U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–946 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. Hrg. 115–606 

NOMINATION HEARING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOMINATIONS OF RONALD D. VITIELLO, NOMINATED TO BE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

RICHARD S. TISCHNER, JR., NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR, COURT 

SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY, DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

NOVEMBER 15, 2018 

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

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin, Chairman 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

JON KYL, Arizona 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, California 

DOUG JONES, Alabama 

CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, Staff Director 

GABRIELLE D’ADAMO SINGER, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL P. LIPS, Policy Director 

MARGARET E. DAUM, Minority Staff Director 

J. JACKSON EATON, Minority Senior Counsel 

MICHAEL J. BROOME, Minority Counsel 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS J. SPINO, Hearing Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 1 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 2 

Senator Hassan ................................................................................................. 11 

Senator Harris .................................................................................................. 16 

Senator Jones .................................................................................................... 20 

Senator Daines ................................................................................................. 23 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 27 

Prepared statements: 

Senator Johnson ............................................................................................... 31 

Senator Peters .................................................................................................. 32 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2018 

Ronald D. Vitiello, Nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 36 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 52 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 55 

Responses to supplemental questions ............................................................. 117 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 125 

Letters ............................................................................................................... 130 

Richard S. Tischner, Jr., Nominated to be Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, District of Columbia 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 162 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 164 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 183 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 186 

Responses to post-hearing questions .............................................................. 200 

APPENDIX 

ICE Council Follow-up letter .................................................................................. 153 

ICE Local Presidents ............................................................................................... 156 

Family Apprehensions chart submitted by Senator Johnson .............................. 201 

UAC Apprehensions chart submitted by Senator Johnson .................................. 202 

American Academy of Pediatrics Report ............................................................... 204 

(1) 

1The prepared statement of Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 31. 

NOMINATION HEARING 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2018 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 342, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Johnson presiding. 

Present: Senators Johnson, Daines, Carper, Peters, Hassan, Harris and Jones. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JOHNSON1

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. I want to welcome our nominees. Thank you for your past 

service and your willingness to serve again in these important positions. 

Today we will consider President Trump’s nominees to serve as 

Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The 

Director is responsible for leading an organization of approximately 

19,000 employees with a budget of more than $7.5 billion. ICE is 

the lead Federal agency responsible for enforcing Federal laws related to immigration, border control, customs, and trade. 

In addition to enforcing our immigration laws, ICE has vast law 

enforcement responsibilities including investigating financial and 

cyber crimes as well as intellectual property and commercial fraud, 

human rights violations, weapons, narcotics, and human smuggling, transnational gang activity, and enforcing our export laws. 

These missions are critical for our Nation’s economic and national 

security. 

President Trump has nominated a qualified and capable candidate to lead the agency. Ronald Vitiello currently serves as Immigration and Customs Enforcement Deputy Director and senior official performing the duties of the Director. Prior to this role, Mr. 

Vitiello served as Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol and the Acting 

Deputy Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP). He has over 30 years of experience in the Federal Government, including serving at the locations on both the Southern and 

Northern Borders, and recently received the President’s Distinguished Executive Rank Award for an exemplary career of Federal 

service. 

I want to thank Mr. Vitiello for his previous service to this country and for his willingness to lead ICE. It is extremely unfortunate 
2 

1The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the Appendix on page 32. 

that in this political climate the dedicated employees of ICE face 

constant criticism, threats of violence, and calls from some Members of Congress to abolish such an important agency. 

Today we will also consider a nominee to be the Director of D.C. 

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA). The Director is in charge of 490 staff members and a budget of $246 million. CSOSA is responsible for overseeing probationers and parolees 

as well as providing free trial services in D.C. CSOSA’s mission is 

to enhance public safety, reduce recidivism, and promote accountability, inclusion, and success through the implementation of evidence-based practices in close collaboration with its criminal justice 

partners and the community. In fiscal year 2017 (FY), CSOSA’s 

Community Supervision Program was responsible for working with 

16,407 pretrial offenders, probationers, and parolees. 

President Trump’s nominee is dedicated to public service with a 

passion for public safety. Richard Tischner currently serves as 

Chief of the Superior Court Division in the United States Attorney’s Office, a position he has held since 2011. Mr. Tischner has 

over 30 years of experience with the United States Attorney’s Office, also serving as a Supervisory Assistant United States Attorney 

for approximately 20 years. 

I want to thank both nominees for being here today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

With that I will turn it over to our serving Ranking Member, 

Senator Peters. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS1

Senator PETERS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

start by thanking the nominees for their willingness to serve and 

for their lifetimes of public service as well. You have both spent 

over 30 years in service to your community and I want to thank 

you for that commitment. 

Mr. Vitiello, today we convene to consider your nomination to 

lead a critical team, responsible for enforcing our laws and promoting the safety and security of our homeland. As the Director of 

the Immigration and Customs Enforcement you will lead thousands of public servants who put their lives on the line and dedicate their lives to protect us every day. If confirmed, you will not 

only lead ICE but you will have to make some very tough decisions 

every day that prioritize ICE resources. You will set and implement policies that determine who to arrest, who to detain, and 

which investigations to pursue. It will be up to you to make sure 

that the safety of Americans does not take a back seat to talking 

points. 

As Congress and Members of this Committee, we have the important role of conducting oversight. We have a responsibility to ask 

hard questions and to ensure that each Federal agency is acting in 

accordance with the law and, most importantly, the best interest 

of the American people. 

If confirmed I hope that you too will ask those hard questions 

about how ICE is using resources to ensure the safety of all Americans. Moreover, if confirmed, you will be in charge of advocating 
3 

1The letters of support referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 130. 

2The letters from the unions referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 

156. 3The prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello appears in the Appendix on page 34. 

priorities for your department. You will be where the buck stops for 

ensuring that national security and public safety come first, and I 

look forward to your testimony here today. 

Mr. Tischner, I look forward to hearing from you. The position 

that you have been nominated to is certainly a very important one, 

critical to protecting public safety and reducing recidivism here in 

the District of Columbia. If confirmed, you will be tasked, or taking 

on tremendously difficult tasks in addition to maintaining effective 

partnerships amid both Federal and local bureaucracy. 

CSOSA must tackle barriers to successful re-entry, drug addiction, mental health, affordable housing and job training, just to 

name a few of the challenges. These are some of the most profound 

challenges facing communities across the country today and they 

are only one piece of fulfilling your mission. I look forward to hearing from you about your plans to improve the performance and increase accountability as well. 

Thank you, gentlemen. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Peters. I would ask consent that we enter in the record six letters of support1 for Mr. 

Vitiello as well as a letter from the head of the unions and signed 

by a number of other union heads,2 local union heads, with some 

questions about the nominee. And I will ask Mr. Vitiello to respond 

to that during the question period. 

It is the tradition of this Committee to swear in witnesses, so if 

you will both stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear the testimony that you will give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do. 

Mr. TISCHNER. I do. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Please be seated. 

I have introduced both nominees in my opening statement so we 

will just turn right to Mr. Vitiello for your testimony. 

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

Mr. VITIELLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to appear before you today. As a career law enforcement officer who has served the Nation for more than 30 

years, I am honored and humbled to be nominated by the President 

to be the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

I also want to thank Secretary Nielsen for her support and confidence in me. I am blessed also to have the support of my wife, 

Nuri, and our children, Alexis and Ron Jr., who have supported me 

and I am grateful for their appearance here today, as well as all 

the sacrifices that they have made over my long career. 

As the largest investigative branch within the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), ICE has a critically important mission, 
4 

to protect public safety and national security by enforcing U.S. immigration and customs laws, whether it is combating the illegal 

drug trade, removing illegal aliens who are a threat to public safety, or protecting children from online predators. 

This is a mission I understand well after more than three decades of experience in the Border Patrol. In 1985, I started as an 

agent patrolling the front lines of our border, and I worked in the 

interior and on both the Northern and Southern Borders. Later, I 

took on greater leadership and policy roles as Chief of the Border 

Patrol, and most recently as acting Deputy Commissioner at U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection. Because of these experiences, I 

have a deep understanding of the laws and policies governing our 

immigration system and I am well prepared to lead ICE. 

My experience includes working to maintain professional standards and sustain morale while the Border Patrol experienced rapid 

growth. I helped lead efforts to improve training and strengthen accountability for the use of force, which resulted in a significant decrease in the use of force. Working with Congress, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and fellow senior leaders at CBP, we 

implemented a new pay and compensation statute that saved taxpayers more than $110 million in the first year of implementation 

and added operational capacity to the agency. 

Throughout my career in the Border Patrol, I worked closely 

with partners at ICE, which has a complex, but crucial role in our 

immigration system. My appreciation and understanding of the 

men and women who serve at ICE has only deepened since I became the Acting Director in June. 

Despite adverse conditions that would cripple many other workplaces, ICE employees carry out their important mission with integrity, courage and excellence. Since my start at ICE, I have made 

it a top priority to meet with front line personnel in the field and 

ensure that their voices are heard and supported. 

The work ICE does to uphold public safety, national security and 

the rule of law, both in the United States and around the world, 

is undeniable. During fiscal year 2018, for example, arrests of illegal aliens with criminal histories increased by 50 percent, and removals increased over 13 percent. ICE seized nearly 900,000 

pounds of narcotics, including more than 2,300 pounds of fentanyl, 

which is fueling the deadly opioid crisis. We identified and rescued 

more than 850 children who were victims of child exploitation and 

over 300 victims of human trafficking. We made 11,000 arrests of 

known or suspected gang members, including more than 2,000 

linked to MS–13, and removed nearly 6,000 gang members from 

the country. 

These successes, and the dedicated men and women who 

achieved them, are all too often drowned out or wrongly maligned 

by misleading rhetoric and misinformation in the public sphere. 

This kind of rhetoric needlessly escalates the risk in our operational environment, making an already challenging job more difficult and dangerous. It also harms the morale of our workforce, 

which is composed of people just like you who go to work each day 

to make the country and the communities they serve in safer. 

Like you, our employees are public servants. They should not be 

threatened with violence or targeted in their homes. They should 
5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Tischner appears in the Appendix on page 162. 

not face interruptions to their lawful operations. They should not 

have to bear the burden of attacks motivated largely by political 

and policy disagreements. 

If confirmed, one of my highest priorities will be to better demonstrate to the public, Congress, and the media the importance and 

criticality of the mission to protect the homeland and improve public safety, and why our agency’s existence should not be up for debate. 

Part of that effort is simply remembering why ICE was created 

in the first place. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the 

9/11 Commission identified critical gaps in our national security, 

including the need for stronger interior immigration enforcement 

and border security. To address those needs and to prevent future 

attacks on our homeland, our government stood up ICE and the 

Department of Homeland Security. Eliminating these threats and 

vulnerabilities through cooperative, effective enforcement is as important today as it was when the Commission’s report was published. 

I believe Congress shares the goal of a strong border and an immigration system that has integrity. I look forward to working 

closely with this Committee to address this and the many other 

challenges our agency faces as we seek to ensure the continued security of the American people. I also appreciate the Committee’s 

important oversight role, and I am committed to ensuring the agency remains accountable to Congress and the taxpayers. 

The men and women of ICE are among our Nation’s finest and 

most hard-working public servants and it is a privilege to serve 

alongside them. I am grateful for them, their loved ones and the 

sacrifices they make in service to America. Should I be confirmed, 

it would be a tremendous honor to support them and advocate for 

them as they carry out this vital mission. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Vitiello. Mr. Tischner. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD S. TISCHNER, JR.,1 NOMINATED TO 

BE DIRECTOR, COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. TISCHNER. I thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Serving 

Ranking Member Peters and Members of the Committee. I am 

grateful for your holding this hearing today to consider my nomination. I am truly honored by the nomination and, if confirmed, I 

stand ready to work alongside other leaders in the District of Columbia criminal justice system to continue enhancing public safety 

in the Nation’s capital. I wish to acknowledge, also, that a number 

of the CSOSA leadership are behind me today, and I thank them 

for being here. 

CSOSA plays a critical role in providing public safety, as you 

said, Senator Peters, for those who live, work, and visit the District 

of Columbia. It strives to reduce recidivism by promoting successful 

adjustment to supervision by probationers and those returning to 

the community after a period of incarceration. In those instances 

where individuals do reoffend, timely coordination, which includes 
6 

communication, with criminal justice partners is key. If confirmed 

as Director, I look forward to working with the talented and dedicated professionals at CSOSA to achieve these goals. 

I would also be honored to continue my more than 30 years not 

only in public service but in the pursuit of public safety. As a career prosecutor, I have always done my best to fairly and effectively address violations of the law, to hold offenders accountable, 

and to attain justice for victims and the citizens of the District of 

Columbia. 

I am especially proud of my service as Chief of the DC Superior 

Court Division, where I am responsible for leading the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s largest division in the investigation and prosecution 

of most local crimes committed by adults in the District of Columbia. I am honored to work with hundreds of dedicated Assistant 

United States Attorneys, paralegals, and other staff members as 

we address a wide range of issues and offenses. These range from 

misdemeanor offenses that affect the quality of life in the District 

to complicated violent offenses, including sexual assaults and homicides. 

The Division handles between 17,000 and 20,000 cases on an annual basis and employs a problem-solving approach, rather than 

simply processing cases through the system. Under my leadership, 

it works closely with its law enforcement partners and the community to identify public safety issues and to craft pragmatic solutions. 

Having spent most of my career in the United States Attorney’s 

Office working on strictly local criminal justice issues, I am keenly 

aware of the challenges faced by the entities obligated to provide 

public safety for this community. I have not only been a prosecutor 

in the traditional sense, but I have also worked as a community 

prosecutor where I was tasked with solving complicated, sometimes 

non-criminal problems and issues impacting residents and neighborhoods throughout the District of Columbia. Additionally, my 

service and participation in the DC Superior Court’s drug court and 

mental health court has given me a broader perspective of the 

problems faced by those in the criminal justice system. Finally, my 

relationships with law enforcement, partner agencies, and the community will serve the citizens of the District of Columbia well if I 

am confirmed. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today 

and for your continued support of public safety efforts in the District of Columbia. I also want to express my gratitude to the staff 

of this Committee for their work in considering my nomination, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Tischner. I also want to 

welcome the family members here, and thank them for their support of the nominees. These are important positions, almost 24/7, 

365 days a year. These are serious responsibilities and there is a 

sacrifice on the part of family members as well, offering their support, so I want to thank them. 

There are three questions the Committee asks of every nominee 

for the record, so I will ask the questions and then just ask each 

of you to answer, give you me your response. First, is there anything you are aware of in your background that might present a 
7 

conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you have 

been nominated. 

Mr. Vitiello. 

Mr. VITIELLO. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Tischner. 

Mr. TISCHNER. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, that in any way would prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. Vitiello. 

Mr. VITIELLO. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Tischner. 

Mr. TISCHNER. No. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do you agree, without reservation, to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before any 

duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. Vitiello. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do, Senator. 

Mr. TISCHNER. Yes. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Vitiello, let me first point out I really did appreciate, in your 

testimony, the fact that you highlighted that ICE identified and 

rescued more than 850 children, 300 victims of human trafficking, 

you have made 11,000 arrests of known and suspected gang members, including 2,000 linked to MS–13, removing nearly 16,000 

gang members. That is an incredibly important part of your testimony that I wanted to highlight. 

I think you are also aware, because the Committee let you know 

and I think you have a copy of the letter sent by a number of union 

officials for the National ICE Council. I just wanted to give you an 

opportunity to quickly respond to that letter. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, I am aware of the letter, obviously. I have— 

as the Acting Director, and if confirmed as the Director, will have 

a contractual obligation to work with the ICE Council on all manners that affect employees. I have spent quite a bit of time, in the 

short time I have been at ICE, since June, meeting with employees. 

I have several town halls—San Antonio, Harlingen, Richmond, the 

Fairfax team at Washington field office. I am very interested in 

what is driving morale, how I can improve and articulate on their 

behalf, in this setting, in the media, in public, amongst themselves, 

and so it is very important for me to understand where the employees are coming from. 

The union has—we share that mission in protecting the employees. And so I met with the president of the union, Chris Crane, in 

August, I think the second. We had a substantive discussion on the 

things that I think we can most do beneficially together, and I look 

forward to continuing that relationship and do productive things on 

behalf of the workforce. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. And again, I appreciate that kind of 

general response. What about some of the specific charges about 

potential retaliation, not allowing union members to regain fulltime employment within ICE? And can you just respond to some 

of those, the tweet? 
8 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is very technical, that most of what is outlined 

in that letter happened before I became the Acting Director. And 

so there are a number of things I want to look into. There are a 

number of conversations that I want to have around it. As it relates to union officials, their role is to represent the workforce. 

They are paid by the government, 100 percent of their time, to represent the union. They do that. Again, I have responsibilities to 

meet and adjudicate their issues. And so we will continue to keep 

the dialogue open and I look forward to working with them on specific things. 

I think the pay issue, as you helped us with, in my previous career with Border Patrol, is the thing that is the most urgent as it 

relates to that workforce. And Chris Crane, the president, has specific suggestions on how to get to where we need to be on that, and 

I look forward to a productive conversation around that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Can you speak directly to the incident within—or the prolonged problem in the Portland ICE office? 

Mr. VITIELLO. The Portland is an example—and again, that happened before I started. But Portland is an example where local authorities refusing to help or assist law enforcement officers in ICE. 

Protestors essentially took over the block around the Federal Building, tried to prevent people from leaving the building, and then 

prevented, over the days, our employees getting to work. 

And we did not have the sufficient—if local do not act in a situation like that, when you call 911 and the local police do not show 

up, what do you do? So that thing got out of hand very quickly because of the lack of response locally, and it took us a number of 

days, a week or two, to get the correct Federal forces on the 

ground, the Federal Protective Service (FPS). They are great partners and they did a great job for us there. But we had to amass 

forces to get back into the building, and then several weeks on the 

protest continued. 

And so our employees were subject to the protests and having to 

walk by that on their way to work every day. It was not something 

that we predicted. Since then, we have put steps in place to monitor social media and get better at, sort of protective intelligence as 

it relates to our spaces. There is a regular reporting regime. I get 

a report every day that talks about what threats are out there on 

the Internet, on social media, what we get from informants and 

other agencies. 

And so we have gotten better about our response, but what was 

critical at the time when it was needed was the local response that 

did not come. So we were behind the curve. The whole community 

was behind the curve until we got the resources there. 

Chairman JOHNSON. So the charge is that ICE leadership did not 

respond adequately, but again, just to get the timeline right, this 

began before you were installed as Acting? 

Mr. VITIELLO. We did what we could with the contingency and 

a situation that we had not predicted before. We did not expect 

that the locals would not clear the streets and allow people to get 

in and out of the building, so it took us a while to do that. 

The leadership at Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), 

Nathalie Asher, went and visited the workforce twice. I contacted 

individual employees who were threatened physically and had 
9 

damage done to their own home properties. I talked to them directly. The Secretary participated with me in a virtual teleconference on video with the entire Portland office. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You came in in the middle of this, right, 

and then you responded? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Correct. 

Chairman JOHNSON. OK. That is all I have. Senator Peters. 

Senator PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Vitiello, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI), hate crimes in America have risen 17 percent just last year 

alone. I believe this is three consecutive years in a row we have 

seen hate crimes increase in this country. And I think that is why 

it is imperative that certainly our immigrant community but minority communities all across this country have confidence in the 

U.S. Government and in our leaders, particularly in key positions, 

like the one that you have been nominated for. 

So my question is, are you familiar with a group, Federation for 

American Immigration Reform (FAIR)? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes, I am aware of that group. 

Senator PETERS. Are you also aware that the group is classified 

as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I did not know that. 

Senator PETERS. As somebody in your position, should you know 

groups that are classified as hate groups? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, ICE does not have specific responsibility to 

prosecute those Federal crimes. Obviously, agents and officers 

swear an oath to the Constitution and uphold law, public safety, 

homeland security. Obviously, if we are referred cases for hate 

crime we would work with local authorities, the FBI, etc., to get 

those cases prosecuted. 

Senator PETERS. Well, I asked that question because my understanding is that you attended a Federation for American Immigration reform group media event that was held. Is that correct, that 

you were at an event that they held? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Correct. At a local hotel they sponsored an opportunity for local radio stations to come to D.C. and broadcast from 

this area, and I did a number of interviews with local stations 

about ICE’s mission, about the employees, about our critical support to homeland security and local communities. I think I did 

three separate interviews in that setting. 

Senator PETERS. So you were at their event. So you attended 

their event, but in that situation do you think you should do some 

background checking as to the organization and whether or not 

they are classified as a hate group before you show up? 

Mr. VITIELLO. The opportunity that we were trying to avail ourselves of, in the press sense, was to talk to these local communities. 

There are a couple on the Northern Border. I think there was one 

in Ohio. It is people that are not familiar as it relates to what happens in Washington, what happens as it relates to border enforcement, border security and immigration enforcement. So it was an 

opportunity to reach into those communities in that setting. 

Senator PETERS. Although it was supported by a group that is 

classified as a hate group. So would you, in the future, avoid those 

kinds of situations, if confirmed? 
10 

Mr. VITIELLO. Obviously having more information in a scenario 

like that would be better. 

Senator PETERS. And you would commit to seeking that out prior 

to making public appearances? 

Mr. VITIELLO. That we can add that to our protocols, yes, sir. 

Senator PETERS. It is significant, I think. 

Also, words have consequences, as you know. Just a few weeks 

ago an individual sent over a dozen pipe bombs to political figures 

across the country, and in this hyperpartisan-charged political environment I certainly am a strong believer that anyone holding positions of responsibility need to lead by example, and they need to 

behave with civility and understand we need to be bringing this 

country together, not dividing this country. 

So my question for you is in response to a tweet from Mark 

Levin on September 12, 2012, you suggested that the Democratic 

Party should be renamed the Liberalcratic party or the Neoclanist 

party. What did you mean by that tweet? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It was a mistake. I was trying to make a joke. I 

thought it was a direct message. I was not familiar with how the 

platform worked as it related to that. I did not mean to suggest 

that the party is somehow against American values, and I deeply 

regret that I did it. It was a momentary lapse of judgment and I 

apologize. 

Senator PETERS. So you do not believe that that is appropriate 

language for a government official charged with significant responsibilities? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is important and I understand the gravity of it, 

but it was meant as a joke, it was not trollery. I was not trying 

to do anything other than make a joke, and again, I regret it. 

Senator PETERS. So why is that funny to you, those terms, 

Neoclanist party? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do not remember. There was some context about 

the content on the show. I was trying to respond in that context. 

I do not remember exactly what the premise was. But again, I realize that it caused offense and I am sorry. 

Senator PETERS. So you will commit to this Committee that you 

are not going to use that type of language going forward? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I absolutely commit to that. 

Senator PETERS. Acting Director Vitiello, you acknowledge being, 

I think, quote, ‘‘involved in discussions and operational protocols 

regarding the Administration’s most controversial immigration policy that led to family separations.’’ 

My question for you is why did not you or anyone recognize that 

family separations that would occur could cause a massive outcry 

from the public? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It was not perceived in the moment. What we were 

trying to do, at CBP and in the Department, was not separate families but apply consequences as the Department of Justice (DOJ) 

leaned forward and offered up additional prosecutorial resources, 

the so-called zero tolerance policy. We tried to take advantage of 

that capacity. 

Since 2011, the Border Patrol has been tracking very closely— 

CBP has been tracking very closely the arrests that they make, the 

consequences, or the post-arrest activity that the government in-
11 

volves in, after each and every arrest. And what we saw, over time, 

was that if you prosecuted people where those capacities were 

available, or if you sent people for removal hearings and they actually got removed, that you would see less activity at the border. 

The recidivism rate went down after we started tracking this in 

2011. And so when the Justice Department stepped up and said 

that they would do more prosecutions, we put instructions in place 

to take advantage of that. 

Senator PETERS. But it was clear that families would be separated at that point. 

Mr. VITIELLO. That would have been a consequence. I just have 

to tell you that in most of the venues, when we refer people for the 

Federal crime of illegal entry, when they go to court locally a lot 

of them only go for the hearing long enough to be out of our custody at CBP, out of custody for less than a day, and then they are 

returned to us. And so the separation was contemplated but it was 

never meant to be permanent, and in most cases people got back 

together with their families on the same day. 

Senator PETERS. But in many cases that did not happen, and it 

certainly appears that there was not any planning done on how to 

reunite families as we went through that. It was, as I looked into 

this and with locations in Michigan as well, there was a significant 

lack of planning. Why was that the case? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, we never contemplated having the systems 

work backward, right. So the reunification piece is a function of the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). They have the 

care and custody of the children once they are out of CBP custody. 

And so there was a significant recognition that they were going to 

need more capacity. But nobody in the discussion that I was involved in were contemplating that these people would be separated 

forever. 

Senator PETERS. So if not separated forever, this is a question 

that I have been trying to get answered by DHS officials, is that 

we know that children were separated. How long is too long for a 

child to be separated from their family? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, we would like to be in a place where no one 

got separated, right, but separations occur when, in most cases, before zero tolerance, when the guardian or the parent is not suitable 

to be a parent. They have a violent history or they have other 

crimes that need to be addressed in Federal prosecution, and so 

that requires a separation. 

So, yes, we would like to be in a place where lots of people did 

not bring their kids to the border and try to cross illegally, but that 

is the situation we are faced with now. 

Senator PETERS. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Hassan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HASSAN 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Peters, 

and thank you to both of our nominees this morning. We are very 

grateful for your public service. We are grateful to your families for 

sharing that service with you, and we are grateful for your presence here today. 
12 

Mr. Vitiello, I want to start by just thanking you for visiting with 

me in my office last month. We discussed many things, including 

New Hampshire’s significant Indonesian community. As you know, 

many members of this community came to New Hampshire fleeing 

religious persecution against Christians in Indonesia. They have 

become members of the community. They have worked jobs and 

paid taxes. They have raised their families in the Seacoast area of 

New Hampshire. 

Now, after many years of them living in the country, ICE has 

prioritized them for deportation, a decision that could put their 

lives at risk if they return to a country where violence against religious minorities remains a really serious issue. During our meeting 

you committed to looking into this matter. Could you please tell me 

what the product of that review was, and whether, as Director of 

ICE, you would reconsider ICE’s efforts to deport these members 

of the community? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Thank you for that question. So we are in a situation where, in the past, people were made to believe that the immigration laws, or people that were subject to removal in the United 

States would not be arrested. I have done this job for a really long 

time. 

Senator HASSAN. So let me just interrupt you because I have limited time. Did you do a review of that situation? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes. We looked into it, and the situation involves 

people who had either final orders of removal, and have had their 

due process rights. They are not subject to relief under the asylum 

laws, as refugees from Indonesia, and so they are, in fact, removable. The direction that we got from the President early on in his 

tenure was that no classes of aliens would be exempt from immigration enforcement. 

Senator HASSAN. So your answer to me is that even though these 

people have built lives in the United States, even though they 

sought asylum and they are in legitimate fear of religious persecution and violence should they return to their countries of origin, 

even though they are tax-paying, even though they have built businesses, even though their families are here, and even though there 

are many more people who are actually engaged in criminal behavior who ICE could be prosecuting, you all are going to continue to 

prioritize Granite Staters who have built lives in this country and 

sought justice from us? 

Mr. VITIELLO. We are not going to prioritize people just because 

of where they are from or what scenario that we are having. We 

prioritize like we always have—threats to public safety—— 

Senator HASSAN. But you have not always, because these people 

relied on behavior and Statements from the U.S. Government that 

gave them the belief that they would be able to stay here and build 

families here and build lives here and become parts of the community. And they relied on those representations by the U.S. Government, whether they were technically correct under the law or not. 

The concept of justice does not lie just in technicalities. It lies in 

the way we treat people, and it lies in an observance of our core 

values. So I am trying to understand why, when there are people 

violating our core values in this country, without documentation or 

illegally, we are not prioritizing them and why we are prioritizing 
13 

1The report referenced by Senator Hassan appears in the Appendix on page 204. 

law-abiding Indonesians who have been living in our country as 

Americans for a long time. 

Mr. VITIELLO. We are prioritizing threats to homeland security, 

threats to public safety, and those engaging in criminal activity, 

and are also in the country illegally. 

Senator HASSAN. So you are telling me that you have done all 

that work and there is nobody else to go after who are more of a 

threat than these law-abiding people in my State? 

Mr. VITIELLO. No. I can tell you that, as a country, as an agency, 

and as an individual, I recognize that sometimes the law does not 

do what we want it to do. We are a compassionate nation that is 

welcoming to immigrants. These people have gone through their 

constitutional due process rights and they are not subject to relief 

under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). And so when encountered by the immigration officer they are subject to arrest and 

removal. 

Senator HASSAN. I am not going to stay on this subject because 

I have another one I want to cover, but I do want to say that I do 

not think that that is an accurate representation of what has happened in their case. It is not that people just happened upon them. 

They had been given reliances by the U.S. Government that they 

were in compliance and they could stay here. And they showed up 

for their regular check-in and all of a sudden the behavior at the 

U.S. Government changed toward them. 

So let us move on to another subject, because I want to follow 

up on something that Senator Peters was talking to you about, because also during our meeting we talked about indefinite detention 

of families and the policy of separating children from the families, 

and we specifically discussed the long-term mental health implications of both practices. At the end of that meeting I provided you 

with a copy of a report issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) from March 2017, that stated that detention, and this 

is a quote, ‘‘can cause psychological trauma and induce long-term 

mental health risks for children.’’ 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that a copy of that report,1

which I have with me, be entered into the record. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Without objection. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. So I asked, in our meeting, that you 

read the report, and you promised you would. So do you agree with 

the findings from our pediatricians that detention can cause longterm mental health problems for children? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I thank you for providing the report. I did read it 

thoroughly and I understand the American Pediatrics Association’s 

comments and direction and the import of the report. I understand 

what it means. 

I would like—like I said earlier—that we were not in a situation 

where large numbers of families with children are approaching the 

border. That is not the situation that we are in. 

Senator HASSAN. You, then, are accepting the findings of the 

American Academy of Pediatrics, that detention results in longterm psychological harm to children. Is that correct? 
14 

Mr. VITIELLO. I think any time a parent breaks the law and their 

family suffers for it—— 

Senator HASSAN. That is not my question. Earlier, in response to 

Senator Peters, you referred to children as if they were tools to impose consequences on their parents. They are not. They are children. 

Mr. VITIELLO. That is not the premise that I talked—— 

Senator HASSAN. Well then, you should—— 

Mr. VITIELLO [continuing]. I talked about consequences—— 

Senator HASSAN [continuing]. Clarify your remarks. What I am 

asking you now is will you accept the findings of pediatricians in 

the United States of America (USA) that detaining children provides long-term psychological harm to those children? Yes or no. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I understand the report, yes. 

Senator HASSAN. OK. So one of the most basic qualifications we 

ask of nominees is that they use their judgment to the best of their 

ability to protect our core American values. So could you please tell 

me how you are going to advocate so that children will not be detained and children will not be separated from their families? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, luckily, the President stopped the zero-tolerance implementation as it related to families, so any family that 

comes into custody at ICE, referred from CBP or from other means, 

are either kept together or they are released on alternatives to detention. 

Senator HASSAN. And what I would like to understand, as well, 

is what the alternatives to detention are. I would like a commitment that you all will stop pursuing permission to detain children 

and to change the Flores settlement, and that you will stand up for 

American values, which says we do not bully children. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Again, I would like to be in a place where large 

numbers of people were not bringing their children to the border, 

or sending their children to the border—— 

Senator HASSAN. We are the United States of America. You did 

a very excellent job in your testimony of standing up for the men 

and women who work for ICE. And I have visited with them. I 

have visited with our Border Patrol officials who are wonderful 

public servants. And here is the thing. We have the capacity, in the 

United States of America, to control our borders without harming 

children. That is something that I am quite confident we can do. 

So what I would like to do is move from a situation where you 

and some of your colleagues are trying to defend what happened, 

or trying to talk about the difficulty of families on the border as 

an excuse, and I would like you to start moving forward for solutions that protect children while securing our borders. Both are 

possible. Because we are the United States. We do hard things. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I agree—— 

Senator HASSAN. So do you commit to working with us to do 

that? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I will work with this Committee on changes in the 

law that allow us to enforce the border and have an immigration 

system that has integrity, and I appreciate your advocacy for the 

ICE workforce. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Hassan. 
15 

1The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 201. 

2The chart referenced by Senator Johnson appears in the Appendix on page 202. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you for letting me go over, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Before we move on, if you would put up the 

blue chart.1 I think we need a little history lesson here, because, 

again, what ICE does is they enforce the laws that we have allowed 

this reality to blossom. But back in 2012, 11,116 individuals came 

to this country illegally, as a family unit, and in 2013, 15,056. And 

then kind of following the pattern with unaccompanied children 

(UAC), which, again, I put up the other chart2 and we are not 

going to do it, but followed after President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) declaration, you had 68,684 in 

2014. 

Now the Obama Administration found that quite troubling and 

so they instituted a policy of detaining those family units, which 

led to a lawsuit, which led to the re-interpretation of the Flores settlement, which included the fact that—by the way, I agree with 

Secretary Jeh Johnson, that it was never contemplated that the 

Flores decision included children accompanied by their parents. 

But all of a sudden the re-interpretation said no, you cannot detain 

a child, even with a parent unit. 

So in order to enforce our law, and not engage in total catch-andrelease, which is what ended up happening, you were really forced 

into a family separation. It is what we are trying to fix with the 

Families Act, OK, trying to work in good faith. 

I just wanted to continue to go on with what has happened since 

then. So detention with families intact, under the Obama Administration, actually had an effect. It went from 68,000 down to 40,000. 

After the Flores interpretation—in 2016, the number of people coming here as family units—because they realized now we can get 

here, they catch us, they release us, and we get to stay—77,857. 

In 2017, it is 75,802. Last year it was 107,202 individuals. I mean, 

are you seeing a pattern here? Last month, in October, 23,121 individuals came to this country illegally—they were apprehended— 

coming as a family unit. 

Now I do not think anybody projects that the level is going to 

stay after 12 months, but if it were that would be 276,000 people. 

So we have a problem on our hands, and ICE has a significant 

problem, but they are trying to enforce the laws as they are currently interpreted by the courts. That is what we have to fix. 

So again, I am just trying to lay out that reality, and this is 

about a nomination hearing of somebody who has served both the 

CBP and now with ICE, trying to enforce the law. But we need to 

change the law. As General John Kelly, in his nomination hearing 

said, or maybe potentially as Secretary, is we have to have the 

courage and skill to actually change the law. 

Senator HASSAN. And, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that very much. 

However, my suggestion is we have heard a lot of testimony about 

ways we could change our practices and law that would tighten up 

our border, would have people appear for their hearings. We need 

more lawyers, we need more alternative to detention, and we need 

more judges. 
16 

Chairman JOHNSON. And we are working on that. 

Senator HASSAN. But we do not need to detain children or separate them from their families in order to be secure. And it concerns 

me greatly that the greatest country on Earth is not standing up 

for children wherever they are. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Again, nobody wants to separate families. I 

think we have kind of established that as one of our goals. But, 

Senator Harris. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRIS 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

emphasize, to your point, this is a hearing to determine who will 

be the next head of ICE, and so this is about reviewing the prospective, the qualifications, and the experience of the nominee. 

So that being said, I think, Mr. Vitiello would you agree, as a 

member of law enforcement, that law enforcement, generally 

speaking, and certainly would be the case with ICE officers and 

agents, that a great deal of your power is discretionary. You have 

limited resources and you make decisions about what you are going 

to do, but you exercise a great deal of discretion, in terms of how 

you are going to use the limited resources and how you are going 

to prioritize them. 

And then understanding that, I think you would also agree that 

one’s perspective, and their bias, if they have bias, will influence 

their exercise of discretion, in terms of the power they have and 

how it will be used and implemented. 

So I want to return to the question that Senator Peters asked 

you, about the statement you made describing the Democratic 

Party as Liberalcratic or Neoclanist, which was—I think the assumption there was that you were comparing it to the Ku Klux 

Klan (KKK). 

So you said, in response to his question, you are sorry because 

the words caused offense. So would not be sorry if no one was offended by your words? 

Mr. VITIELLO. No. It was wrong to do. 

Senator HARRIS. Why was it wrong? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Because those are offensive words. 

Senator HARRIS. Why are they offensive? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Because they have history in this country, and I 

honestly did not mean it that way. 

Senator HARRIS. But please talk about the history. What is the 

history that would then make those words wrong? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, the Klan was what we would call today a domestic terrorist group. 

Senator HARRIS. Why? Why would we call them a domestic terrorist group? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Because they tried to use fear and force to change 

the political environment. 

Senator HARRIS. And what was the motivation for the use of fear 

and force? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It was based on race and ethnicity. 

Senator HARRIS. Right. Are you aware of the perception of many 

about how the power and the discretion at ICE is being used to enforce the laws, and do you see any parallels? 
17 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do not see any parallels between—— 

Senator HARRIS. I am talking about perceptions—— 

Mr. VITIELLO [continuing]. Officers and agents. 

Senator HARRIS. I am talking about perception. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do not see a parallel between what is constitutionally mandated, as it relates to enforcing the law—— 

Senator HARRIS. Are you aware that there is a perception—— 

Mr. VITIELLO. I see no perception—— 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. Are you aware that there is a perception—— 

Mr. VITIELLO [continuing]. That puts ICE in the same category 

as the KKK. Is that what you are asking me? 

Senator HARRIS. No. I am very specific about what I am asking 

you. Are you aware of a perception that the way that the discretion—— 

Mr. VITIELLO. I see no parallel. 

Senator HARRIS. I am not finished. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I see none. 

Senator HARRIS. I am not finished. Are you aware that there is 

a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is 

causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants, and 

specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central 

America? Are you aware of that perception? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do not see a parallel between the power and the 

authority that ICE has to do its job, and the agents and officers 

who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion. 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, how can you be the head of an agency and 

be unaware of how your agency is perceived by certain communities? 

Mr. VITIELLO. There are a lot of perceptions in the media and in 

the public that are incorrect, about the agency—— 

Senator HARRIS. But the perception—— 

Mr. VITIELLO [continuing]. And what it does. 

Senator HARRIS [continuing]. Exists. Would you agree, whether 

or not it is correct, and would you not agree then that if that perception exists there might need to be some work done to correct the 

perception? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do want to advocate for the workforce, the vital 

public safety mission that they have to protect the homeland. And 

I think more people need to know how valuable they are to the society. So I agree with you on that. 

Senator HARRIS. So I understand your point that you want to defend the honor of the good men and women who work in the agency, and I appreciate that point, and I know the vast majority of the 

men and women who work in the agency do a noble and good job. 

I am not talking about that. I am talking about the perception. 

And it seems to me that you would understand that when you 

use words such as the words you used only three short years ago, 

that that would contribute to that perception, and it is harmful 

then. It is harmful, in terms of the mission of the agency and the 

work of the individuals there, and it is harmful in terms of leading 

those who are innocent people, arriving at our border, fleeing 

harm. It is harmful to them if they feel they will not be treated 
18 

by the U.S. Government with dignity and fairness. Do you see 

that? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I agree that all of the people that we encounter deserve fairness, dignity, and respect in the encounters with our 

agents and our officers. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. In August there was a complaint filed with 

DHS, and the complaint alleges verbal and physical threats, insults, denial of food, and withholding of feminine hygiene products 

from parents, and these are the parents that were separated from 

their children, and also were about to be. And these parents were 

also falsely told that their children would be permanently taken 

from them. 

Following a hearing on September 18, before this Committee, I 

submitted questions for the record to your Associate Director, asking about these allegations. I have not received a response. So I am 

going to ask you, one, I am assuming you are aware of the allegations, and I want to know what action have you taken then to investigate the veracity of these allegations? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I do not have the specifics on your request. I know 

that if you sent a letter to the office, on the deputy’s testimony, 

that we are going to put that back for you on the record. I can commit to you that the oversight role that ICE has with our detention 

centers and what all happens when people are in custody is something that I watch very closely. 

Senator HARRIS. My question is very specific. Are you aware of 

these allegations and, if so, what action have you taken, as the Acting Director, to investigate the veracity of these complaints? 

Mr. VITIELLO. In this specific case I do not have chapter and 

verse for you. What I can tell you is that there—— 

Senator HARRIS. Do you have any information about what you 

have ordered to do in the agency to determine whether these allegations, which are serious on their face are, in fact, true? 

Mr. VITIELLO. There is a specific protocol when allegations like 

this come to life through the DHS Office of Inspector General 

(OIG). We have Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)—— 

Senator HARRIS. So what did you do? What did you do, to follow 

up on these allegations? My question is about you. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I can make sure that this allegation is followed up 

through the protocols—— 

Senator HARRIS. So you have not done that yet. 

Mr. VITIELLO. On this specific case I do not know the specifics 

of this case. I am happy to get more specifics with you and make 

sure that it is followed up in a way that is meaningful—— 

Senator HARRIS. Thank you. 

Mr. VITIELLO [continuing]. Using the resources that ICE has. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Jones, Senator Hassan has asked to 

ask one last question. Would you yield to her? 

Senator JONES. I would consider that. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I do not believe we will have a second 

round. That is why—OK. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you very much for yielding, Senator 

Jones, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for that courtesy. 

Mr. Vitiello, we also talked, in my office, about the role of the 

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) division of ICE. HSI is not 
19 

part of ICE’s detention and deportation force, and HSI actually has 

little to do with immigration. HSI is a Federal law enforcement 

branch that investigates and seeks to stop drug traffickers, arms 

traffickers, human smugglers, transnational gangs, and terrorist 

organizations. It is obviously a key counterterrorism and national 

security entity, and we have to ensure that HSI is well supported 

in order to keep all Americans safe. 

Last June, 19 special agents in charge of HSI field offices sent 

a letter to Secretary Nielsen asking that HSI be split out from ICE. 

They reason that their missions have been made more difficult by 

the public backlash against ICE’s deportation force and because 

DHS and ICE have consistently taken money from HSI’s budget to 

pay for the detention and deportation force at ICE. 

So I have two parts to this question. Have you, or will you take 

money from HSI and undermine their counterterrorism and national security capability in order to provide additional funding to 

ICE’s deportation force? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So I appreciate the question. We would never take 

money from one part of the organization to another if it meant an 

increased risk to national security. 

Senator HASSAN. So is it acceptable or not acceptable to take 

money from HSI to the ICE deportation force? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is a big agency. It is a lot of taxpayer dollars. 

It is $7 billion. And when you run a big agency—when I was at 

CBP, the Border Patrol budget was like $3.4 billion. You have to 

fund what is necessary. You have to meet the obligations that we 

have. You do so in a risk-based way, and we would do the same 

at ICE going forward. 

I would love to be in a place where the appropriation was adequate to cover all the needs and the mandatory authorities that we 

have to exercise. In every enterprise, you have to make choices and 

you have to weigh the risks—— 

Senator HASSAN. I do understand that. Please understand that 

there are those of us that think that the agency is not making appropriate risk-based judgments when we look at the HSI concerns 

expressed in any number of ways. So I would look forward to continuing that conversation. 

The other part of this is going back to the letter that the 19 senior members of HSI wrote. Will you consider moving HSI out of 

ICE and making it its own operational component, separate from 

the immigration missions of ICE? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I have read the letter. I considered the idea and 

I do not think that we should take any steps in that direction. I 

think what HSI brings to the table, in money laundering, complex 

narcotics investigations, their work against MS–13, relies on the 

agency’s complete resources and their authorities under Title 8 to 

prosecute MS–13 gang members, to clean up communities like we 

did in Long Island, and having those two complementary missions 

side by side is better for America than it is not. 

Senator HASSAN. I thank you for the answer. I think there is a 

way of integrating those missions while still making sure that people understand HSI can be trusted within the community so that 

they can do their law enforcement. 
20 

Mr. VITIELLO. I agree with you and the Special Agents in Charge 

(SACs) that jurisdictions should not be reluctant to work with the 

law enforcement agency that is constituted to protect the homeland. 

Senator HASSAN. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for your 

courtesy, and Senator Jones. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Jones. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JONES 

Senator JONES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of 

you. 

Mr. Tischner, you are kind of lost in this shuffle today. 

Mr. TISCHNER. I am here. 

Senator JONES. Yes. I wanted to make sure you were still awake. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Do not feel left out, though. 

Senator JONES. I really do not have a question, candidly, but I 

just want to congratulate you on a very distinguished career. 

Mr. TISCHNER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator JONES. Seriously, I am a former Assistant United States 

Attorney, a former U.S. Attorney. I have worked with a number of 

your former bosses, who I have great respect for, on both sides of 

the aisle, in various administrations. So I want to just congratulate 

you on that and thank you for your service and willingness to serve 

in this new capacity, and to make sure you were awake during this 

hearing. 

Mr. TISCHNER. Thank you, Senator. I am quite awake. 

Senator JONES. Thank you. I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. Vitiello, I have a couple of questions. I have heard a lot recently. You have done a lot of work in this field on the border, 

through various administrations, and now moving over to ICE. And 

I have heard a lot lately, and I have just got a kind of initially a 

simple question. 

I assume, in your various capacities, you have had discussions 

with Members of Congress over the years, on both sides of the 

aisle. Would that be fair? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes, that is true. 

Senator JONES. Have you ever heard anyone, on either side of 

the aisle, Republican or Democrat, who has said, ‘‘Well, sir, I want 

to let you know I am for open borders’’? Has anyone ever said that 

to you? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Not to me, no. 

Senator JONES. Did you ever get the sense, when you talked to 

somebody, that they are, in fact, for open borders? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Not in this setting? 

Senator JONES. All right. So I guess one of the things I want to 

make sure we understand is that everyone is wanting secure borders. We may have different agreements, different views on how to 

get there. But there is no one, despite what we have heard in this 

political kind of world, that no one is for open borders. We want 

a secure border. 

Now I do want to go back a little bit to what Senator Harris was 

talking about, and it kind of plays into this, and that is, I come 

from a State in which words had serious consequences. And I think 

this is where Senator Harris was certainly going. 
21 

Perceptions can become realities for so many people out there. 

When we hear certain words and we call certain people enemies, 

we create a culture of fear of people who are just seeking a better 

life, who are barefoot and poor and trying to get away from a very 

difficult situation. 

And I want to make sure that, as a member of ICE, that you are 

going to commit to help tone down the rhetoric that we see in our 

immigration debate, because I do not think it is healthy. In fact, 

I think it is incredibly destructive. And as we have seen, it can be 

very dangerous. We have seen things recently where 11 people 

were killed in a Jewish synagogue, where explosive devices were 

sent to prominent members who opposed the administration, that 

words have consequences. 

And I would just like to make sure, especially given comments 

that you acknowledge were inappropriate, and a mistake, I would 

like for you to just talk a little bit about that and a commitment 

from you that you will do what you can, if you are confirmed as 

the head of ICE, to help make sure that the rhetoric is toned down 

and that you, as an agency head, and your directives—all of those 

that work for you—understand that the perception can be reality 

sometimes. And I can attest to you there are four little girls that 

were murdered in Birmingham in a bomb blast, that were a direct 

result of a Governor and a police commissioner’s words that empowered people to do bad things. So I really need that commitment 

from you. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I am committed to working with this Committee, 

working with the larger legislative branch so that the people in the 

media understand how vital the workforce is, and I am absolutely 

committed to doing it in a professional and respectful way. 

Senator JONES. All right. So that really did not answer my question, sir. I really am troubled by the answer, because you do not 

need to work with this Committee. You do not hear any of this 

rhetoric coming out of this Committee. You hear it coming out of 

the administration, and it does it in a political context. I want you 

to make sure that you stand up and do the right thing, and say, 

‘‘Wait a minute. This is not who we are.’’ That is the commitment 

I am asking from you, sir. 

You do not need to work with this Committee. This Committee 

is all on board with trying to make sure we keep things in a certain level. I want you to work with the folks above you. I want you 

to work with the Secretary or the President or the Vice President, 

whoever it might be. Can I get that commitment that you will, 

even if it is behind closed doors and not necessarily public, can I 

get a commitment to stand up to just simply do the right thing and 

to tell people that they need to be careful with what they say? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I strive always to do the right thing and I am committed to do that as well. 

Senator JONES. All right. Thank you, sir. I think that is all I 

have. 

Chairman JOHNSON. I appreciate that. I also appreciate that 

Senator Peters was willing to stand in as Ranking Member. I know 

he has a hard stop at 11, but do you have another question real 

quick before you need to go? 
22 

Senator PETERS. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Vitiello, 

just a couple more questions for you. First off, the New York Times 

reported, on October 22, 2018, that the administration is weighing 

some new policies to deter migrant families from journeying north, 

including a new form of family separation. News reports have indicated that under a proposal—it is called a binary choice policy, is 

what I believe—parents would be forced to choose between voluntarily relinquishing their children to foster care or to remain imprisoned together as a family. The latter option would require parents to waive their child’s right to be released from detention within 20 days, related to court cases, as you know. 

So my question to you, are you involved in any way with the policy planning that would allow parents to choose between family 

separation or remaining detained together as a family? 

Mr. VITIELLO. In early October, as a result of the litigation, the 

idea came out of the judge’s order to the agencies and the plaintiffs, and so that option or that discussion is underway. It is a way 

for us to meet the requirement of the Flores settlement agreement 

while giving people a complete opportunity of due process in immigration proceedings. 

Senator PETERS. So do you support the proposal for a binary 

choice policy? What are your thoughts on it? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is a way for people to have a due process opportunity and remain in custody, and what I have seen over my long 

career is that if people are allowed relief under the law then we 

should do that. That is an opportunity that ICE is responsible to 

give people in that process in front of the judge. But if they are not, 

and they are removed quickly after the due process and the safeguard back to their home, we will get less traffic. I think that is 

what is illustrated in the Chairman’s chart. If we can close the loop 

on proceedings with due process we will get less recidivism at the 

border. We will get less people bringing their children. 

So it is an option. It right now would be in conflict with the 

President’s direction to keep families together. 

Senator PETERS. But the administration is discussing in. 

Mr. VITIELLO. There have been discussions after the judge gave 

that information to both sides in the litigation. 

Senator PETERS. Yes, and I think we all agree that we want to 

expedite any of the hearings that folks have. I think that is a universal agreement here, that people have the right for due process 

to expedite it. But I am not sure how the fact that you give folks 

a choice between being separated from their children or being detained, and then asking them to waive the 20-day period where 

they children cannot stay in detention, how that is going to accelerate that. There are other issues that we would need to deal with, 

as a Committee, and resources that we will talk about, that have 

judges and others to be able to expedite. I am not sure how this 

policy actually does that. 

And I guess it leads to a question that I have been trying to get 

answered. In addition to how long folks could be separated, the 

other question is how long should a child be detained? You responded to Senator Harris’s question that you had read the information related to how detrimental a child is, or the effect on a 

child when they are detained. 
23 

So my question to you is, how long does ICE believe a child 

should be detained? What is the view of ICE? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is a matter before the court. In other contexts, 

when people are seeking relief or they are going in front of immigration proceedings—for instance, an adult male from Guatemala, 

they are out of our custody in less than 2 months. And so they get 

their complete due process rights, and if they have relief under the 

law they are out of proceedings quickly. They are out of detention 

faster than that. 

And so when we hold people and remove them after their due 

process opportunity, it will abate the traffic, like we saw in 2015. 

Senator PETERS. The answer is pretty straightforward. You still 

have not answered it. It is just, is there an upper limit to how long 

a child should be detained, in your view? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, the law gives us upper limits. In this discussion, what we are trying to seek is full opportunity in the due process, and that requirement, and then if they are not subject to relief 

then they are held only long enough to remove them. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Let me chime in, because this is where Congress bears responsibility to determine what this is, and this is 

why we are trying to do, and what I would hope would be a nonpartisan basis, look at the problem, address the problem, fix the 

problem, and we need to make those decisions, rather than having 

somebody who is looking to confirm a nomination on somebody who 

is going to have to follow the law that we write. And right now the 

law is broken. It is just broken because we have this kind of result. 

So again, I am really hoping that this Committee can work on 

a very nonpartisan basis, fix the law so we have something to enforce as opposed to having the administration and courts decide all 

these things for us. 

But with that, Senator Daines. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAINES 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

both the nominees for coming up here today. 

Mr. Vitiello, it is great to see you as well, again. For over three 

decades you have served our country. You enforced the rule of law. 

Thank you for your service. Thank you for your continued desire 

to protect our country in this incredibly important role. I believe 

you have the leadership and experience necessary to be most effective in this position. 

ICE is one of our country’s most critical security measures and 

is essential in protecting its citizens. As you mentioned, ICE seized 

nearly 900,000 pounds of narcotics, rescued more than 850 children 

who were victims of sexual exploitation, and arrested 11,000 known 

or suspected gang members, and that was in fiscal year 18. The 

work that ICE does in protecting America’s security and upholding 

the rule of law cannot be overstated. The fact that some Members 

of Congress have called for the abolishment of ICE is simply outrageous. It is long past due that we confirm you. 

Mr. Vitiello, our country is facing an opioid crisis. Let me tell you 

something. In Montana, we are facing a meth epidemic. I just literally came from a meeting with some individuals in Montana who 

deal with our foster care system. The numbers in our foster care 
24 

system have tripled, according to this group, most recently, as a direct result of meth. The vast majority of this devastating drug 

comes from Mexico. The meth of old was home-grown, with meth 

labs. The meth today is coming via cartels, as you know, coming 

up through Mexico, and it is destroying—it is destroying our communities in Montana. It is destroying families. These effects are 

very personal While ICE Homeland Security investigations seized 

80 pounds of meth in fiscal year 18, families and communities are 

suffering. They are being destroyed. 

My question is how will you ensure that rural States, like Montana, remain a top priority for ICE, and do you have the necessary 

resources to control the meth epidemic that we are seeing right 

now in Montana? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, as an operator I will always tell you we need 

more resources, but I appreciate that. I appreciate your kind words 

as well. ICE seized about 60,000 pounds of methamphetamine last 

year with a value of about $475 million. In your environment, on 

the Northern Border, our best resources, in the HSI context, is the 

Border Enforcement Security Teams (BEST). So we have a number 

of those along the Northern Border, working directly with partners 

and colleagues in Canada, and then our State and local and tribal 

partners as well. So providing task force funding, overtime for 

State and locals, working complex pathways, identification. How 

are these things coming into the country from Mexico? How are 

they reaching markets in the United States. 

ICE has a wonderful capability, that I am very impressed with, 

on the dark web marketplace. A lot of these things now are being 

imported, either across the border or imported, but people start the 

search for these goods online in the dark web, and ICE and HSI 

has a great capability to combat the transactional nature of that, 

but then also to follow the money and the pathways of this illicit 

methamphetamine into the United States. 

Senator DAINES. I would like to talk about sanctuary jurisdictions, places that violate the laws of our Nation, encourage illegal 

immigration, and compromise the security of law-abiding citizens. 

Recently news broke of an illegal immigrant who has been charged 

with triple murder after being released from a county jail in New 

Jersey. ICE had issued a detainer requesting notification prior to 

his release in order to place him in removal proceedings. 

Tragically, the detainer was not honored. This illegal immigrant 

made his way to Missouri, where he took three innocent lives. 

Sanctuary jurisdictions that protect illegal immigrants while blatantly refusing to cooperate with Federal law enforcement are a direct affront to this country’s rule of law and puts innocent lives at 

risk. 

My question, Mr. Vitiello, is how can ICE improve cooperation 

with sanctuary jurisdictions so that the rule of law is enforced and 

more innocent lives are not lost? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes, it is a very frustrating situation. I would like 

to be in a place where jurisdictions could understand the risk that 

they take when they cannot cooperate or cannot honor a detainer. 

What we can do is be responsive to the calls for detainers for those 

jurisdiction that do do that, and then working with State and locals 

in individual jurisdictions to get them to understand what risk they 
25 

are placing on the homeland, and certainly in their individual communities. 

I think what you will hear from some jurisdictions, those that 

want to cooperate, some that do cooperate but they do not want 

people to know about it, is that there is some liability on their part 

that they would like to have addressed by legislation. And so we 

have specifics on that, we can get with you and your staff on. But 

I am old enough to remember—I mean, 100 years ago, when I was 

an agent on the line, you could hand a detainer to a deputy at a 

road stop and that jurisdiction would then honor that detainer 

when they were finished with the pendency of that judicial process 

for that individual. 

That is where we need to be as a country. We need the Federal 

law to be enforced with the cooperation of State and local jurisdictions. It is a risk that the country should not have to take. 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Vitiello, you talked about the Northern Border a bit. You have served over 30 years with Border Patrol, and 

part of that time was spent on the Northern Border. While the 

great majority of border security is focused on the Southern Border, 

and understandably, particularly if you look at the meth issue, 

Mexican meth coming into the United States. That is what is affecting Montana. 

Our border with Canada is the longest land boundary between 

any two countries in the world, 545 miles of which is Montana. The 

threats posed on the Northern Border pale in comparison to those 

on our southern, yet transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), 

drug smuggling, terror threats are still present. In fact, earlier this 

year DHS released its Northern Border Strategy. 

My question is, in light of these findings and your own personal 

experience, can you speak to how a Northern Border can best be 

secured and how ICE will assist in that mission? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So it is our work with the State and locals, our 

partners in Canada, to understand the pathways. Criminal organizations, as powerful as they are, are vulnerable when they cross 

the border, when their financial instruments cross the border. So 

what we will continue to do, through HSI and the BEST teams, is 

integrate into those communities, understand what the discrete 

threats are in each of the communities, and continue to apply our 

resources to hold to account those that traffic across the border. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Daines. 

Senator Harris, after significant but effective arms-twisting, Senator Carper has graciously agreed to let you ask a question for his 

round. 

Senator HARRIS. Senator Carper is indeed a gracious gentleman 

and I appreciate that. 

Senator CARPER. OK. I will have to go to the physician’s office 

after this to have my arm repaired, but I am happy to do it. 

Senator HARRIS. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. Vitiello, in December 2017, so last year, I issued a directive 

that reversed a policy that existed before, which presumed that 

pregnant women should not be detained. And my question, and I 

have asked this before of others of your colleagues, is since ICE 

issued—and I have not received a response—since ICE issued this 
26 

directive, how many pregnant women have been detained in ICE 

custody, and have been in ICE custody? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is important to know that all females of age are 

tested as they come into our custody, so sometimes we are not 

aware until they are already in ICE custody. So the number is very 

small. I do not have it in front of me, but within 12 hours of them 

coming into our custody they are tested, and then once we are 

aware of the pregnancy then they are referred for medical care immediately, and that care is the same standard care—— 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, my question is very specific. Since ICE 

issued the directive in December of last year, how many pregnant 

women, to your knowledge, have been detained in ICE custody? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Let me take that back, and I can give you a precise answer. Very few. 

Senator HARRIS. When will I get that answer, because I have 

asked it before. 

Mr. VITIELLO. We can get you that by the end of the day. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. I appreciate that. And so to follow up, I also 

would like to know how many pregnant women are currently detained. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I will get that for you. 

Senator HARRIS. And also I would like a breakdown, which I 

have also asked for before, by trimester, so how many of those who 

are pregnant are in their first, second, or third trimester. And since 

ICE issued this policy there has also been a question about what 

is exactly the policy regarding women in their third trimester. Can 

you tell me what the current policy is on that? 

Mr. VITIELLO. The very rare circumstance where someone would 

be in custody in their third trimester, it would only be for—to effectuate a removal. It would not be for—— 

Senator HARRIS. Is that the policy? What is the policy? 

Mr. VITIELLO. The policy recognizes that that is the highest risk 

to the individual—— 

Senator HARRIS. Yes 

Mr. VITIELLO [continuing]. And so all safeguards are taken, all 

medical advice rules the day. But if someone is removable and we 

have the opportunity to remove them then they will be removed. 

Senator HARRIS. I am still not clear. What exactly is the ICE policy on detaining women in their third trimester of pregnancy? Can 

you give me exactly what that is? 

Mr. VITIELLO. The policy is that special care is taken in the third 

trimester, and it is presumed that we would not keep anyone in 

custody. But if they are in custody and we have the ability to remove them then we would do that. 

Senator HARRIS. So the presumption is women in their third trimester should not be in custody? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is the highest level of risk. 

Senator HARRIS. That I am clear about, in terms of the risk. But 

what is the policy? 

Mr. VITIELLO. The policy is that you follow the doctor’s orders 

and safeguard the lives that are at stake. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

Senator HARRIS. Sir, I am not finished. Thank you, but I am still 

on this line of questioning. 
27 

Chairman JOHNSON. I think we let you do one question. There 

has been a series of them, and—— 

Senator HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, other people have had more time 

than I have used right now to follow up on their questions and I 

would like to finish this line of questioning about pregnant women 

being detained in ICE custody. 

Chairman JOHNSON. You can do that in written, but Senator 

Carper. 

Senator HARRIS. Let the record please—— 

Senator CARPER. I will yield one more minute to the Senator. 

Senator HARRIS. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

And regarding Secretary Nielsen, when she was here before, she 

promised this Committee that there would be an assessment of 

medical treatment of pregnant women in detention. I have not received a response to that question so I am asking you today, has 

ICE conducted an assessment of the treatment of pregnant women 

in its detention facilities? 

Mr. VITIELLO. A specific assessment I am not aware of. Obviously 

if the Secretary ordered that we will make sure you get that as 

well. 

Senator HARRIS. OK. And so when you follow up, I asked for that 

in May of this year. And then what outside medical experts, if any, 

have ICE engaged in conducting this assessment? And I would like 

documentation provided that shows who has been consulted and 

what they have recommended, and I would direct your attention to 

a letter that you have received, or your agency received, in March 

of this year, from the Academic of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Family Physicians, that said, very specifically, quote, ‘‘The 

conditions in DHS facilities are not appropriate for pregnant 

women.’’ Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. Welcome to both of our witnesses. Thank you 

for being here. Thank you for your service and your willingness to 

serve in these roles. 

Mr. Tischner, I understand you have not been asked a lot of 

questions. That is a good thing, and I will just not ask you a lot 

of questions today, but welcome. 

Mr. Vitiello, thank you so much for spending time with us yesterday and being here today. We may want to talk with you further 

after this hearing, if that is possible. 

I think I mentioned to you I am a former Governor, and I still 

think like a Governor. The idea that ICE has a person of interest 

somewhere in Delaware or some other State, that person is detained by State and local officials, from my State or another State, 

ICE is notified and my understanding is ICE asks the—there is an 

expectation for ICE to come and take custody of the person of interest within a relatively short period of time. 

We spend a lot of money in Delaware on corrections, and I know 

we do in other States as well. But give us some idea of the period 

of time after a jurisdiction lets you know at ICE, ‘‘We have a person that is of interest to you,’’ what period of time elapses before 
28 

ICE picks that person up? Meanwhile, because the local jurisdiction has to pay for security. They have to pay for feeding this person, and that sort of thing, medical, meals and all. And so they 

generally want to get that person out of their custody, back to 

where they belong with ICE. How quickly does that happen? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes, I definitely understand that. We talked a little bit earlier about detainers, and the detainers ask for us, in ICE, 

to get a 48-hour notice, presuming that the department or the jurisdiction is getting ready to release. And so within that timeframe 

we would mount a response. But in some places, given the adequate resources, distances, etc., we would do it as quickly as we 

could. 

Senator CARPER. All right. What is ‘‘as quickly as we could? ’’ 

Mr. VITIELLO. As fast as we can get someone there. Again, it depends on the circumstances, how far things are apart, whether we 

have adequate detention space to take another individual into custody, etc. 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Well, I am going to ask you to think about 

that, and when we talk again I will ask you to come back and revisit that. All right? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Very good. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. We talked a bit yesterday about 

why, in Mexico, why are there more Mexicans going back into Mexico than there are Mexicans trying to get into the United States, 

undocumented or illegally? And I think we basically agreed that 

the reason why is because, in Mexico, there is more hope, more opportunity. There is crime but it is a more safe place, by far, than 

Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador. And that has helped turn 

things around in terms of movement of Mexicans in and out of 

Mexico and our country. 

I said yesterday, where I live we are raising our families from 

Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Given what they face in 

terms of danger and lack of opportunity and hope, we would be 

tempted to pull out and release their kids and their families to a 

safer place, and the United States is probably the closest, safest 

place. 

Give us just 1 minute on what we ought to be doing to improve 

the quality of life, to reduce the need for folks who live in those 

countries to abandon everything they have to make this long journey to face an uncertain future. Talk us to about that. What is 

going on there and what we can do better. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, what we are doing in ICE and in the HSI 

context, internationally we have these Transnational Criminal Investigative Units and that is an opportunity for us to work with 

local authorities in those countries to train and vet their law enforcement officers and then help them guide and direct and use 

their law enforcement resources to improve the rule of law in those 

locations. That is an important facet of what we are doing. 

The Secretary, and Secretary Kelly before her, also is engaged in 

the security and prosperity plan, which allows for our government 

to understand the resources that we are putting downrange in the 

Northern Triangle to help improve investment opportunities and 

encourage foreign direct investment in those locations. 

Senator CARPER. Is that part of the Alliance for Prosperity? 
29 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. OK. All right. How important do you think that 

Alliance for Prosperity is? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I think you have to do it all. I think people have 

to have the expectations that their property and their safety is well 

cared for in those locations, and then you have to have economic 

opportunity and hope in those locations as well. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Chairman, we have actually a lot 

of interest in that part of the world, and because of our leadership 

of this Committee at one time or the other. We are asked to spend 

a whole lot of money for a law on our border with Mexico and I 

think there are certainly places where a wall makes sense and a 

lot of places where it does not. But I think it really makes sense, 

if you look at what has happened in Colombia, 20 years, Colombia 

has actually turned the country around and got people not trying 

to get out of there to come up here, and I think the same thing 

could happen in the Northern Triangle if we are smart about it. 

The last question I have is I am concerned that you may not appear to think through the consequences of President Trump’s family separation policy when you had a role in implementing it. President Trump appears determined to continue to implement what I 

think are ill-considered, maybe legally questionable immigration 

policies that use scarce Federal resources without making us any 

safer. 

If confirmed, how would you avoid repeating the errors in judgment in planning that allowed the family separation policy to 

occur, and if you would—we do not have a lot of time but just give 

us some specificity. 

Mr. VITIELLO. So it was not a family separation policy. It was an 

increased level of prosecution, right? The Department of Justice 

said they would involve resources to give us a zero tolerance for 

people who crossed the border in between the ports illegally. And 

so the lesson learned there is we did spend a lot of time in this 

setting urging Congress to close these loopholes, to give us an opportunity to let people have their due process rights and then removed when they were not eligible for relief under the INA. 

So we would like to have that opportunity, but in the case of 

what did happen, we should have leaned forward more on explaining the whole process and being ready for the public outcry that 

occurred. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Mr. Chairman, one thing I would say, 

I do not know. You and I have had conversations about this, but 

the idea that folks focused on the Northern Triangle—Honduras, 

Guatemala, El Salvador—would like to get out of there and apply 

for asylum, there is legislation that has been introduced—I am cosponsor and you may be as well—that would basically allow folks 

who are seeking asylum to do it in their native country at our consulates, our embassy, and not have to get on a 1,000-mile journey 

with an uncertain future. So that is something, I think, that has 

a lot of merit. 

All right. Thank you very much, and, Mr. Tischner, I thought 

you were excellent in your responses today. Thank you. 

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Carper, and again, I 

think the goal we all share is to make that a legal process. 
30 

1The information of Mr. Vitiello appears in the Appendix on page 36. 

2The information of Mr. Tischner appears in the Appendix on page 164. 

Mr. Tischner, like Senator Carper said, do not feel bad about 

being left out. Feel relieved. 

Just real quick, I understand that your position is incredibly important. We have a project in Milwaukee called the Joseph Project 

where we have are working with an inner-city church. We have a 

pastor, Pastor Jerome Smith, a wonderful man, who identifies people formerly incarcerated, former drug and alcohol abusers, that 

have reached the stage in life where they want to turn it around. 

And so they are able to transform their life through work. 

And all we do—it is a 4-day, 3-hour-a-day training program that 

just instills the necessity to commit themselves to turn their lives 

around, commit themselves to succeed, as well as have the right 

kind of attitude, on the job, in the application process, in the interview process, and every day on the job. 

So I am just going to throw it out there to you. If you want to 

see that in action, I think it would be valuable for you, and you 

are always welcome to come take a look at one of our sessions at 

the Joseph Project and talk to people in terms of how it has 

worked. But give you an opportunity to kind of respond to that or 

say something in this hearing. 

Mr. TISCHNER. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. I would appreciate the opportunity to do that. I know that locally there are faithbased organizations that are also very helpful in giving opportunities to individuals who have been incarcerated in the past—and 

who have had tough lives. Also, I do think that removing the impediment of unemployment is one of many that does make individuals succeed and come back to be productive and contributing 

members to the local community. Chairman Johnson I appreciate 

the offer. 

Chairman JOHNSON. The dignity of work is kind of hard to replace, in terms of people transforming their lives. 

So again, I want to thank the nominees for your past service, for 

your willingness to serve, your families for their support of you. 

The nominees have made financial disclosures and provided responses to biographical and pre-hearing questions submitted by the 

Committee.1 Without objection, this information will be made part 

of the hearing record,2 with the exception of the financial data, 

which are on file and available for public inspection in the Committee office. 

The hearing record will remain open until noon tomorrow, November 16, for the submission of statements and questions for the 

record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(31) 

A P P E N D I X 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 

Æ