermont and Quebec, and the going fee is about $4,000 to 

bring people across the border. 

It just—and the numbers coming across—I am sure you know 

this—are increasing. So, my final question—I have 12 seconds— 

would you be OK with building a wall to separate the United 

States and Canada? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So we do everything by risk, as you know, 

sir. Right now, the risk is not such that it would necessitate physical barriers, but we do very closely work with the Canadians to 

ensure safe and orderly flow. 

What we do is we continue to analyze that daily to ensure that 

we do have mechanisms to provide security to both countries and 

to those traveling populations. 

Mr. CLEAVER. My time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Mrs. Demings. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Nielsen, thank you for being with us today—I apologize for being a little late, so you may have already answered this 

question, but let me just ask you, do you agree with the President 

declaring a state of emergency at the border? 

67 

Secretary NIELSEN. I do believe it is an emergency. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Do you think that same system or process could 

use to address mass shootings in America to make sure that we 

have the resources that we need to deal with mass shootings? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I would have to refer, of course, to the—I am 

not—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Give me your personal opinions and views. Since 

you do deal with the security of our Nation, what do you feel about 

declaring a state of emergency as it pertains to mass shootings in 

this country since countless numbers of people die right before our 

very eyes on a regular basis? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We need to do a lot more. That is a particular authority that the President has, but in general is it an 

emergency that we need to address? Yes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. So do you think that declaring a state of emergency as it pertains to mass shootings in this country would be a 

process that the President should consider? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Again, I can’t speak to his particular authority there, but what I can say is what we are doing at DHS, happy 

to tell you now or later. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. How many Customs and Border Patrol officers or 

agents have you had to die in the line of duty during your tenure? 

Secretary NIELSEN. We have had—I have the numbers here. I 

can look them up, but it is about, you know, 15 to 20. I am 

sorry—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. I would just ask you, Secretary—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Not in the line of duty. Not in the line of 

duty. We have had—— 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK, how many in the line of duty at this—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Zero. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Border—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. Zero. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Where there is a crisis? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Zero. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Zero have died in the—— 

Secretary NIELSEN. In this last year. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. How many Customs and Border Patrol officers or 

agents would you say have been seriously injured in the line of 

duty at the border, the Southwest Border in particular, during your 

tenure? 

Secretary NIELSEN. So we could get you those figures. We have 

at least 60 instances of rockings and the assaults have gone up 40 

percent. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK, I remember a city near Orlando where there 

was 1 murder in January and 1 murder in December and they reported that murder rate had gone up 100 percent. So you are not— 

you don’t know in terms of serious injury, how many officers or 

agents have been seriously injured during your tenure? 

Secretary NIELSEN. Happy to get you that information. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. At this crisis at the border? OK, change of direction for just a minute. Secretary Nielsen, you know that the Fifth 

Amendment requires that private property owners must receive 

just compensation for property seized under eminent domain. Is 

that correct? 

68 

Secretary NIELSEN. Yes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK, in some cases, the Federal Government can 

assume ownership of private property before compensation has 

been adjudicated and before a land owner has received payment for 

their land. Now, we can certainly debate whether seizing of land 

from private property owners is the right thing to do or not. 

We know that some property owners in Texas whose land may 

be seized, they had deeds predating State-hood in Texas, but I 

would like to focus on just compensation. Determining just compensation seems to be a challenge for the Department. 

There have been reports about the discrepancies between those 

who are represented by—have legal representation versus those 

who don’t and what the Department feels the land value is versus 

other sources. How does the Federal Government determine just 

compensation for land seized at the Southwest Border? 

Secretary NIELSEN. It is usually based on the market rate, the 

amount of acreage and then, of course, a variety of other factors, 

including the terrain of the land and what it could otherwise be 

used for. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. USA Today has reported that some landowners were offered less than $100, while the market value was up to 120 

times greater. You said that they used fair market value to determine that? 

Secretary NIELSEN. The general market value, yes. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. OK. So do you have any explanation at all for the 

discrepancies? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I am happy to look further into it and come 

and talk to you about it. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. What Federal resources exist to help landowners, 

who are the mercy of the Federal Government, negotiate just compensation for their land? 

Secretary NIELSEN. To my knowledge, the United States does not 

have the ability to pay for counsel for them. But, of course, it usually takes 12 to 16 months for this process to complete. So, during 

that time, we work very closely both with the area—the courts, if 

they are involved, and the landowner. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Looking at the area on the border where the 

President seems determined to build a wall, regardless of the necessity to do that, how many land owners would be affected? 

Secretary NIELSEN. I don’t have a particular number, ma’am. As 

you know and as you described, some of the parcels, it is very difficult to determine who owns them. We have, actually, people looking through microfiche to ensure that we do our very best to identify owners of particular parcels of land. 

Mrs. DEMINGS. Secretary Nielsen, I am out of time, but we certainly have a lot more to discuss on this issue. I will yield back. 

Thank you and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman THOMPSON. Thank you very much. 

I thank the witness for her testimony and the Members for their 

questions. I ask unanimous consent to enter statements into the 

record from organizations regarding asylum seekers, families and 

children in DHS’s custody, and other border security issues. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

69 

1 Amnesty International was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977. 

2 Amnesty International, ‘‘Americas: Stuck at the Door,’’ Nov. 2018, available at: https:// 

www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/AMR0194472018ENGLISH.PDF, at 4. 3 Id. 

4 Amnesty International, ‘‘No Safe Place: Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Hondurans Seeking 

Asylum Based on their Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,’’ Nov. 2017, available at: 

https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/No-Safe-Place-Briefing-ENG-1.pdf; 

Kids in Need of Defense, Latin America Working Group, and the Women’s Refugee Commission, 

‘‘Sexual and Gender Based Violence & Migration,’’ May 2018, https://supportkind.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/SGBV-Fact-sheet.-April-2018.pdf. 5See Customs and Border Protection, ‘‘FY19 Southwest Border Statistics,’’ available at: 

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration. 6 ‘‘Transcript: Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen’s Full Interview With NPR,’’ May 

11, 2018, available at: http://www.wlrn.org/post/transcript-homeland-security-secretarykirstjen-nielsens-full-interview-npr. 

STATEMENT OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

MARCH 5, 2019 

On behalf of Amnesty International 1 and our more than 2 million members and 

supporters in the United States, we hereby submit this statement for the record. 

Amnesty International is an international human rights organization with national and regional offices in more than 70 countries, including in the United States 

and Mexico. One of Amnesty International’s top global priorities for the past several 

years has been protecting the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers around 

the world, including those who arrive to the U.S. border in search of safety. Amnesty welcomes this oversight effort by the Committee on Homeland Security of the 

policies and practices of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) related to the 

U.S. border. 

Through extensive research and documentation, Amnesty International has concluded that the Department of Homeland Security, under the leadership of Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, has engaged in an all-out assault on the right to seek asylum at the U.S. border. DHS has undermined the the right to asylum by: (1) Turning back asylum seekers who attempt to seek asylum at ports of entry (as they are 

authorized to do under domestic and international law); (2) separating parents and 

children to deter families who attempt to come to the United States in search of 

safety; and (3) detaining record numbers of asylum seekers, including children, who 

face abuse and ill treatment at the hands of DHS officials. 

WHO IS SEEKING ASYLUM AT THE U.S. BORDER?

Though members of the current administration, including Secretary Nielsen, have 

portrayed individuals seeking protection at the border in alienating terms, the vast 

majority of these individuals are fleeing record levels of insecurity, instability, and 

repression in their home countries. They are survivors of violence, not perpetrators 

of it. 

Amnesty International has documented that this violence, which occurs against 

a backdrop of generalized impunity and lack of government protection, drives people 

to leave Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—collectively, the most common 

countries of origin of asylum seekers at the U.S. Southern Border.2 In this environment of violence and insecurity, nationals of these countries face numerous particularized risks, including forced recruitment of children and adolescents, extortion, 

death threats, and even murder at the hands of the maras, or powerful criminal 

groups acting as quasi-state authorities, exercising territorial control in various 

parts of these countries.3 Sexual violence, especially against women and members 

of the LGBTI community, is endemic.4

Over the past 5 years, in response to these risks, the number of asylum claims 

from these 3 countries of origin around the world have increased. As Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP)’s own apprehension data shows, in January 2019 alone, 

over 60 percent of individuals apprehended at the border, and nearly half of all individuals seeking admission at ports of entry, were family units and unaccompanied 

children.5

While Secretary Nielsen has dismissed the human right to seek asylum as an inconvenient ‘‘loophole,’’6 it is in fact a bedrock principle of international and domestic 

law. Under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 

Protocol (the latter of which the United States has signed and incorporated into doVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
70 

7 Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, available at: https:// 

www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10. 8 Amnesty International, ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here: Illegal Pushbacks, Arbitrary Detention & Ill-Treatment of Asylum-Seekers in the United States,’’ Oct. 2018, available at: 

https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/AMR5191012018ENGLISH.PDF [hereinafter 

‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here’’]. 9 8 U.S.C. sec. 1158(a). 

10 8 U.S.C. sec. 1225(b). 11 Id. at 11 (quoting DHS Secretary interview on Fox News, 15 May 2018). 12DHS Office of the Inspector General, ‘‘Initial Observations Regarding Family Separation 

Issues Under the Zero Tolerance Policy,’’ Sept. 27, 2018, available at: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/ 

sites/default/files/assets/2018-10/OIG-18-84-Sep18.pdf, at 5–7. 13Strauss Center, ‘‘Asylum Processing and Waitlists at the U.S.-Mexico Border,’’ https:// 

www.strausscenter.org/images/MSI/AsylumReportlMSI.pdf, at 5. 14 Id. at 6. 15 ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 17. 16 ‘‘Migrant Protection Protocols,’’ Jan. 24, 2019, available at: https://www.dhs.gov/news/ 

2019/01/24/migrant-protection-protocols. 17See Human Rights First, ‘‘A Sordid Scheme: The Trump Administration’s Illegal Return of 

Asylum-Seekers to Mexico,’’ 13 Feb. 2019, https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/sordidscheme-trump-administration-s-illegal-return-asylum-seekers-mexico. 18Dara Lind, ‘‘ ‘Remain in Mexico’: Trump’s quietly expanding crackdown on asylum seekers, 

explained,’’ VOX, March 5, 2019, https://www.vox.com/2019/3/5/18244995/migrant-protection-protocols-border-asylum-trump-mexico. 

mestic law through the 1980 Refugee Act),7 governments have the obligation not to 

forcibly return individuals to a place where they would fear harm—not just their 

countries of origin, but any other place where a person would have reason to fear 

for their lives.8 To ensure this obligation is met, Congress has codified the right to 

seek asylum both at and between ports of entry in domestic law,9 and it has specifically mandated that U.S. authorities refer individuals who express a fear of return 

at the border to a ‘‘credible fear’’ process to assess their asylum claims.10

PUSHBACKS, METERING, AND ‘‘REMAIN IN MEXICO’’: HOW DHS IS ILLEGALLY TURNING

BACK ASYLUM SEEKERS AT THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER

Though the number of border crossers are at historic lows, DHS has institutionalized a practice of restricting access to territory for asylum seekers, forcing them to 

wait in Mexico at grave personal risk, with the goal that they will be dissuaded 

from seeking protection. These measures range from the informal practice of artificially lowering, or ‘‘metering,’’ the number of asylum applicants allowed to access 

U.S. territory per day to the formally-announced Migrant Protection Protocols, popularly known as the ‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ policy. They collectively reflect how DHS has 

illegally restricted the right to seek asylum at the U.S. border, circumventing Congressional intent in the process. 

In May 2018, Secretary Nielsen confirmed that DHS was ‘‘metering,’’ or limiting, 

the number of asylum seekers allowed to enter U.S. territory,11 stationing CBP officials at bridges leading to ports of entry to turn back asylum seekers.12 Before 2017, 

when the practice intensified, asylum seekers who approached U.S. officials at ports 

of entry to express a fear of return and need for protection could typically access 

U.S. territory and an asylum procedure, as Congress has required. Now, CBP officials are instead pushing them back to Mexico, where their names are placed on 

a series of ad hoc waiting lists at ports of entry managed variously by Mexican authorities, NGO groups, and even fellow asylum seekers; at some ports of entry, there 

are two, competing lists, creating an environment ripe for abuse.13 Depending on 

the number of people on the list, asylum seekers are forced to wait for weeks to 

months in this state of limbo.14 While no official statistics on the number of people 

CBP officials have illegally pushed back in this manner are available, Amnesty 

International has documented that this practice has affected thousands of asylum 

seekers, including families with children.15

In December 2018, DHS announced that it would be implementing a policy popularly known as ‘‘Remain in Mexico,’’ which it has misleadingly labeled as the ‘‘Migrant Protection Protocols.’’16 Under the program, certain individuals seeking asylum at the border are forced to stay in Mexico at great risk to their personal safety 

for the duration of their proceedings, which can take months or even years. In the 

early days of its implementation in January and February 2019, the ‘‘Remain in 

Mexico’’ policy has already implicated vulnerable individuals in its sweep, including 

families with children and LGBTI-identifying individuals,17 and DHS has announced plans to expand the program, including to individuals who are apprehended between ports of entry.18

71 

19See 8 U.S.C. sec. 1158(a); 8 U.S.C. sec. 1225(b). 20See Hillel R. Smith, ‘‘Expedited Removal of Aliens: Legal Framemwork,’’ CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, Sept. 19, 2018, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45314.pdf. 21See ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 17. 22Linda Qiu, ‘‘Border Crossings Have Been Declining for Years, Despite Claims of a ‘Crisis 

of Illegal Immigration,’ ’’ N.Y. TIMES, June 20, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/ 

us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html. 23See ‘‘CBP Snapshot: A Summary of Facts and Figures,’’ March 2018, https://www.cbp.gov/ 

sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Mar/cbp-snapshot-20180320.pdf. 24See Dept. of Homeland Security Appropriations Act 2019, Title II, available at: https:// 

www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/31/text. 25See supra note 16. 26See ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 17. 27 Id. 28 ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 23. 29 Id. 30 Julia Gavarrette & Heather Gies, ‘‘Honduran Teen Fled Gangs Only to be Murdered While 

at U.S.-Mexico Border,’’ THE INTERCEPT, Feb. 23, 2019, https://theintercept.com/2019/02/ 

23/unaccompanied-minor-migrants-us-border-policy/. 

The practice of pushing back asylum seekers through metering or the ‘‘Remain 

in Mexico’’ policy, either to await their ability to articulate a fear of return in a credible or reasonable fear interview or the outcome of their asylum case, violates international and domestic law, is practically unjustified, and comes at significant 

human cost. 

As explained above, the U.S. Government—in this case, DHS—has a statutory obligation to receive asylum seekers’ claims, thereby ensuring the U.S. Government 

does not run afoul of its obligation to refrain from forcibly returning individuals to 

harm.19 Even the statutory provision supposedly authorizing the ‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ initiative explicitly excepts individuals in expedited removal proceedings, a category which covers most individuals who apply for asylum at the border.20 Even at 

the outermost perimeter of the border, the turning away of asylum seekers clearly 

violates the Government’s obligations under international law.21

Secretary Nielsen’s attempts to justify these practices by citing ‘‘capacity constraints’’ are belied by reality. Border crossings are at all-time historic lows,22 while 

the number of CBP officials is now at a historic high of nearly 60,000 agents,23 with 

funding for an additional 600 CBP officials appropriated just last month.24 This represents more than double the CBP personnel since DHS’s creation in 2003, when 

border crossings were 3 times as high as they are now.25

Furthermore, though ports of entry along the border have vastly differing capacities to detain and process individuals, metering and pushbacks have been universally implemented at all of them. Senior CBP and ICE officials at the San Ysidro 

port of entry, which is the busiest land border in the Western hemisphere, informed 

Amnesty International in 2018 that CBP has only reached its detention capacity a 

couple of times per year.26 Yet in 2017 and 2018, CBP personnel frequently turned 

away even small numbers of asylum seekers at San Ysidro and other ports of entry, 

without explaining why.27

Finally, and most importantly, though terms like ‘‘metering’’ place a clinical, anodyne gloss on the practice, make no mistake: This is a dangerous policy that places 

asylum seekers directly in harm’s way. In April and May 2018, Amnesty International documented first-hand the negative consequences of CBP’s refusal to receive asylum seekers’ requests for protection after interviewing asylum seekers who 

had been pushed back. In one shelter in Tijuana, a transgender Guatemalan woman 

named Maritza recounted being turned away from San Ysidro when attempting to 

seek asylum; upon return to Tijuana, she was detained and beaten by local police.28

Shortly afterward, a group of 6 armed men attacked a Tijuana shelter where 11 

LGBTI asylum seekers had been staying, yelling homophobic slurs and threatening 

to kill them if they did not leave the neighborhood. Though the group approached 

CBP officials to request asylum and convey the threats they’d suffered, the officials 

maintained that they still had no ‘‘capacity’’ to process the asylum seekers.29 In February 2019, 2 Honduran teenagers—both still children—were killed near the youth 

migrant shelter where they were staying while they waited to apply for asylum.30

Amnesty International has previously documented the many risks asylum seekers 

face in Mexico: Following a comprehensive survey, we concluded that nearly 40 percent of individuals surveyed who were detained by Mexican immigration authorities 

had been unlawfully returned to harm’s way, and 75 percent of those surveyed were 

72 

31 Amnesty International, ‘‘Overlooked and Under-protected: Mexico’s Deadly Refoulement of 

Central Americans Seeking Asylum,’’ Jan. 2018, https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/2018/01/AMR4176022018-ENGLISH-05.pdf, at 5. 32 Id. at 9. 33Dara Lind, ‘‘Hundreds of Families Are Still Being Separated at the Border,’’ VOX, Feb. 21, 

2019, https://www.vox.com/2019/2/21/18234767/parents-separated-children-families-bordertrump-jails. 34 ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 30 & note 102–103. 35 ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 31. 36The memo is available here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5688664- 

Merkleydocs2.html. 37 ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 42; Amnesty International, ‘‘USA: Facts and figures 

on illegal pushbacks, arbitrary detention and ill treatment of asylum-seekers in the United 

States,’’ 22 Oct. 2019, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/10/usa-facts-andfugures-of-illegal-pushbacks-arbitrary-detention-and-ill-treatment/. Part of the ambiguity stems 

from the fact that the various agencies ‘‘count’’ family units differently—while DHS and the 

Dep’t of Health and Human Services appear to count a family as a single ‘‘family unit,’’ CBP’s 

Southwest Border Migration Statistics appear to count ‘‘family units’’ as the total number of individuals in the unit. Compare ‘‘Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors 

and Unaccompanied Alien Children’’ (7 Sept. 2018), available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

pkg/FR-2018-09-07/pdf/2018-19052.pdf (defining ‘‘family units’’ as a group of two or more 

aliens consisting of a minor or minors accompanied by his/her/their adult parent(s) or legal 

guardian(s)’’) with ‘‘Southwest Border Migration Fiscal Year 2019,’’ available at: https:// 

www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration (defining ‘‘family units’’ as the total number 

of individuals in the units). 38Dep’t of Health & Human Services Office of the Inspector General, ‘‘Separated Children 

Placed in Office of Refugee Resettlement Care,’’ Jan. 2019, available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/ 

reports/oei-BL-18-00511.pdf. 39 Id. 

never even informed of their right to seek asylum in Mexico.31 One individual who 

Amnesty had spoken with after he was wrongfully deported from Mexico was killed 

by the very individuals he feared just days later.32

FAMILY SEPARATIONS: HOW DHS WEAPONIZED AN ILLEGAL PRACTICE TO DETER AND

PUNISH ASYLUM SEEKERS

In April 2018, DHS implemented a campaign of forcible separation of thousands 

of asylum-seeking families under a so-called ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy, by which it 

criminally prosecuted adults crossing between ports of entry (the same adults who, 

had they tried to approach at ports of entry, would likely have been pushed back 

thanks to the ‘‘metering’’ policy in place at those ports). Though the administration 

was ordered to cease separating children from their families in June 2018, months 

later, DHS continues to regularly separate children from their parents, as well as 

from other relatives and caretakers.33 The full scope and scale of family separation 

is still unknown. 

Based on public statements and internal memoranda by U.S. Government officials, there is overwhelming evidence that family separations were intended to deter 

asylum seekers from requesting protection in the United States as well as to punish 

and compel those who did seek protection to give up their asylum claims. Numerous 

media reports document the leveraging of family separations to coerce asylum seekers to give up their claims in exchange for reunification;34 on one occasion, Amnesty 

International witnessed first-hand an immigration judge tell a Brazilian grandmother who had been separated from her developmentally disabled grandchild that 

she could give up her asylum claim and be reunited with him or be deported without him, presumably after the denial of her claim.35

An internal DHS memo dating from December 2017, which was made available 

in January 2019, revealed that the agency conceived of the family separations policy 

as a means of deterring children and their families from coming to the United 

States.36 Contrary to U.S. and international legal obligations, DHS never considered 

the children’s best interests in its cruel and unlawful family separation policy. 

Furthermore, there still has not been a full reckoning of the scale of family separations. Amnesty International’s October 2018 report was the first to document how 

the number of family separations was far greater than DHS initially disclosed, and 

could be as high as 8,000 family units, if not more.37 In January 2019, a report by 

the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that the total number of separated families and children is ‘‘unknown.’’38 Though family separations are the subject of an on-going class action lawsuit, many of the affected families do not fall within the definition of the class, and 

thus DHS has not publicly counted the families not falling within class definition 

toward the total, though it has suggested that thousands more have been separated 

than it previously revealed.39

73 

40 U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading, or Inhuman Treatment or 

Punishment, art. 1, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/ 

cat.pdf. 41 ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 36. 42 Heidi Altman & Mary Small, ‘‘Immigration Detention and the DHS Negotiations: An Explainer,’’ National Immigrant Justice Center, Feb. 11, 2019, https://immigrantjustice.org/staff/ 

blog/immigration-detention-and-dhs-spending-negotiations-explainer; Detention Watch Network, 

‘‘ICE’s Fiscal Mismanagement: Fraud, Deceit, and Abuse,’’ available at: https:// 

www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/ICE%E2%80%99s%20Fiscal%20Mismanagement%20Deceit%20and%20Abuse.pdf. 43 ‘‘You Don’t Have Any Rights Here,’’ at 53. 44 Id. at 54–55. 

Based on its research in 2018, Amnesty International found that the administration’s deliberate and punitive practice of forced family separations in some cases 

constituted torture under both U.S. and international law. To meet the definition 

of torture, an act must be: (1) Intentional; (2) carried out or condoned by a Government official; (3) inflicting severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental; and 

(4) carried out for a specific purpose such as punishment, coercion, intimidation, or 

for a discriminatory reason.40 The Trump administration’s deliberate policy and 

practice of forcible family separations satisfies all of these criteria. 

In 2018, Amnesty International interviewed 15 adults whom DHS agencies separated from their children both before and after the introduction of the so-called zerotolerance policy.41 The separations happened in all 4 U.S. States along the U.S.- 

Mexico border (California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas), at the hands of both 

CBP and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel. In all of those 

cases, prior to being separated, the families had requested asylum and expressed 

their fear of return to their countries of origin. According to the adults, in none of 

these cases did DHS personnel explain to the families the reasons for the separations at the time that they happened or allow them to defend their custodial right 

to family unity. DHS personnel simply separated the families—in some cases 

through the use or threat of physical force. 

Amnesty International interviewed a Brazilian mother, Valquiria, who was separated from her 8-year-old son, Abel, with no explanation given, after the two approached CBP officials at a port of entry to seek asylum. Nearly a year later, 

Valquiria remains in detention at the El Paso Processing Center; on March 17, it 

will be 1 year since Valquiria was separated from her son. Abel has stared blankly 

for months at the door in the house where he lives, waiting for his mother to return. 

‘‘They told me, ‘You don’t have any rights here, and you don’t have any rights to 

stay with your son,’’ Valquiria recalled. ‘‘For me, I died at that moment. They ripped 

my heart out of me. It would have been better if I had dropped dead. For me, the 

world ended at that point. How can a mother not have the right to be with her son?’’ 

DETENTION AND ILL-TREATMENT IN CUSTODY AS PUNITIVE MEASURES FOR SEEKING

ASYLUM

Even for those asylum seekers who manage to access U.S. asylum proceedings, 

in recent years, an increasing number of them have been relegated to mandatory 

and indefinite detention as they fight for the right to be protected. As of January 

2019, ICE was detaining close to 50,000 people per day.42 Many of those detained 

are asylum seekers. 

In January 2017, the administration adopted a policy requiring all asylum seekers 

to remain in detention for the duration of their proceedings, without parole, effectively punishing them for exercising the right to seek asylum. Although a court in 

June 2018 declared that individuals who had been found to have a ‘‘credible fear’’ 

of return to their home countries—and were thus authorized to proceed with their 

asylum claims—had to receive individualized determinations for parole from detention, the ruling applies only in certain jurisdictions, and a significant number of asylum seekers continue to languish in detention for the duration of their proceedings.43

Amnesty International has documented how particularly vulnerable individuals, 

including transgender asylum seekers, remain in detention for months at a time, 

where they are unable to access adequate health care and are vulnerable to abuse 

and ill-treatment while in custody, often after having suffered death threats, exploitation, and sexual violence in their home countries.44 For example, since May 2018, 

Amnesty has advocated for the release of Alejandra, a trans woman and 

transgender rights activist from El Salvador who has been detained since December 

2017 in the Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, New Mexico, where she 

has been denied parole on three separate occasions despite her rapidly deteriorating 

74 

45 Id. 46 Alice Speri, ‘‘Detained, then Violated,’’ THE INTERCEPT, APR. 11, 2018, https:// 

theintercept.com/2018/04/11/immigration-detention-sexual-abuse-ice-dhs/. 47 Ashley Hackett, ‘‘Thousands of Children Have Suffered Abuse at the Hands of U.S. Border 

Protection Agents,’’ PACIFIC STANDARD, 25 May 2018, https://psmag.com/social-justice/ 

thousands-of-children-have-suffered-abuse-at-the-hands-of-us-border-protection-agents. 1For questions or for more information about CVT’s work in this area and on related issues, 

please contact Andrea Carcamo, Senior Policy Counsel at the Center for Victims of Torture[.] 

health.45 In each of the three denials she has received, no reason is given for 

Alejandra’s continued detention other than a checked box stating that Alejandra— 

who fled to the United States in 2017 after facing death threats and sexual assaults 

at the hands of both the Salvadoran military and the maras—is a ‘‘flight risk.’’ 

Furthermore, detention creates an environment that is ripe for abuse and illtreatment: Recent reports reveal troubling allegations of abuse at the hands of ICE 

officials responsible for the care of asylum seekers in their custody. A 2018 study 

of sexual abuse allegations made by individuals in ICE custody found that nearly 

60 percent of the complaints reviewed involved perpetrators who were ICE officials.46 In CBP custody, meanwhile, 2 children died over the course of a single 

month in December 2018, and reports document the verbal, physical, and sexual 

abuse children have faced at the hands of CBP agents over the past several years.47

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS

On illegal pushbacks of asylum seekers: 

• Exercise greater oversight of DHS to halt the illegal pushback of asylum seekers and to understand the extent of the practice. 

• Request regular information about the processing capacities and numbers of individuals turned back at all ports of entry. 

• Implement measures clarifying that the purported justification for the ‘‘Remain 

in Mexico’’ program, Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, is not meant to apply to asylum seekers. 

• Demand all information from the Government regarding cross-border negotiations undertaken in conjunction with metering and pushbacks, both practices 

which appear to require cooperation of Mexican government officials. 

• Participate in delegations to ports of entry at the Southwest Border, including 

to migrant shelters adjacent to the ports of entry, to understand first-hand the 

impact of metering, pushbacks, and ‘‘Remain in Mexico.’’ 

• Decline to continue funding CBP operations absent rigorous external oversight 

of CBP field operations and U.S. Border Patrol and increase funding specifically 

for the processing of asylum claims at the Southern Border. 

On family separation: 

• Pass legislation outlawing the separation of children and families unless clear 

and specific evidence exists that family unity is not in the child’s best interests. 

• Continue to exercise oversight of DHS’s role in the family separation policy to 

understand the scope and extent of the policy. 

On indefinite detention of asylum seekers: 

• Pass legislation to provide for a presumption against detention of asylum seekers and to ensure the right to judicial review and due process in cases of detention. 

• Support and fund community-based alternatives to detention, such as the 

former Family Case Management Program. 

For more information, please contact Charanya Krishnaswami[.] 

STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR VICTIMS OF TORTURE

MARCH 6, 2019 

The Center for Victims of Torture (CVT) commends the House Homeland Security 

Committee for holding an oversight hearing on the Trump administration’s border 

policies, which have contributed to the creation of an actual crisis at the U.S. Southern Border. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record.1

Founded in 1985 as an independent non-governmental organization, the Center 

for Victims of Torture is the oldest and largest torture survivor rehabilitation center 

in the United States and one of the two largest in the world. Through programs operating in the United States, the Middle East, and Africa—involving psychologists, 

social workers, physical therapists, physicians, psychiatrists, and nurses—CVT annually rebuilds the lives of nearly 25,000 primary and secondary survivors, includVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
75 

2Office of Refugee Resettlement. Survivors of Torture Program. Retrieved from https:// 

www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/programs/survivors-of-torture. 3McDonnell, Patrick (Dec. 21, 2018). Los Angeles Times. Mexico is Unprepared for the Deal 

it Made with the U.S. on asylum seekers, immigration chief says. Retrieved from https:// 

www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-remain-20181221-story.html 4 Human Rights First (February, 2019). A Sordid Scheme: The Trump Administration’s Illegal 

Return of Asylum Seekers to Mexico. Retrieved from https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/ 

default/files/AlSordidlScheme.pdf. 5Squires, Scott (March 8, 2018). In Sight Crime. MS 13 Feud Spreads to Mexico, but Gang’s 

Presence Remains Limited. Retrieved from https://www.insightcrime.org/news/brief/ms13- 

feud-spreads-mexico-gangs-presence-remains-limited/. 6Meyer and Pachico (Feb 1, 2018). Washington Office on Latin America. Fact Sheet: U.S. Immigration and Central American Asylum Seekers. Retrieved from https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/. 

ing children. CVT also conducts research, training, and advocacy, with each of those 

programs rooted in CVT’s healing services. The organization’s policy advocacy 

leverages the expertise of five stakeholder groups: Survivors, clinicians, human 

rights lawyers, operational/humanitarian aid providers, and foreign policy experts. 

The vast majority of CVT’s clients in the United States are asylum seekers. Indeed, 

according to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement, research indicates that 44 percent of asylum seekers, asylees, and refugees 

now living in the United States are torture survivors.2

CVT’s extensive experience providing mental health services to asylum seekers 

and refugees in the United States and around the globe uniquely positions us to 

speak to the adverse effects certain border practices have on the mental health of 

children and adults fleeing persecution, as well as the United States’ dwindling reputation as a global leader in human rights. We focus here on two such practices: 

The migrant protection protocols and family separation. 

THE MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS ARE PUTTING ASYLUM SEEKERS AT RISK OF

FURTHER TRAUMATIZATION

Forcing people seeking safe haven in the United States to remain in Mexico during the pendency of the their asylum cases is unnecessary, unsafe, and will exacerbate the pain and suffering the torture and trauma survivors already are experiencing. 

According to the head of Mexico’s National Migration Institute, Tonatiuh Guillen, 

Mexico is not prepared to host thousands of asylum seekers for years, or even 

months.3 Its government simply is not equipped for the task the United States has 

imposed on it, especially when it comes to hosting torture and trauma survivors. 

Border cities are not safe for residents, much less for vulnerable populations, such 

as survivors of torture fleeing persecution.4 Many asylum seekers will be at high 

risk of re-victimization by becoming targets for human trafficking, labor exploitation, rape, and kidnapping. A significant number of survivors of torture from Central America suffer violence at the hands of gangs that have powerful networks extending to Mexico,5 making the country especially unsafe. 

Even putting aside the host of serious dangers to which asylum seekers are exposed and additionally susceptible as a result of having to remain in Mexico, the 

policy is damaging. One of the most valuable resources survivors of torture have to 

help their recovery is the support of friends, family, and fellow countrymen. Many 

of the individuals who choose to flee to the United States do so because they have 

connections through friends or family. These contacts can prove invaluable for asylum-seeking survivors of torture or other trauma, as their contacts help them navigate within a new culture and language. CVT sees this with our clients; for example, Ethiopians who come to Minnesota because they have connections to family or 

to fellow Ethiopians there. Lack of access to these networks, and the support they 

provide, adds stress, and exacerbates trauma. 

FAMILY SEPARATION EXACERBATES THE TRAUMA FACED BY FAMILIES FLEEING

PERSECUTION

A significant number of the Central American families who come to the United 

States are survivors of torture,6 and many more are fleeing persecution. Because of 

the nature of trauma, oftentimes children who accompany traumatized parents experience symptoms as secondary survivors (even if they have not been directly 

harmed previously). These highly traumatized populations are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of detention and separation from their loved ones. 

According to Susan Jasko MSW, LICSW, a CVT therapist with over 20 years of 

clinical experience working with children and families: 

76 

7Physicians for Human Rights (June 14, 2018). Letter to Secretary Nielsen and Attorney General Sessions. Retrieved from https://s3.amazonaws.com/PHRlother/SeparationlLetterlFINAL.pdf. 8 C-Span (July 13, 2018). Public Health Service Commander Warned Against Family Separation. Retrieved from https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4742969/public-health-service-commander-warned-family-separations. 9 Van Schaak, Beth (Nov 27, 2018). Just Security. New Proof Surfaces that Family Separation 

was About Deterrence and Punishment. Retrieved from https://www.justsecurity.org/61621/ 

proof-surfaces-family-separation-deterrence-punishment/; Bernal, Rafael (June 19, 2018). The 

Hill. HHS Official Says Family Separation Policy will ‘‘have Deterrence Effect.’’ Retrieved from 

‘‘When children are young, they are bonding with their parents, and good bonding 

leads to positive relationships with other people in adolescence and adulthood. 

Breaking that bond can have consequences in the child’s ability to socialize with 

others. When children come from an area where they experienced violence, it teaches them that the world is not safe. Then, when they are separated from their parent, this idea is solidified, which can have a profound effect on the development of 

the child. If a child lives in a state of trauma, as children fleeing conflict areas that 

are separated from their families do, it can affect their brain development at a biological level as well.’’ 

Many of the children Ms. Jasko has treated over the years were struggling with 

separation from or loss of parents, and all presented severe symptoms, including 

nightmares, fears, anxiety, and depression. 

Ms. Jasko’s experience is far from unique. Indeed, over 20,000 medical and mental 

health professionals and researchers working in the United States (including Andrea Northwood, CVT director of client services), have previously made clear—directly to the DHS—that ‘‘[t]he relationship of parents and children is the strongest 

social tie most people experience, and a threat to that tie is among the most traumatic events people can experience.’’7 They further explained that separating a child 

from a parent causes an effect known as adverse childhood experience (ACE), which 

can lead to multiple forms of impairment and increased risk of serious mental 

health conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

Disturbingly, this information was not new to officials from the Trump administration: On July 31, 2018, Commander Jonathan White, formerly of the Department 

of Health and Human Services, testified that he raised the very real concern that 

separating families could cause long-term emotional and psychological effects on 

children when the policy was presented to him before its implementation.8

While the damage to children must be central, we urge Members also to appreciate the harm family separation has caused, and continues to cause, to affected parents. At CVT, 67 percent of U.S.-based clients—refugees and asylum seekers from 

around the world—have been separated from their families, sometimes by force and 

other times by necessity when clients must flee without warning to escape imminent 

danger. During her time at CVT, in addition to her work with children, Ms. Jasko 

has also treated adult clients seeking asylum who had no option but to leave their 

country without their children. ‘‘The uncertainty of not knowing when they will next 

see their children makes me worry about my clients,’’ she says, ‘‘as they express 

feelings of hopelessness and suicidal thoughts.’’ 

FAMILY SEPARATION IS A TECHNIQUE UTILIZED BY TYRANTS AND OTHER OPPRESSORS

THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS LONG CONDEMNED

CVT has served hundreds of children, some of whom were subjected to separation 

as a tool to coerce their parents. For example, Jana, a 10-year-old Syrian girl, endured forced separation from her family and imprisonment before crossing the Syrian-Jordanian border seeking safety. She had been detained—along with other children—for nearly a month in an attempt to force her father to turn himself in. He 

did, and he was murdered. Saad’s little brother, a young boy, was held for 2 weeks 

in prison and tortured. The militia sent pictures of his abuse to Saad’s family with 

a message warning them to leave Iraq. When his little brother was returned to 

them, Saad and his family fled to Jordan. 

This is what tyrants, dictators, and other oppressors do. It is not how democracies 

are supposed to behave. And yet, the Trump administration embraced the practice 

of separating children from their parents admittedly as a deterrent: To dissuade 

vulnerable people from seeking safe haven in the United States at all, and for those 

it did not entirely deter then to coerce them into forgoing their right to seek asylum 

and to sign a deportation order, which for many would return them to countries and 

circumstances where they face significant risk of further persecution, violence, or 

even death.9

77 

https://thehill.com/latino/393000-hhs-official-says-family-separation-policy-will-have-deterrence-effect. 10 United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner (Sept 2, 1990). Convention 

on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/ 

pages/crc.aspx. 11 United Nations Treaty Collection, Chapter XXIII (May 23, 1969). Vienna Convention on the 

Law of Treaties, Article 18. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/pages/ 

ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsglno=XXIII1&chapter=23&Temp=mtdsg3&clang=len. Although the United States is not a party to the Vienna Convention, ‘‘many commentators claim 

that Article 18 reflects customary international law that is binding on nations that have not 

joined the Convention, a claim that the United States has not denied.’’ Curtis A. Bradley, Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution, 48 Harv. Int’l L. J. 307, 307–308 

& n.1 (2007); see also Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (acknowledging ‘‘the overwhelming 

weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty,’’ including the direct prohibition in Article 37 of the CRC). 

Family separation of this kind is not only immoral, it is also unlawful. Most directly, Article 31 of the Refugee Convention prohibits contracting States from 

‘‘impos[ing] penalties’’ on the basis of how a refugee arrived to the United States— 

whether through illegal entry, presence, or without authorization. Indeed, the international community has recognized the importance of a child’s bond with a parent, 

for example through Article 9 of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of 

the Child (CRC), 196 countries have agreed that they ‘‘shall ensure that a child 

shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of 

the child.’’10 Although the United States has not ratified this treaty (the only country in the world not to have done so), as a signatory the United States is bound 

to not engage in actions that ‘‘defeat’’ the CRC’s ‘‘object and purpose.’’11

The United States must not underestimate how its actions reverberate globally; 

in particular the implicit permission that U.S. practice might give other nations to 

act the same. The United States cannot maintain a credible global leadership role 

in the human rights sphere if separating families to deter asylum seekers is the 

kind of example the Executive branch is going to set. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Custom and Border Patrol’s actions at the border are the actual crisis at our 

Southern Border, which have a profound impact on the lives of some of the world’s 

most vulnerable people, torture survivors among them. The practices of family separation and returning asylum seekers to Mexico must be stopped, those responsible 

should be held accountable, victims deserve redress, and preventive mechanisms 

need to be adopted. More specifically, we urge the Executive branch and Congress 

to take the following actions, respectively: 

Executive Branch 

• Stop the expansion and implementation of the Migration Protection Protocols. • Immediately reunify all families. • End the practice of separating families to deter individuals from coming to the 

United States and seeking refuge. • Ensure family separation determinations are not arbitrary, but instead made by 

child welfare professionals where the child’s safety is the primary consideration. • Whenever there is an appropriate determination to separate a child from a parent for the child’s safety, ensure there is an adequate system to track the family 

and their relationship to each other. • ICE and CBP must facilitate communications between a child and a parent who 

have been separated. 

Congress 

• Conduct rigorous, on-going oversight of family separation and its consequences, 

with an immediate focus on ensuring the Executive branch reunifies families 

and discontinues the practice of arbitrary family separation. • Support the REUNITE Act. 

STATEMENT OF CWS 

MARCH 6, 2019 

As a 73-year-old humanitarian organization representing 37 Protestant, Anglican, 

and Orthodox denominations and 23 refugee resettlement offices across the United 

78 

1 Immigration and Nationality Act § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1157. 2The Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 2, 3, 6, and 22. www.ohchr.org/en/ 

professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14. 

www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14; United Nations General Assembly, Declaration on Territorial Asylum, 14 December 1967, A/RES/2312(XXII). www.refworld.org/docid/ 

3b00f05a2c.html; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, A Framework for the Protection of Children www.unhcr.org/50f6cf0b9.html; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. www.unhcr.org/ 

3b66c2aa10.html. 3 Immigration and Nationality Act § 207, 8 U.S. Code § 1157. 4 Article 14, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ 

index.shtml#a14; U.S. Code Title 8: Aliens and Nationality, Chapter 12: Immigration and Nationality, Section 1158: Asylum. http://uscode.house.gov. 

States, Church World Service urges the committee to exercise its oversight responsibility by holding DHS accountable to humanitarian principles stipulated in U.S. 1

and international 2 law. CWS urges the committee to do everything in its power to 

end family incarceration and separation, protect immigrant children, terminate the 

administration’s ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy, and uphold U.S. asylum law. CWS affirms 

the right of individuals to seek safety and calls on Congress to recognize the importance of access to protection. In addition, the committee should ensure that DHS 

is operating the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in good faith, in accordance with Congressional intent and The 1980 Refugee Act.3

CWS condemns the administration’s policies that have caused family separation 

at ports of entry and between ports of entry, including of asylum seekers, as well 

as ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policies that detain and prosecute parents for migration-related 

offenses. Reports have surfaced that despite court intervention, family separations 

persist. Border agents have used vague allegations, such as illegal re-entry, to justify separating parents from their children. Reports have documented guards using 

the threat of separation as a method of discipline, as well as children experiencing 

signs of psychological and physical trauma due to such separation. Similar policies 

of detaining asylum-seeking families to deter migration have already been found to 

violate the law by a U.S. court. Allowing front-line agents to threaten family separation and refuse asylum claims undermines due process and results in deporting families back to harm. These policies also result in more unaccompanied children being 

placed in detention. CWS urges Congress to hold the administration accountable to 

terminating all ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policies. 

Equally troubling is the expansion of family incarceration, which is plagued with 

systemic abuse and inadequate access to medical care. These conditions are unacceptable, especially for children, pregnant and nursing mothers, and individuals 

with serious medical conditions. The American Association of Pediatrics has found 

that family detention facilities do not meet basic standards for the care of children 

and ‘‘no child should be in detention centers or separated from parents.’’ CWS urges 

Members of Congress to reject any proposal that would expand family incarceration 

or violate the long-standing child welfare consensus that children should not be detained for longer than 20 days. 

CWS is strongly opposed to any proposal that would weaken or eliminate provisions in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which provides important procedural protections for unaccompanied children in order to accurately determine if they are eligible for relief as victims of trafficking or persecution. 

All people have the legal right to seek protection from persecution and violence.4

Weakening existing legal protections for children would undermine the U.S. Government’s moral authority as a leader in combating human trafficking, and would increase vulnerabilities for trafficking victims by curtailing access to due process, legal 

representation, and child-appropriate services. CWS urges the administration and 

Congress to affirm the right of all people to seek protection and ensure that individuals seeking safety are not returned to their traffickers and others who seek to exploit them. 

The administration has also imposed multiple bans and a series of changes to the 

U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) that have prolonged family separation 

and left tens of thousands of vulnerable refugees in limbo. It has decreased the 

number of refugees that can be resettled in the United States to a record low 30,000 

in fiscal year 2019, after resettling less than half of last year’s then-historic low of 

45,000. Resettlement is the last resort for men, women, and children who cannot 

return to their home countries and cannot rebuild their lives in the country where 

they first fled. Resettlement is the already the most difficult way to enter the 

United States, but these bans, alongside many policy changes, have denied safety 

to tens of thousands of bona fide refugees and have reversed decades of U.S. leadership on refugee protection. We urge Congress to hold the administration accountable 

79 

1The Way Forward on Border Security, U.S. House Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t Reform 

(Mar. 6, 2019), https://homeland.house.gov/hearings-and-markups/hearings/way-forward-border-security. 2See About EPIC, EPIC.org, https://epic.org/epic/about.html. 3 EPIC, EPIC Domestic Surveillance Project, https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/, Statement of EPIC, ‘‘Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Innovation, Successes, and Challenges,’’ Hearing 

Before S. Comm. on Commerce, Sci., and Trans., United States Senate, Mar. 13, 2017, https:// 

epic.org/testimony/congress/EPICSCOM-Drones-Mar2017.pdf; The Future of Drones in America: 

Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations: Hearing Before the S. Judiciary Comm., 113th 

Cong. (2013) (Statement of Amie Stepanovich, Director, EPIC Domestic Surveillance Project), 

https://epic.org/privacy/testimony/EPIC-Drone-Testimony-3-13-Stepanovich.pdf; Comments of 

EPIC to DHS, Docket No. DHS–2007–0076 CCTV: Developing Privacy Best Practices (2008), 

https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/epiclcctvl011508.pdf. 4 A.B.A., Resolution 107A (2019), https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/ 

news/2019mymhodres/107a.pdf. 5Press Release, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Releases Updated Border Search 

of Electronic Device Directive and Fiscal Year 2017 Statistics (Jan. 5, 2018), https:// 

www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-updated-border-search-electronicdevice-directive-and. 

to meeting its fiscal year refugee admissions goal and rebuilding the resettlement 

program, returning the program to historic norms. 

We implore DHS to actively protect refugees, asylum seekers, and other vulnerable populations, and we urge Congress to hold them accountable to that end. And 

we remind our elected leaders of Leviticus 19:33–34, which reads: ‘‘Any immigrant 

who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must 

love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt; I am the 

LORD your God.’’ 

LETTER FROM THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER

March 5, 2019. 

The Honorable BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Chairman, 

The Honorable MIKE ROGERS, Ranking Member, 

U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, H2–176 Ford House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN THOMPSON AND RANKING MEMBER ROGERS: We write to you regarding the hearing ‘‘The Way Forward on Border Security.’’1 The Electronic Privacy 

Information Center (‘‘EPIC’’) is a public interest research center established in 1994 

to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues.2 EPIC is focused on the protection of individual privacy rights, and we are particularly interested in the privacy problems associated with surveillance.3

There are several border security proposals now before Congress that implicate 

the privacy rights of Americans. These practices include cell phone searches, scanning social media, and aerial drones. 

EPIC writes to warn that enhanced surveillance at the border will almost certainly sweep up the personal data of U.S. citizens. Before there is any increased deployment of surveillance systems at the U.S. border, an assessment of the privacy 

implications should be conducted. Additionally, deployment of surveillance technology should be accompanied by new policy and procedures and independent oversight to protect citizens’ rights. And any law enforcement agency that uses surveillance tools should comply with all applicable laws, including open government obligations. The privacy assessments, policies and procedures, and oversight mechanisms should all be made public. 

The American Bar Association recently adopted a new policy on privacy rights 

and border searches.4 The policy ‘‘urges the Federal judiciary, Congress, and the Department of Homeland Security to enact legislation and adopt policies to protect the 

privacy interests of those crossing the border by imposing standards for searches 

and seizures of electronic devices, protection of attorney-client privilege, the work 

product doctrine, and lawyer-client confidentiality.’’ 

SEARCHES OF MOBILE DEVICES AT THE BORDER

Searches of cell phones and other electronic devices by border agencies have skyrocketed in recent years. In 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

searched 30,200 electronic devices—almost a 60 percent increase from 2016.5

Searches of mobile devices are ‘‘basic’’ or ‘‘forensic.’’ Under current policy, the Government may conduct a ‘‘basic’’ search—where an agent manually searches the deVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
80 

6 United States v. Cotterman, 673 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 7Press Release, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, CBP Releases Updated Border Search 

of Electronic Device Directive and Fiscal Year 2017 Statistics (Jan. 5, 2018), https:// 

www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-updated-border-search-electronicdevice-directive-and. 8 EPIC, EPIC Sues ICE Over Technology Used to Conduct Warrantless Searches of Mobile Devices (Apr. 9, 2018), https://epic.org/2018/04/epic-sues-ice-over-technology-.html. 9 Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (cell phone location records are protected 

under Fourth Amendment); Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014) (a warrantless search of 

a cell phone during an arrest violates the Fourth Amendment.) 10 Comments of the Electronic Privacy Information Center to the Department of Homeland Security, Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records, EPIC (Oct. 18, 2017), https://epic.org/apa/comments/EPIC-DHS-SocialMedia-Info-Collection.pdf. 11DHS Social Media Monitoring Documents at 127, 135, 148, 193, https://epic.org/foia/epicv-dhs-media-monitoring/EPICFOIA-DHS-Media-Monitoring-12-2012.pdf; see also Charlie Savage, Federal Contractor Monitored Social Network Sites, N.Y. Times (Jan. 13, 2012), http:// 

www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/us/federal-security-program-monitored-public-opinion.html. 12 EPIC, EPIC, Coalition Oppose Government’s ‘‘Extreme Vetting’’ Proposal (Nov. 16, 2017), 

https://epic.org/2017/11/epic-coalition-oppose-governme.html. 13Security and Liberty: Protecting Privacy, Preventing Terrorism Before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Dec. 8, 2003) (statement of Marc Rotenberg, 

President, Electronic Privacy Information Center), https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/ 

911commtest.pdf. 14 EPIC, ICE Abandons ‘‘Extreme Vetting’’ Software to Screen Visa Applicants (May 18, 2018), 

https://epic.org/2018/05/ice-abandons-extreme-vetting-s.html. 15See Chantal Da Silva, ICE Just Launched a $2.4M Contract with a Secretive Data Surveillance Company that Tracks You in Real Time, Newsweek (June 7, 2018), https:// 

www.newsweek.com/ice-just-signed-24mcontract-secretive-data-surveillance-company-can-trackyou-962493. 16 EPIC, CBP Plans to Exempt Social Media Data from Legal Protections (Sept. 22, 2017), 

https://epic.org/2017/09/cbp-plans-to-exempt-social-med.html. 

vice for information—with no suspicion of wrongdoing of the person whose device 

is subject to search. 

In 2013, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government must have reasonable suspicion to conduct a ‘‘forensic’’ search, where an agent connects another device to conduct a search.6 Following that decision, CBP updated its policy to require the reasonable suspicion Nation-wide.7 Despite this change, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has failed to issue new guidance on mobile device searches at the 

border. This is troubling since it is often ICE agents who conduct searches of mobile 

devices. EPIC has sued ICE to gain access to information on warrantless searches 

at the border.8

ICE should adhere to minimum Fourth Amendment standards of suspicion when 

conducting searches, particularly followed the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in 

Carpenter v. U.S. and Riley v. California.9

USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA PROFILING

DHS has repeatedly expressed interest in monitoring social media profiles to collect information on immigrants.10 The department hired an outside contractor to 

‘‘monitor public social communications on the Internet,’’ including the public comments sections of the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Huffington Post, Drudge, 

Wired’s techblogs, and ABC News.11 DHS further sought to establish ‘‘extreme vetting’’ programs that would use secret algorithms to determine visa eligibility.12

EPIC warned that ‘‘the use of information technology to identify individuals that 

may pose a specific threat to the United States’’ implicates a ‘‘complex problem 

[that] necessarily involves subjective judgments.’’13 Though that program was abandoned,14 ICE left the door open to develop and implement similar or more intrusive 

programs, and has continued to contract with surveillance firms to mine social 

media information.15 This is especially troubling given the agency’s insistence that 

social media profiles should be exempted from Privacy Act protections.16

This committee must ensure that surveillance programs do not encroach the civil 

liberties and Constitutional rights of Americans. Specifically, the committee should 

ask: 

• How does ICE intend to use social media data acquired? 

• Who will obtain the data and under what circumstances? 

• How will ICE prevent at-risk communities from being scrutinized more harshly 

for exercising their First Amendment rights? 

• Will ICE obtain additional personal data from social media companies? 

• Does the agency plan to conduct Privacy Impact Assessments prior to undertaking new data-collection efforts? 

81 

17 Russel Brandom, The US Border Patrol is trying to build face-reading drones, The Verge, 

Apr. 6, 2017, http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/6/15208820/customs-border-patrol-drone-facialrecognition-silicon-valley-dhs; Dept. of Homeland Security, Other Transaction Solicitation (OTS) 

HSHQDC-16-R-00114 Project: Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) Capabilities, Jul. 15, 

2016, https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DHS/OCPO/DHS-OCPO/HSHQDC-16-R-00114/listing.html. 18 EPIC, EPIC FOIA—US Drones Intercept Electronic Communications and Identify Human 

Targets, Feb. 28, 2013, https://epic.org/2013/02/epic-foia---us-drones-intercep.html (record received available at https://epic.org/privacy/drones/EPIC-2010-Performance-Specs-1.pdf.) 19Performance Spec for CBP UAV System, Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol, https:// 

epic.org/privacy/drones/EPIC-2005-Performance-Specs-2.pdf. 20 EPIC, Domestic Drones Petition, https://epic.org/droneslpetition/. 21See generally EPIC, Drones: Eyes in the Sky, Spotlight on Surveillance (2014), https:// 

www.epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/1014/drones.html. 22M. Ryan Calo, The Drone as Privacy Catalyst, 64 Stan. L. Rev. Online 29, 30 (Dec. 12, 

2011); See also Jeffrey Rosen, Symposium Keynote Address, 65 Rutgers L. Rev. 965, 966 (2013) 

(‘‘[A]s police departments increasingly begin to use drone technologies to track individual suspects 24/7, or to put areas of the country under permanent surveillance, this possibility of 24/ 

7 tracking will become increasingly real.’’). 23 Bruce Schneier, Surveillance And the Internet of Things, Schneier on Security (May 21, 

2013), https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/05/theleyeslandlea.html. 24See Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (holding that a police helicopter flying more than 

400 feet above private property is not a search). 25State v. Davis, 360 P.3d 1161 (N.M. 2015); see Brief of Amicus Curiae EPIC, id., available 

at https://epic.org/amicus/drones/new-mexico/davis/State-v-Davis-Opinion.pdf. 

DRONES AT THE BORDER

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is already deploying aerial drones with facial recognition technology at the border.17 In 2013, records obtained by EPIC under 

the Freedom of Information Act also showed that the CBP is operating drones in 

the United States capable of intercepting electronic communications.18 The records 

obtained by EPIC also indicate that the 10 Predator B drones operated by the agency have the capacity to recognize and identify a person on the ground.19 The documents were provided in response to a request from EPIC for information about the 

Bureau’s use of drones across the country. The agency has made the Predator 

drones available to other Federal, State, and local agencies. The records obtained 

by EPIC raise questions about the agency’s compliance with Federal privacy laws 

and the scope of domestic surveillance. 

Following the revelations about drone surveillance at the border, EPIC, joined by 

30 organizations and more than 1,000 individuals, petitioned CBP to suspend the 

domestic drone surveillance program, pending the establishment of concrete privacy 

regulations.20 The petition stated that ‘‘the use of drones for border surveillance presents substantial privacy and civil liberties concerns for millions of Americans 

across the country.’’ Any authorization granted to CBP to conduct surveillance at 

the border must require compliance with Federal privacy laws and regulations for 

surveillance tools, including drones. 

Much of this surveillance technology could, in theory, be deployed on manned vehicles. However, drones present a unique threat to privacy. Drones are designed to 

maintain a constant, persistent eye on the public to a degree that former methods 

of surveillance were unable to achieve. The technical and economic limitations to 

aerial surveillance change dramatically with the advancement of drone technology. 

Small, unmanned drones are already inexpensive; the surveillance capabilities of 

drones are rapidly advancing; and cheap storage is readily available to maintain repositories of surveillance data.21 Drones ‘‘represent an efficient and cost-effective alternative to helicopters and airplanes,’’ but their use implicates significant privacy 

interests.22 As the price of drones ‘‘continues to drop and their capabilities increase, 

they will become a very powerful surveillance tool.’’23 The use of drones in border 

security will place U.S. citizens living on the border under ceaseless surveillance by 

the government. 

The Supreme Court has not yet considered the limits of drone surveillance under 

the Fourth Amendment, though the Court held 20 years ago that law enforcement 

may conduct manned aerial surveillance operations from as low as 400 feet without 

a warrant.24 No Federal statute currently provides adequate safeguards to protect 

privacy against increased drone use in the United States. However, some border 

States do limit warrantless aerial surveillance. In 2015, the Supreme Court of New 

Mexico held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless aerial surveillance of, and interference with, a person’s private property.25 Accordingly, there are 

substantial legal and Constitutional issues involved in the deployment of aerial 

drones by law enforcement agencies that need to be addressed. 

82 

26President Barack Obama, Presidential Memorandum: Promoting Economic Competitiveness 

While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Feb. 15, 2015), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/02/ 

15/Presidential-memorandum-promoting-economic-competitiveness-while-safegua. 27 Id. at § 1(e). 28 Id. at § 1. 29 EPIC, EPIC v. DHS (Drone Policies), https://epic.org/foia/dhsl2/epiclvldhsldronelpolicies.html. 1http://time.com/5534255/texas-civil-rights-project-report-2019/. 2https://firstfocus.org/news/press-release/statement-new-family-separation-efforts-will-leadto-imprisonment-of-children. 

A 2015 Presidential Memorandum on drones and privacy required that all Federal 

agencies to establish and publish drone privacy procedures by February 2016.26 Emphasizing the ‘‘privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties concerns’’ raised by the technology,27 President Obama ordered agencies to ensure that any use of drones by the 

Federal Government in U.S. airspace comply with ‘‘the Constitution, Federal law, 

and other applicable regulations and policies.’’28

However, the DHS has failed to produce reports required by the 2015 Presidential 

Memorandum. EPIC has submitted a FOIA request for DHS’s policies and reports 

required under the Presidential Memorandum, but the DHS has failed to respond.29

As surveillance technology becomes increasingly invasive, it is critical that the 

Homeland Security Committee ensure that individuals’ rights are protected. We ask 

that this letter be entered in the hearing record. EPIC looks forward to working 

with the committee on these issues of vital importance to the American public. 

Sincerely, 

MARC ROTENBERG, 

EPIC President. 

CAITRIONA FITZGERALD, 

EPIC Policy Director. 

JERAMIE SCOTT, 

EPIC National Security Counsel. 

STATEMENT OF FIRST FOCUS

MARCH 6, 2019 

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, we thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record. First Focus is a bipartisan children’s advocacy organization 

dedicated to making children and families a priority in Federal policy and budget 

decisions. As an organization that advocates for the health and well-being of all children in the United States, we are deeply concerned with the Trump administration’s 

enforcement only approach to border security and the broader immigration enforcement attacks on immigrant children and families. 

Immigration policies that guide enforcement procedures including the arrest, detention, and removal of non-U.S. citizens have a significant impact on the lives of 

the children involved in these circumstances. Despite being directly affected, children are often an afterthought in policy efforts to curb legal and illegal immigration. 

Recent changes to immigration and asylum policies are already having a significant 

impact on the lives of children and families. 

The administration’s 2018 ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ policy resulted in thousands of children 

being separated from their parents, and families continue to be subjected to separation in some areas of the border due to the increased criminalization of asylum seekers.1 Alarmingly, in October of last year, the Trump administration considered a renewed effort of forcing family separation by intimidating parents with the idea of 

keeping them detained indefinitely with their children in prison-like settings.2

During the recent series of House oversight hearings, on the ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ policy, it was evident that Federal agencies are content to pass the buck on the responsibility for reunifying children and families who were subjected to this cruel and unnecessary separation. Chief Provost of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) stated 

that in the eyes of her department the ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ policy was a ‘‘prosecution initiative’’ and reunification was not in their wheelhouse. Federal agencies must be 

held accountable for their roles in implementing this outrageous policy. It was the 

collective effort of multiple Federal agencies, and each agency must be involved in 

efforts to repair the damages. 

83 

3https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/01/24/migrant-protection-protocols. 4https://supportkind.org/resources/the-protection-gauntlet-how-the-united-states-is-blockingaccess-to-asylum-seekers-and-endangering-the-lives-of-children-at-the-u-s-border/. 5https://www.npr.org/2018/12/13/676622047/7-year-old-migrant-girl-dies-of-dehydrationand-shock-in-border-patrol-custody. 6https://www.npr.org/2018/12/25/680066848/8-year-old-migrant-boy-dies-in-governmentcustody-in-new-mexico-hospital. 7https://campaignforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/Proactive-Kids-Agenda-FFCC-1.22.19.pdf. 

Additionally, in January, the administration increased their efforts to deter families with children from seeking asylum in the United States via the ‘‘Migrant Protection Protocols.’’ This so-called ‘‘humanitarian approach’’3 forces asylum seekers 

who have traveled thousands of miles to remain in Mexico for prolonged periods of 

time while their application for asylum is processed. 

This program further exposes already vulnerable populations to violence, trafficking, and dangerous situations which is in direct contradiction to the administration’s stated purpose of the policy. According to a report by Kids in Need of Defense 

(KIND), ‘‘Children are languishing in dangerous and unsanitary makeshift camps. 

There is no running water and in some cases, irregular access to food.’’4 This program has caused a humanitarian crisis at our very border and once again, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has prioritized deterrence over the health 

and well-being of children and families. 

Finally, we are alarmed at the increasing use of the term ‘‘loophole’’ when discussing protections for vulnerable children. We are concerned with the administration’s attempts to undermine protections including but not limited to, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and the Flores Settlement 

Agreement (FSA). Rather than weakening protections for children, Congress and the 

administration should be strengthening such guidelines. We have seen the need for 

strengthening these important protections in the deaths of 7-year-old Jakelin Caal 5

and 8-year-old Felipe Alonzo 6 while in the custody of CBP. 

As the conversations continues with regards to the way forward on border security, we ask that Congress uphold current protections for migrant children and build 

on that foundation by instituting a ‘‘best interest of the child’’ standard for all immigration policies. Children are often invisible during the process of asylum, and children and parents are often seen as separate units. We ask that you consider the 

role of children in the family and understand it is in the best interest of the child 

to be free from fear, free from detention, and together with his/her loved ones. 

We thank you again for the opportunity to submit this written testimony. We look 

forward to working with you to implement policies that will help shape this conversation and ensure that all children thrive in the United States. Should you have 

any further questions please contact Kristen Torres, Policy Director for Child Welfare and Immigration[.] 

RECOMMENDATIONS

The United States must implement a ‘‘Best Interest of the Child’’ standard for all 

border security measures and immigration enforcement efforts.7 This standard must 

ensure that a child’s safety is a priority in all decisions, the child has a voice in 

his/her proceedings, the child remains together with family members in the least restrictive setting, and all decisions must promote the health and well-being of the 

child. 

1. Guarantee Children Facing Immigration Court Proceedings Have Legal Representation 

Children must have a voice in the decisions that will affect the rest of their lives. 

In order to pursue this standard, we must ensure that all children in immigration 

proceedings, both accompanied and unaccompanied, have legal representation. Additionally, the needs of both the children and parents must be considered during proceedings. Children must be appointed an advocate who acts on the wishes and in 

the best interest of the child when determining the care and custody of immigrant 

children. 

2. Ensure Children are Free from Detention and Placed in the Least Restrictive Setting as Quickly as Possible 

The U.S. Government must seek out alternatives to detention (ATDs) for children 

and families. The detention of a child even if he/she is with family, is traumatic and 

has significant effects on a child’s mental health and physical development. Decades 

of litigation over the horrific conditions in which migrant children were being held 

in detention resulted in the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA). This agreeVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
84 

1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Policy Guidance for Implementation of the Migrant 

Protection Protocols, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19l0129lOPAlmigrant-protection-protocols-policy-guidance.pdf. 2 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/20/secretary-nielsenannounces-historic-action-confront-illegal-immigration. 

ment set National standards for the detention, release, and treatment of children 

in the custody of DHS and declares that children should be in the least restrictive 

setting. This agreement must not be undermined or modified to meet the needs of 

an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform. If the FSA is modified to 

allow for indefinite family detention, children will suffer negative life-long consequences and impediments to their childhood development. 

3. Prioritize Keeping Families Together in Immigration Policy Decisions When It Is 

in the Best Interest of the Child 

Family unity must be a priority in both the claims of the parent and the child 

involved in removal proceedings. Congress must prohibit the removal of children 

from their parents by DHS or the Department of Justice (DOJ) within 100 miles 

of the U.S. border unless it is in the child’s best interest. Congress must also ensure 

that the best interest of the child is considered when determining repatriation or 

referral for prosecution of parents and legal guardians of children. Parents must be 

allowed to make arrangements for their child’s care and for children to visit their 

parents while they are detained. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

must consider the best interests of the children in all detention, release, and transfer decisions affecting their parents. Family unity should be a priority both at the 

border and during interior enforcement activities such as workplace raids. Other 

steps to promote family unity include reinstating judicial discretion in cases involving the caregivers of minor children and allowing parents in removal proceedings 

to argue the hardship on behalf of their children. 

4. Ensure All Decisions Account for Child Well-Being and Healthy Development 

Finally, border security and immigration enforcement decisions involving children 

must incorporate child welfare professionals and consultation with experts on the 

healthy development needs of children. Qualified child welfare professionals and 

language interpreters must be available at ports of entry as well as Border Patrol 

stations. Additionally, more must be done to ensure children are guaranteed a safe 

and sanitary living environment, access to legal services, and access to food and climate appropriate clothing. Immigration enforcement decisions should never impede 

a child’s healthy development or a child’s right to education. 

STATEMENT OF HIAS 

MARCH 6, 2019 

HIAS—the American Jewish community’s global refugee organization, has been 

assisting refugees and immigrants for nearly 140 years. HIAS was founded to assist 

Jewish refugees arriving at Ellis Island. In 1904, we expanded our work and began 

providing legal assistance to immigrants facing deportation. Today, we provide comprehensive legal services to those of all backgrounds seeking safety in the United 

States. 

Guided by our Jewish value of welcoming the stranger, and by the Jewish tradition of B’tzelem Elohim, the idea that all people deserve to have their human rights 

and dignity respected, HIAS remains on the front lines of refugee protection. At the 

U.S.-Mexico border, through our Border Fellows program, we have placed pro bono 

attorneys with legal service organizations in San Diego, California and El Paso, 

Texas. Our fellows provide legal representation to asylum seekers, including those 

in detention. For example, in San Diego, HIAS’ Border Fellow is working on the 

case of a child who was born HIV positive. His mother passed away when he was 

very young, and his father left the family. The child, now 15 years old, is in a detention center while our Border Fellow works to have him reunited with his brother. 

In January 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), also known as the ‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ program, 

at the San Ysidro port of entry. MPP requires that asylum seekers wait in Mexico 

while their case moves through U.S. immigration courts.1 As justification for this 

protocol, DHS asserted that this system will help secure our borders by ensuring 

that asylum seekers do not disappear into the country or use fraudulent claims to 

gain access to the United States.2 In actuality, this unprecedented program makes 

85 

3 Immigration and Nationality Act (8 USC 1158), http://uscode.house.gov/ 

view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1158&num=0&edition=prelim. 4TRAC Immigration, El Paso Immigration Court Processing, https://trac.syr.edu/phptools/ 

immigration/courtlbacklog/courtlproctimeloutcome.php. 

it nearly impossible for asylum seekers to access the protections they are entitled 

to under both U.S. and international law. 

Under American immigration law, people who arrive at the U.S. border have the 

right to seek asylum, and are permitted to remain in the United States while their 

claim is processed.3 The Remain in Mexico program raises serious concerns about 

access to legal representation, due process rights of asylum seekers, and the ability 

of attorneys to represent their clients effectively and fairly. 

HIAS’ Border Fellows report that the Remain in Mexico program is making it extremely challenging for them to find and contact their clients, and nearly impossible 

to find confidential and secure places to meet and speak with them. The Remain 

in Mexico program also has created challenges for attorneys who have to make the 

trip to Mexico—a process that can take hours—and raises questions about the ability of legal counsel to represent clients and practice law while not in the United 

States. 

HIAS also has concerns about the impact this program will have on the arrivals 

at other ports of entry. For example, in El Paso, TX, reported to be one of the next 

ports of entry where Remain in Mexico will soon also be implemented, the asylum 

approval rate is already at around 3 percent, and access to counsel can mean the 

difference between life and death.4

In 2018, prior to implementation of the Remain in Mexico program, HIAS staff 

met with humanitarian aid workers in Mexico’s northern border region. It was clear 

that they were under-resourced and overwhelmed, and that many asylum seekers 

were going without access to safe housing or the support or resources they needed. 

These problems have only grown since Remain in Mexico was put in place. 

At HIAS, we know that a border wall or Remain in Mexico will not deter families 

seeking safety from coming to the United States. Instead, it will impede life-saving 

access to safety, most immediately for those asylum seekers waiting in Mexico, but 

also for those who are forced to choose longer and more dangerous routes to reach 

El Paso and other ports of entry. 

We ask that Members of the Homeland Security committee demand that the administration put an immediate end to programs and policies that violate U.S. and 

international law and put people who are pursuing their legal right to seek asylum 

at risk. 

STATEMENT OF KIDS IN NEED OF DEFENSE (KIND) 

MARCH 6, 2019 

Kids in Need of Defense (KIND) was founded by the Microsoft Corporation and 

the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Special Envoy Angelina Jolie, and is 

the leading National organization that works to ensure that no refugee or immigrant child faces immigration court alone. We do this in partnership with 585 law 

firms, corporate legal departments, law schools, and bar associations, which provide 

pro bono representation to unaccompanied children referred to KIND for assistance 

in their deportation proceedings. KIND has served more than 18,000 children since 

2009, and leveraged approximately $250 million in pro bono support. KIND also 

helps children who are returning to their countries of origin through deportation or 

voluntary departure to do so safely and to reintegrate into their home communities. 

Through our reintegration pilot project in Guatemala and Honduras, we place children with local nongovernmental organization partners, which provide vital social 

services, including family reunification, school enrollment, skills training, and counseling. KIND also engages in broader work in the region to address root causes of 

child migration, such as sexual- and gender-based violence. Additionally, KIND advocates to change law, policy, and practices to improve the protection of unaccompanied children in the United States, and is working to build a stronger regional 

protection framework throughout Central America and Mexico. 

SUMMARY

Since its first days, the Trump administration has established border security as 

a key policy priority. As part of such efforts, the administration has pursued a host 

of policies aimed at deterring migration and restricting access to asylum and humanitarian protection by unaccompanied children and families in particular. These 

86 

1See Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration, Dep’t of Homeland Security (Dec. 20, 2018), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/12/20/secretary-nielsen-announces-historic-action-confront-illegal-immigration; see also Memorandum on 

MPP Guiding Principles (Jan. 28, 2019) (hereinafter MPP Memorandum), https://www.cbp.gov/ 

sites/default/files/assets/documents/2019-Jan/MPP%20Guiding%20Principles%201-28-19.pdf. 2MPP Memorandum, supra note 1 at 1–2. 

3 83 Fed. Reg. 55934 (Nov. 9, 2018). The United States District Court of the Northern District 

of California issued an injunction against the measure. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 

No. 3:18-cv-06810-JST (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2018) (Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order). 4See INA § 208, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(1) (2008). 5 Nations are prohibited from expelling or returning a refugee to a country where ‘‘his or her 

life or freedom would be threatened on account of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.’’ UNHCR, Advisory Opinion on the 

Extraterritorial Application of Non-Refoulement Obligations under the 1951 Convention relating 

to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (Jan. 26, 2007), https://www.unhcr.org/ 

policies not only fail to make the United States safer but also place children fleeing 

grave violence in their countries of origin at even greater risk of danger, harm, or 

death. In addition to being inconsistent with the best interests of children, these 

policies defy our country’s obligations under U.S. and international law. 

This statement will chronicle the challenges that children encounter at each stage 

of the U.S. asylum process. First, it will discuss what happens when children reach 

the U.S.-Mexico border. Specifically, it will address how President Trump’s ‘‘Remain 

in Mexico’’ policy and other practices are preventing unaccompanied children and 

families from accessing protection in the United States. Second, it will discuss the 

administration’s ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ policy and the on-going separation of families in 

the absence of clear standards and means of tracking family relationships and the 

reasons for such separations. Third, it will highlight the need for better conditions 

and standards of care in U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities. Finally, it will address the Trump administration’s efforts to deter sponsors from coming forward to care for unaccompanied children, which have resulted in the prolonged detention and traumatization of thousands of children. 

KIND rejects border security policies intended to deter children from seeking protection in the United States. We urge the committee to ensure that the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) complies with U.S asylum laws and international commitments and allows unaccompanied children to present themselves at all ports of 

entry along the U.S. border. Further, we condemn separation policies that harm 

children’s health and well-being, and their legal cases. 

KIND recommends the following: (i) The Trump administration should end the 

‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ policy; (ii) family separations should occur only when it is in 

the best interest of children; (iii) the Government should record the reason for separations, track separated families to allow for swift reunification, and allow parents 

to challenge separation decisions; (iv) immigration officers should efficiently transfer 

children’s information between CBP, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), and 

attorneys; (v) the Government should improve the conditions of detention facilities 

in which children are held; (vi) DHS should release unaccompanied children to appropriate sponsors as soon as possible; and (vii) DHS should never use sponsors’ information for enforcement purposes without considering the best interest of children. 

We urge the committee to consider our recommendations and to hold the Trump 

administration accountable to do what Congress has mandated: Allow asylum seekers to apply for protection in the United States. Border security policies should protect the integrity of our immigration system and our Nation’s commitment to extending protection to those in need of safety—particularly children. 

THE ‘‘REMAIN IN MEXICO’’ POLICY SHOULD BE ELIMINATED

In December 2018, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)1—or the ‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ policy—under which certain 

asylum seekers are forced to stay in Mexico pending their immigration proceedings 

in the United States.2 Relatedly, in November 2018, DHS and the U.S. Department 

of Justice issued an interim final rule that, coupled with a Presidential Proclamation issued shortly after, would bar migrants from seeking asylum if they cross the 

border between official ports of entry.3 Both policies disregard Congress’ express intent to allow asylum seekers to apply for protection, regardless of where they enter 

the country.4 They further violate international norms and treaties by which the 

United States is bound, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits nations from expelling or returning refugees to a country where their lives would be 

threatened.5

87 

4d9486929.pdf. The United States is bound to the 1951 Convention as a signatory to the 1967 

Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223. 6MPP Memorandum, supra note 1 at 1. 

7See KIND, The Protection Gauntlet: How the United States is Blocking Access to Asylum 

Seekers and Endangering the Lives of Children at the U.S. Border (Dec. 21, 2018) (hereinafter 

The Protection Gauntlet), https://supportkind.org/resources/the-protection-gauntlet-how-theunited-States-is-blocking-access-to-asylum-seekers-and-endangering-the-lives-of-children-at-the-us-border/. 8 Id. at 2–3. 

9 Id. 

10 Id. at 3. 11 Id. 12 Jack Herrera, Five Takeaways from the Lawsuit Over Trump’s Plan to Keep Asylum Seekers 

in Mexico, Pacific Standard (Feb. 14, 2019), https://psmag.com/news/five-takeaways-from-thelawsuit-over-trumps-plan-to-keep-asylum-seekers-in-mexico. 13 Ed Vulliamy, Tricked, abducted and killed: the last day of two child migrants in Mexico, 

The Guardian (Feb. 16, 2019), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/16/tijuana-migrant-child-murders-mexico-us-asylum. 14 Herrera, supra note 12. 15See Rafael Carranza, Tijuana struggles to accommodate migrant families as U.S. begins 

sending them back, Arizona Republic (Feb. 20, 2019); Rafael Bernal, DHS to Make Migrants 

Wait in Mexico While Asylum Claims Processed, The Hill (Dec. 20, 2018), https://thehill.com/ 

latino/422267-dhs-to-make-migrants-wait-in-mexico-while-asylum-claims-processed. 16This policy directed CBP agents to refer every individual apprehended near the border who 

did not present at an official port of entry to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution, even when individuals exercised their lawful right to seek asylum. Adults were taken 

to Federal detention facilities while children were transferred into the care of ORR, which operates within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Once separated from their 

parents, DHS classified the kids as ‘‘unaccompanied.’’ Press Release, KIND & Women’s Refugee 

Comm’n, Family Separation at the Border (May 30, 2018), https://supportkind.org/media/family-separation-at-the-border/. 

While the administration has asserted that the ‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ policy would 

not apply to unaccompanied children,6 U.S. and Mexican officials are nonetheless 

preventing unaccompanied children from entering the United States to seek asylum. 

During a research mission to Mexico, KIND learned that CBP agents have turned 

back unaccompanied children to Mexico after telling them that they can no longer 

seek asylum in the United States.7 Mexican officials are similarly blocking unaccompanied children from presenting themselves at U.S. ports of entry, and frequently 

transfer unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the United States to the custody 

of Mexico’s child welfare agency (DIF).8 Once in DIF custody, these children are informed that they may seek asylum in Mexico or be deported to their countries of 

origin.9 They are not informed of their right to seek protection in the United 

States.10 Fearful of deportation by Mexican officials, some unaccompanied children 

have chosen to hide from Mexican officials or to cross the border between ports of 

entry—circumstances that increase the dangers facing vulnerable youth.11

Unaccompanied children face grave danger in Mexican border towns, where they 

may be preyed upon by smugglers and human traffickers.12 Last December, 2 unaccompanied youth were tricked, abducted, tortured, and killed in Tijuana.13 A third 

child escaped with wounds on his neck. He reported that he and his friends were 

kidnapped, tied to chairs, undressed, and tortured with scissors in an attempt to 

extort their relatives for money. Despite horrendous incidences like this, Mexican 

officials continue to block unaccompanied children from accessing U.S. ports of 

entry.14

Recently, the United States has returned several asylum-seeking families to Mexico under the Remain in Mexico policy15—exposing additional children to harm, danger, or death in Mexico. 

Recommendation.—KIND urges the administration’s swift withdrawal of the ‘‘Remain in Mexico’’ policy and its renewed commitment to ensuring that all unaccompanied children are provided unfettered access to U.S. ports of entry to request protection. KIND recommends Congress’ continued oversight to ensure the administration’s compliance with asylum protections and procedures provided for by U.S. law 

and international treaty obligations, as well as laws providing for the appropriate 

care and treatment of unaccompanied children. 

FAMILY SEPARATIONS SHOULD ONLY OCCUR WHEN A CHILD’S SAFETY OR WELFARE IS

AT RISK

Announced in April 2018 and implemented in June 2018, the Trump administration’s ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ policy resulted in the forced separation and traumatization 

of thousands of children.16

88 

17See KIND, Women’s Refugee Comm’n & Lutheran Immigration Serv., Betraying Family 

Values: How Immigration Policy at the United States Border is Separating Families 12 (2017) 

(hereinafter Betraying Family Values), https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/rights/gbv/ 

resources/1450-betraying-family-values. 18KIND, How You Can Help Separated Families and Ensure Protection for Children (June 28, 

2018), https://supportkind.org/resources/how-you-can-help-end-family-separation-and-ensureprotection-for-children/. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 U.N. Human Rights Office to U.S.: Halt Trump Policy Separating Kids From Parents at 

Border, USA Today (June 5, 2018), https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/06/05/ 

united-nations-tells-u-s-stop-separating-children-parents/673090002/. 22Ms. L v. ICE, No. 18–0428 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) (Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Classwide Preliminary Injunction), https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/ms-l-v-ice-order-granting-plaintiffs-motion-classwide-preliminary-injunction. 23 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Hum. Serv., Office of Inspector General, OEI–BL18–00511, Separated Children Placed in Office of Refugee Resettlement Care (2019), 1 (hereinafter Inspector 

General Report), https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-BL-18-00511.asp; Miriam Jordan, Family 

Separation May Have Hit Thousands More Migrant Children Than Reported, N.Y. Times (Jan. 

17, 2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/us/family-separation-trump-administrationmigrants.html. 24 Inspector General Report, supra note 23, at 13. 25Katie Tandy, Family Separations Continue in Homeland Security ‘‘Gray Area’’ Despite Ban, 

The California Report (Feb. 9, 2019), https://www.kqed.org/news/11724799/family-separationsflourish-in-homeland-security-grey-area-despite-ban. 26 Betraying Family Values, supra note 17, at 7. 27 Id. 

In response to this crisis, KIND formed a dedicated Family Separation Response 

Team to provide direct legal representation to affected families. KIND witnessed 

first-hand the harmful effects that family separations have on children. Family separations harm children’s well-being and legal cases. Medical experts agree that the 

forced separation of migrant children who have fled violence has devastating consequences for their development, even if the separation is brief.17 Children’s immigration cases are also affected because children are not likely to have information 

or documentation of their asylum claims. KIND has worked with children like 

Luisa, a 7-year-old who was separated from her father after they entered the United 

States last summer.18 When KIND spoke to her, it was impossible to conduct even 

an initial legal assessment because Luisa could not stop crying. She was so distraught by the separation that she sobbed throughout the meeting.19 Even if she 

had been able to communicate with her KIND attorney, she could not have made 

a case for asylum on her own because she did not know why her family fled.20

Unsurprisingly, the Trump administration’s ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ policy sparked a 

global outcry. The United Nations Human Rights Office called for the United States 

to ‘‘immediately halt’’ the policy.21 In Ms. L v. Sessions, a class action case challenging family separations that had occurred prior to the start of the Zero Tolerance 

policy, the presiding judge ordered the Government to stop the policy and to reunify 

separated children with their parents.22 At the time, the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) reported that 2,737 children needed to be reunified. 

The Government is still separating families. The HHS Inspector General confirmed that at least 118 children were separated between July 1 and November 7, 

2018 23 after the court order was issued. The total number and current status of 

children separated from their families are unknown.24

Importantly, there are no established standards for family separation determinations. Under prior administrations, DHS separated children from parents who posed 

a danger to them. However, the sweeping ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ policy raised the urgent 

need for clear standards restricting the use of family separation for deterrence and 

permitting it only when it is in the best interests of a child. Currently, CBP officials, 

who lack specialized training in child development or welfare, are making these determinations;25 family separation determinations do not involve the participation of 

or oversight by a child welfare expert.26 Additionally, CBP officials are not required 

to provide any justification or written documentation to parents or guardians outlining the reasons for the separation. Because they have no vehicle to challenge assertions made against them, parents and guardians risk losing custody of their children without any judicial oversight.27

Recommendation.—First, KIND recommends that DHS enlist child welfare professionals to screen children. This way, separations are only conducted when professionals with expertise in child development and welfare have determined it is in the 

best interest of the child. At the very least, agents should receive training on how 

to apply the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ framework when they believe a child’s sepaVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:27 Aug 07, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\116TH\19FL0306\35380 HEATH
89 

28 Id. 29 Id. at 4. 30Trump Administration’s Inhumane Family Separation Policy Before the H. Comm. on Energy & Com., 116th Cong. (Feb. 7, 2019) (Statement of Jennifer Podkul, Esq. KIND Senior Dir. 

for Policy and Advocacy), https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20190207/108846/HHRG116-IF02-WState-PodkulJ-20190207-U1.pdf. 31Mariana Atencio, et al. Border Facilities Still Need Fixing After Second Migrant Child’s 

Death, Say Democrats, NBC News (Jan. 7, 2019), https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/border-facilities-still-need-fixing-after-second-migrant-child-s-n955876. 32See generally William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 

2008, H.R. 7311, 110th Cong. (2008). 33Women’s Refugee Comm’n, Forced From Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America, 

(Nov. 9, 2015), https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/forcedlfrom- lhomelexlsum.pdf. 34 Human Rights Watch, News Release, In the Freezer, Abusive Conditions for Women and 

Children in US Immigration Holding Cells (Feb. 28, 2018), https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/ 

02/28/freezer/abusive-conditions-women-and-children-us-immigration-holding-cells. 35 Julie M. Linton et al., Am. Acad. of Pediatrics, Detention of Immigrant Children 6 (2017), 

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2017/03/09/peds.2017-0483.- 

full.pdf. 36Tara Law, Children in Border Patrol Custody Are Still at Risk Despite New Guidelines, Pediatricians Say, TIME (Dec. 17, 2018), http://time.com/5489204/migrant-children-guidelineshealth/. 37 Id. 38 ‘‘The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement was the result of over a decade of litigation responding to the U.S. Government’s detention policy of children. The Agreement set National 

Continued 

ration from his or her family is warranted.28 Second, family separation determinations and their rationale should always be recorded and shared with both parents 

and their legal counsel. Finally, DHS should implement an appeals process for challenging family separation determinations. 

IF SEPARATIONS OCCUR, DHS SHOULD HAVE ADEQUATE TRACKING MECHANISMS TO

RECORD CHILDREN’S INFORMATION

DHS has no consistent or comprehensive means to properly document family separations. There is no database or hotline that can help identify a separated family 

member’s location or assist with reunification.29 Separated families are left with little, if any, knowledge of their family members’ locations. Even worse, many parents 

are deported without the knowledge of the child or the attorney. 

Tracking mechanisms are failing. KIND continues to encounter cases in which 

neither ORR nor attorneys are notified when DHS separates a child from his or her 

family. In one case, a father was separated from his teenage daughter, and no information was given to justify the separation. 

KIND only found out this child had been separated through interviews with the 

child. The separation was not recorded anywhere in the child’s files.30

Recommendation.—All family relationships and the reasons for separations should 

be recorded in writing. This information should be accessible to parents, guardians, 

ORR, and attorneys. Furthermore, DHS should implement mechanisms that allow 

continued communication between parents and children, particularly when the parent is soon to be deported. 

DETENTION FACILITIES HOLDING CHILDREN MUST IMPLEMENT BETTER STANDARDS OF

CARE

This past year, two migrant children died in CBP custody. Jakelin Caal Maquin 

and Felipe Gomez Alonzo were only 7 and 8 years old, respectively, when they died. 

Both were actively seeking asylum after they crossed the U.S.-Mexico border.31

Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), CBP must 

generally transfer migrant children to ORR within 72 hours of determining that the 

child is unaccompanied.32 However, children may be held in CBP custody for over 

2 weeks.33 According to CBP’s own recordkeeping, 16 percent of migrants were held 

for over 72 hours, including children.34 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 

has explained that detention impedes child development and causes severe psychological trauma.35 Dr. Julie Linton, who co-chairs the AAP’s Special Interest Group 

on Immigrant Health, has stated, ‘‘No amount of time in detention is safe for a 

child.’’36

CBP facilities do not meet minimum standards of care for children. Neither CBP 

agents nor CBP medical care providers are trained to care for children.37 Under the 

Flores Settlement Agreement, the Government must provide children in custody 

with basic necessities like food, water, bathrooms, and emergency health services.38

90 

standards regarding the detention, release, and treatment of all children in immigration detention and underscores the principle of family unity. It requires that: Juveniles be released from 

custody without unnecessary delay, and in order of preference to the following: A parent, legal 

guardian, adult relative, individual specifically designated by the parent, a child welfare licensed program, or, alternatively when family reunification is not possible, an adult seeking custody deemed appropriate by the responsible Government agency. Where they cannot be released 

because of significant public safety or flight risk concerns, juveniles must be held in the least 

restrictive setting appropriate to age and special needs, generally, in a non-secure facility licensed by a child welfare entity and separated from unrelated adults and delinquent offenders.’’ 

KIND, Flores Settlement: Myth v. Fact (June 15, 2018), https://supportkind.org/resources/flores-settlement-myth-v-fact/. 39Laura Gomez, Deaths of migrant kids underscore risks of hieleras, AZ Mirror (Dec. 18, 

2018), https://www.azmirror.com/2018/12/28/deaths-of-migrant-kids-underscore-risks-ofhieleras/. 40 Id.; see also Human Rights Watch, In the Freezer: Abusive Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells (Feb. 28, 2018), https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/02/ 

28/freezer/abusive-conditions-women-and-children-us-immigration-holding-cells. 41 83 Fed. Reg. 20846 (May 8, 2018). 42 Jonathan Blitzer, To Free Detained Children, Immigrant Families Are Forced to Risk Everything, The New Yorker (Oct. 16, 2018), https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/to-free-detained-children-immigrant-Families-are-forced-to-risk-everything. (‘‘Officially, the H.H.S. claims 

that the average time is 59 days, but according to one of the Department’s own officials, who 

agreed to speak with me on the condition of anonymity, detained children now spend an average 

of 74 days in Federal custody.’’). 43Geneva Sands, ICE arrested 170 potential sponsors of unaccompanied migrant children, 

CNN (Dec. 10, 2018), https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/10/politics/ice-potential-sponsors-arrests/ 

index.html. 44See KIND, Targeting Families (Dec. 2017) (hereinafter ‘‘Targeting Families’’), https:// 

supportkind.org/resources/targeting-families/. 45 Real name was changed to protect the identity of the person. 46Targeting Families, supra note 44, at 12–13. 

However, CBP facilities that hold children are greatly lacking. Reports about these 

facilities reveal they lack even basic provisions. Children sit around for days in facilities called ‘‘ice-boxes’’ (‘‘hieleras’’), which are freezing rooms that have no beds, 

no private bathroom, and lack any form of entertainment or distraction for the children.39 Migrants sleep either on bare cement floors or on toilets. These rooms are 

not appropriate to house children for long periods of time.40

Recommendation.—The living conditions in DHS facilities are especially dangerous for unaccompanied children. These conditions must be improved for the welfare and safety of detained children. It is vital that Congress uphold the detention 

limits and other protections embodied in the Flores Settlement Agreement and the 

TVPRA. Additionally, Congress should direct the development of enforceable standards related to the transport and detention of children to ensure a minimum standard of care is provided. 

DHS SHOULD NOT USE SPONSORS’ INFORMATION FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES

In April 2018, DHS and HHS entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

pledging to share information openly between their organizations. DHS later issued 

a notice of a modified system of records to carry out this agreement.41 Under the 

MOA, HHS has shared sponsors’ information with DHS, including for immigration 

enforcement. As a result, potential sponsors have had to choose between taking in 

a child in need or risking deportation. 

The MOA has caused children to remain in Federal custody for longer periods of 

time. The use of sponsors’ information for enforcement purposes frustrates ORR’s 

ability to place children in the ‘‘least restrictive setting’’ in their best interest as required by the TVPRA and the Flores Settlement Agreement. Children have spent 

an average of over 70 days in custody, more than double the time under the Obama 

administration. This is a result of sponsors’ fear to come forward.42 Under the MOA, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested 170 potential sponsors 

of unaccompanied children.43 Nearly 64 percent of the sponsors, 109 in total, had 

no criminal record. 

This policy deters individuals from sponsoring children. KIND has heard of cases 

where even those who are lawfully present may choose not to sponsor children to 

either avoid interacting with ICE or for fear of exposing others living with them.44

For example, after Nicolas, a U.S. lawful permanent resident, received a call from 

his nephew requesting sponsorship, ICE aggressively questioned him and accused 

him of smuggling.45 This was a baseless accusation, but Nicolas was so fearful of 

the interaction with ICE that he ultimately decided not to sponsor his nephew.46

Similarly, KIND represented a child who had been separated from his father under 

the administration’s ‘‘Zero Tolerance’’ policy. The father had been removed from the 

91 

47 Conf. R., Continuing Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for Fiscal 

Year 2019, and For Other Purposes, Sec. 224, at 24–25 (2019), https://docs.house.gov/ 

billsthisweek/20190211/CRPT-116hrpt9.pdf (‘‘None of the funds provided by this Act or any 

other Act, or provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 

collection of fees available to the components funded by this Act, may be used by the Secretary 

of Homeland Security to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child...

based on information shared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.’’). 

* The document has been retained in committee files and is also available at https://phr.org/ 

resources/zero-protection-how-u-s-border-enforcement-harms-migrant-safety-and-health/. 

country and, due to the MOA, reunification with the child’s uncle was delayed. The 

combined trauma of having been forcibly separated from his father and having been 

detained for a prolonged period resulted in the child’s asking to be repatriated to 

his country of origin, even though he had a credible fear of harm. 

Recent language in the 2019 appropriations bill limits DHS’s use of information 

obtained from HHS for immigration-related enforcement against sponsors.47 This 

language is an important first step in curtailing the negative impacts of the MOA. 

However, it is not a complete prohibition on information sharing. For example, information may be used for enforcement purposes if someone is charged with a 

crime—even if there has been no conviction. Moreover, because this provision was 

part of an annual appropriations bill, it will only last through September 2019. 

Recommendation.—Children endure psychological and emotional trauma when 

their detention is prolonged due to threats of immigration enforcement against their 

potential sponsors. DHS must carry out Congress’ intent and formally and permanently cease using sponsors’ information for enforcement purposes. Simultaneously, 

Congress should exercise its oversight authority to guarantee that the administration complies with Section 224 of the new appropriations bill. 

CONCLUSION

Children and families seeking asylum in the United States are often escaping 

dangerous and violent conditions in their countries of origin. The opportunity of asylum seekers to pursue protection from harm is the very foundation of our country’s 

asylum laws, and efforts to restrict access to humanitarian protection do nothing to 

make our country safer. Instead of restricting access to protection for unaccompanied children and families, the administration should ensure that all are provided 

due process and an opportunity to have their claims fully and fairly considered. We 

look forward to working with Members to ensure our country’s continued commitment to justice and to the protection of the most vulnerable. 

STATEMENT OF PHYSICIANS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS* 

ZERO PROTECTION: HOW U.S. BORDER ENFORCEMENT HARMS MIGRANT SAFETY AND

HEALTH

January 2019 

LETTERS FROM HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

June 1, 2018. 

The Honorable KRISTJEN NIELSEN, 

Secretary of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Nebraska 

Avenue Complex, 3801 Nebraska Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20528. 

DEAR SECRETARY NIELSEN: I am writing to you with concerns following news reports about the separation of children from parents at the southern border. I fear 

is being done not for their well-being, but to visit distress on them and their parents. 

The Administration’s policy is resulting in increased separation of families. As 

parents remain in criminal proceedings or detention, children will be removed and 

placed in the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Recent 

news reports of unaccounted children suggest, however, that the Administration 

lacks policies to ensure that such children are eventually reunified with their families. We also remain concerned about the negative health and social impacts of family separation. In fact, in response to DHS’s new policy, the American Academy of 

Pediatrics released a statement urging the Agency to reverse course stating, ‘‘In 

fact, highly stressful experiences, like family separation, can cause irreparable 

92 

harm, disrupting a child’s brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and 

long-term health.’’ This separation is even more alarming when considered in the 

context of comments made by Trump Administration officials that suggested that 

the separation of families will deter individuals from migrating to the United States. 

The actions by the Trump Administration are very alarming and if left unabated, 

could visit serious harm on the immigrant population within our borders, and could 

invite international criticism as a departure from the humane treatment of asylum 

seekers. Any justification that this policy is done under color of law is plainly wrong. 

Existing policies applicable for unaccompanied minors is not applicable for parents 

who come to the border seeking asylum with their children. If children appear at 

the border with their parents, there is no need to separate them. The Trump Administration’s current tact is at best a perversion of the law, and at worse a misinterpretation. 

Please contact me [] if you have any questions or need additional information. 

Very truly yours, 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS. 

June 13, 2018. 

The Honorable KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, 

Secretary of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528. 

DEAR SECRETARY NIELSEN: As a senior member of the House Committees on 

Homeland Security, and the Judiciary, the former Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, the current Ranking 

Member of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

Homeland Security, and Investigations, and the Member of Congress for the 18th 

Congressional District of Texas, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the 

proposal reported in the media of DHS’s plans to build tent cities at military posts 

around Texas to shelter the increasing number of unaccompanied migrant children, 

separated from their parents at a port of entry being held in detention. 

At the outset, it should be emphasized that children who have been removed from 

their parents or accompanying adults, without cause, should not be categorized as 

‘‘unaccompanied.’’ Unaccompanied children are foreign nationals or stateless persons 

below the age of 18, who enter the territory of the United States unaccompanied 

by a responsible adult, and so long as they are not effectively taken into care of such 

a person. The number of unaccompanied children should be accurately reported and 

the number of children forcibly removed from their parents or a responsible adults 

should not be categorized as unaccompanied. Reports indicate that since October 

2017, DHS has taken as many as 700 children from adults claiming to be their parents, including more than 100 chilren under the age of four. It is the DHS’s actions 

which turns accompanied children into unaccompanied children. 

I object in the strongest terms to the Administration’s plan to construct tent cities 

at military installations around the state of Texas to warehouse immigrant children. 

The current practice of the Trump Administration the taking children from their 

parents is unconscionable and should end immediately. The safety and well-being 

of those children in U.S. custody must be at the utmost concern. Military bases are 

not child care facilities and it is impossible to conceive how someone could confuse 

the two. These children are wards of the United States government and should receive the care and support they need to suvive the trauma of traveling to the border 

over hundreds or thousands of miles in a desperate attempt to escape violence, poverty, or natural disasters. 

These children should not be placed in camps in the Texas summer heat, which 

woud be life-threatening. Further, the areas of Texas where military bases are located are known to be overpopulated with snakes, insects, and plants that are 

harmful or fatal if they come in contact with humans. Poisonous spiders like the 

black widow (Latrodectus mactans) and the brown recluse (Loxosceles reclusa) spiders pose a significant risk to children. Both of these species of spiders can be found 

indoors and outdoors throughout the State of Texas. 

A more thoughtful and humane policy is needed, not the proposal under consideration that would embarrassment our nation and cause irrepreable harm. 

Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions 

or need additional information. I can be reached to speak with you about this matter at my Washington DC office [.] 

Very truly yours, 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, 

MEMBER OF CONGRESS. 

93 

Chairman THOMPSON. The Members of the committee may have 

additional questions for the witness, and we ask that you respond 

expeditiously in writing to those questions. Pursuant to the Committee Rule VII(D), the hearing record will be held open for 10 

days. Hearing no further business, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(95) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BENNIE G. THOMPSON FOR HONORABLE KIRSTJEN M. 

NIELSEN

NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARATION

Question 1. President Trump declared a National emergency 25 days after first 

threatening to do so. What information was provided to the President that prompted 

him to declare a National emergency? Please provide any and all memos and related 

information, dated on or before February 15, 2019, that were provided to the White 

House and may have been used to justify the need for a National emergency declaration. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 2. On March 5, 2019, your Department released updated Southwest Border migration statistics that estimated a little more than 76,000 individuals were 

apprehended or inadmissible in February 2019. On March 6, you testified that you 

believed DHS was on track to apprehend over 900,000 in fiscal year 2019. Please 

provide the data and models that informed DHS estimates for apprehensions for the 

current fiscal year. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

BORDER WALL

Question 3a. In February 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

found that CBP had not developed any metrics to assess the effectiveness of physical infrastructure along the Southwest Border. GAO recommended that CBP develop metrics and CBP concluded and stated the metrics would be completed by 

September 2019. 

What is the status of CBP’s development of border wall metrics? What metrics 

has CBP used to measure the effectiveness of border barriers? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 3b. Will these metrics allow for a comparison of the cost-effectiveness of 

barriers, additional CBP officers and agents, and technology at the border? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 4. How does DHS determine ‘‘just compensation’’ for property owners as 

required under the Fifth amendment in eminent domain proceedings? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 5. How many miles of the 654 miles of border fencing along the Southern 

Border were built before fiscal year 2017 without the use of the use of DHS’s waiver 

authority? How many miles of the 33 miles appropriated in fiscal year 2018 will be 

built without the use of the waiver authority? Does DHS have any plans to use the 

waiver authority for the 55 miles Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2019? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 6. GAO found that when CBP prioritized locations for new barriers in 

2017, CBP did not analyze the cost of the barrier in that location (GAO–18–614). 

Given topography, land ownership, remoteness of the area, and other factors, costs 

can vary greatly and affect the cost-effectiveness of the barrier. How is CBP selecting future locations for border barrier construction? Will the estimated cost of construction be a component of this analysis? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

96 

Question 7. The same GAO report found that locations for construction where barriers were categorized as low priority by a CBP model were recategorized as a high 

priority by an Operational Review Board. For example, El Centro dropped from first 

priority to fifth, Yuma dropped from second to sixth, and Laredo dropped from third 

to seventh. Instead, segments of the Rio Grande Valley became DHS’s highest priorities. Did this change in prioritization based on land ownership, as identified in the 

GAO report? What other criteria were taken into consideration? Please explain the 

process and criteria used to reorder the segments. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

METERING/MIGRANT PROTECTION PROTOCOLS

Question 8. The DHS Inspector General found that ‘‘metering’’ may have the effect 

of pushing people toward areas between ports of entry to seek out Border Patrol 

agents to claim asylum. Given the numbers of asylum applicants waiting entry at 

land ports, what has DHS done to specifically improve its capacity to processes? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 9a. As of January 28, 277 people have been found amenable to the Migration Protection Protocols (MPP), which requires Central American asylum seekers from the Northern Triangle to remain in Mexico as they await the adjudication 

of their case. 

How is CBP determining which individuals are subject to MPP and which are 

not? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 9b. What exact criteria is being used? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 9c. What will the U.S. Government do if the Mexican government refuses to allow a migrant to return to Mexico after being processed? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 10. The Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) current notice procedure relies entirely on the individual maintaining 

up-to-date addresses which EOIR uses to mail notice of hearings. How will DHS ensure that these individuals receive notice of their hearings if the individual has no 

permanent address in Mexico and the 1–800 number provided is unavailable? How 

is DHS ensuring that people have adequate and timely notice of their hearings, especially in cases when the initial hearing date is subsequently canceled or changed? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 11. How will the DHS regional compact with Central American countries 

address the root causes pushing people to leave the Northern Triangle and seek protection? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

CUSTODY MANAGEMENT

Question 12. In the past, Border Patrol agents apprehended primarily single Mexican adults who could communicate effectively in Spanish. But in recent years, a 

growing percentage of people apprehended by Border Patrol agents are from the 

Northern Triangle countries of Central America, and increasingly from Guatemala. 

Many of these individuals speak one of many indigenous languages. What steps 

does Border Patrol take to properly assess each migrant’s language needs upon apprehension? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 13. According to reports, Jakelin Caal’s father speaks Q’eqchi’ and Felipe 

Go ́mez’s father speaks Chuj. From public reports, it appears that both families were 

presented only with English-language documents that were explained to them in 

Spanish. Were any steps taken to secure interpretation services for either of these 

families prior to the time that their children died in Border Patrol custody? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

97 

Question 14a. On March 5, CBP notified the committee of their new Interim Enhanced Medical Efforts Directive issued on January 28, over a month after the 

death of Jakelin and a month after the death of Felipe. 

What is the status of the permanent, CBP-wide medical directive that once issued 

will supersede this interim guidance? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 14b. Has the CBP executive director for the Privacy and Diversity Office 

completed review of their five objectives and issued their recommendations? If not, 

when do you expect to receive their recommendations? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 14c. What improvements have been made to CBP’s health interview 

questionnaire since the deaths of Jakelin Caal and Felipe Alonzo-Gomez? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 15. Recent media reports show an increase in ICE’s detention of infants 

without providing adequate care, an issue cited in a recent complaint to the DHS 

civil liberties office, and sexual abuse of migrant children in U.S. custody. How does 

your Department intend to investigate and address these incidents? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE XOCHITL TORRES SMALL FOR HONORABLE KIRSTJEN

M. NIELSEN

BORDER SECURITY

Question 1. Secretary Nielsen, the mountainous and backcountry terrain in remote areas along the Southern Border presents Border Patrol a challenging environment to effectively secure the border. In these areas, advanced detection and surveillance technology can serve as a force multiplier by helping agents surveil hardto-access areas. The recently-passed fiscal year 2019 spending package allocates 

$100 million in funding for border security technology, along with the $200 million 

in carryover from fiscal year 2018. 

Given the new challenges that Border Patrol agents are facing in between ports 

of entries, particularly in rural areas, do you believe DHS should ensure that a portion of these funds are used to deploy technology in rural and remote areas, such 

as the bootheel of New Mexico? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 2. In recent years, has there been any border security technology deployed in New Mexico, and if not, does DHS plan to deploy technology projects in 

New Mexico? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 3. Do you believe that border security investments in low-traffic, rural, 

and remote areas along the border should prioritize surveillance technology over 

barrier construction? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 4. How is DHS ensuring that newly-appropriated funds are targeting the 

most up-to-date technologies and approaches to securing the border? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

SANTA TERESA PORT OF ENTRY/CONSTRUCTION OF WALL

Question 5. Secretary Nielsen, the Santa Teresa Port of Entry (POE) is one of the 

fastest-growing land ports of entry in the Nation and it is now in the top 10 southern land ports of entry in total trade. Last year, 20 miles of barriers were built 

along the Santa Teresa POE, which cost nearly $80 million. 

Why did DHS opt to spend nearly $80 million on 20 miles of barriers instead of 

investing those funds to modernize the port and build on its economic growth? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 6. Do you believe that investments in the Santa Teresa POE, such as 

extending its hours of operation or modernizing sectors of the port, could result in 

98 

increased trade with Mexico and increased economic growth to the surrounding communities? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

TRANSPORTATION OF MIGRANTS WITHIN CBP FACILITIES

Question 7. Secretary Nielsen, on December 8, Jakelin Caal Maquin died after 

waiting over 8 hours for transportation to travel 90 minutes from Antelope Wells 

to Lordsburg. It is my understanding that a great deal of this delay was due to the 

wait for transportation from a contracted bus service. 

What efforts is CBP undertaking to increase its internal capacity to drive commercial vehicles for the transportation of migrants? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE LAUREN UNDERWOOD FOR HONORABLE KIRSTJEN M. 

NIELSEN

Question 1. Please provide an exact figure for the number of minors currently 

being held: (1) At any facility owned by, operated by, or in relationship with HHS 

and (2) at any facility owned by, operated by, or in relationship with DHS. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 2. Please provide an exact figure for the volume of illegal drugs seized 

by DHS in the process of entering the United States through our border with Mexico, including those intercepted by the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 3. Please provide a detailed time line for the conclusion of investigations 

into the deaths of Felipe Gomez Alonzo and Jakelin Caal. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 4. When you officially began family separation in spring 2018, were you 

aware that the effects of toxic stress and trauma are cumulative—that they get 

worse the longer the trauma and stress go on? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 5. When the family separation policy officially began in spring 2018, 

were you aware that family separation can lead to behavioral changes and learning 

delays for children? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 6. When the family separation policy officially began in spring 2018, 

were you aware that family separation can increase a child’s risk of heart disease, 

diabetes, and cancer? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 7. When the family separation policy officially began in spring 2018, 

were you aware that it increases a child’s recent risk of anxiety, depression, and 

substance abuse? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 8. The American Psychological Association reports that family separation 

is on par with beating and torture in terms of its relationship to mental health. 

When the family separation policy officially began in spring 2018, were you aware 

of that research? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 9. Did DHS consult with any pediatric health experts before reportedly 

beginning the El Paso pilot program for family separation in 2017? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 10. As you promised in the hearing, please provide a copy of all data 

that DHS collected or analyzed from the pilot program to evaluate how family separation affects a child’s physical and mental health. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

99 

Question 11. As you promised in the hearing, please provide a copy of the report 

produced by your ‘‘bipartisan advisory council’’ that addresses how family separation 

affects children’s mental and physical health. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 12. As you promised in the hearing, please provide a copy of any DHS 

communication with pediatric experts prior to May 1, 2018, regarding the effects of 

family separation on children’s mental and physical health. 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

QUESTIONS FROM RANKING MEMBER MIKE ROGERS FOR HONORABLE KIRSTJEN M. 

NIELSEN

Question 1a. A significant number of State and local governments are considering 

or have passed legislation that would blacklist or otherwise discriminate against 

any company involved in the design or construction of any extension of the wall 

along the Southwest Border. In addition, several cities are considering blacklisting 

contractors that provide database services that support Federal immigration priorities. I’m concerned that unless checked, this legislation will embolden State and 

local officials to obstruct the Federal Government’s lawful functions whenever it 

may serve their narrow political interests. Threatened by discrimination and without assurance that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will take a stand 

on such legislation, private companies are, understandably, hesitating to deliver on 

the goods and services necessary to protect our homeland security interests. 

How does DHS plan to respond to these State and local governments on this 

issue? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 1b. Will DHS be working with other agencies to react to these State and 

local governments on this issue? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 1c. Can you provide a time line of any actions DHS plans to take? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 1d. How do we prevent these harmful acts from affecting efforts to secure our homeland? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 2a. Secretary Nielsen, can you provide a breakdown of how CBP plans 

to use the fiscal year 2019 appropriated funds for border security technology, including the leftover fiscal year 2018 funds? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 2b. How are you ensuring that the newly-appropriated funds are targeting the most up-to-date technologies and approaches to securing the border especially in the high-traffic areas such as the Rio Grande Valley and the San Diego 

and El Paso sectors? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 3. Madame Secretary, was there anything asked of you or said over the 

course of the hearing that you would like to correct the record on? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

QUESTIONS FROM HONORABLE CLAY HIGGINS FOR HONORABLE KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN

Question 1a. Secretary Nielsen, there are ‘‘dead spots’’ along both the Southwest 

and Northern Borders that have been a persistent officer safety issue due to the 

lack of ability for communication devices to work in those spots. I’ve also heard from 

agents and officers in the field that their devices need to be encrypted or their location information and communications could be intercepted by cartels. Coupling this 

with the increase in CBP agent assaults that you mentioned in your testimony and 

responses to member questions, this is a very troubling problem. CBP agents are 

deployed in isolated areas across the borders, where off-grid communications may 

be necessary. 

100 

How will the new ATAK secure communication devices address current communication problems along our borders? Are there gaps left after ATAK implementation such as with ‘‘dead spots’’? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 1b. How is DHS responding to the ‘‘dead spot’’ issue in terms of procurement? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 1c. Is DHS considering low-cost commercial products to remedy some of 

these issues? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 2a. Secretary Nielsen, there are a lot of numbers we keep track of when 

assessing operational control of our borders. The ones I most frequently hear about 

are ‘‘apprehensions’’ between the ports of entry and ‘‘inadmissibles’’ at the ports of 

entry. However, it is safe to say that we do not catch a lot of what or who crosses 

our border illegally. 

What percent of people who enter illegally are we not apprehending? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 2b. What percent of drugs that enter illegally are we not seizing? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 2c. How accurate would you say your ‘‘got away’’ statistics are? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 3a. We understand that AMO currently leases satellite communication 

(SATCOM) downlink functionality from the Defense Information Systems Agency for 

both its manned and unmanned operations. AMO has already committed considerable resources to this capability, yet it is our understanding that given the technological limitations of its currently leased satellite threads, AMO cannot utilize this 

functionality in more than one manned aircraft simultaneously without sacrificing 

unmanned operations. 

What limitations exist that prevent full utilization of direct downlink capabilities 

across the entire manned aircraft fleet? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 3b. What is the Department’s strategy to address these limitations? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 3c. Has the Department considered what technologies are needed to address these limitations? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Question 3d. If so, are there any procurement plans moving forward? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

QUESTION FROM HONORABLE MICHAEL GUEST FOR HONORABLE KIRSTJEN M. 

NIELSEN

Question. On March 4, 2019, a bi-partisan coalition of Members of the House and 

Senate sent a letter asking you to release supplemental H–2B visas per the authority granted by H.J. Resolution 31. Would you be able to provide more details on the 

number of H–2B visas DHS plans to release and the time line for this action? 

Answer. Response was indicated to be For Official Use Only and is retained in 

committee files. 

Æ