U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–437 PDF 2014

AN ADMINISTRATION MADE DISASTER: 

THE SOUTH TEXAS BORDER SURGE OF 

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN MINORS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2014 

Serial No. 113–84 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 25, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 4 

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .......................................... 5 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 7 

WITNESSES 

Thomas Homan, Executive Associate Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 10 

Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Chief of Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12 

Joint Prepared Statement ................................................................................... 14 

Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Brandon Judd, President, American Federation of Government Employees 

National Border Patrol Council 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

Most Reverend Mark Seitz, Bishop, Diocese of El Paso, Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 40 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 57 

Material submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 72 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 74

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 115 

Material submitted by the Honorable Louie Gohmert, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 135 

Material submitted by the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ....... 151 
Page

IV 

Additional material submitted by the Honorable Steve King, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 156 

Additional material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 169 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 211 

Material submitted by the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 214 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 233 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Questions for the Record submitted to Thomas Homan, Executive Associate 

Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ................................................................................................ 242 

Response to Questions for the Record from Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Chief 

of Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 244 

Response to Questions for the Record from Chris Crane, President, National 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, American Federation 

of Government Employees ................................................................................... 246 
(1) 

AN ADMINISTRATION MADE DISASTER: 

THE SOUTH TEXAS BORDER SURGE OF 

UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN MINORS 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Coble, Smith of Texas, 

Chabot, Bachus, Issa, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, 

Chaffetz, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador, Farenthold, Holding, Collins, 

DeSantis, Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Johnson, 

Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, Bass, DelBene, Garcia, Jeffries, and 

Cicilline. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Dimple 

Shah, Counsel; George Fishman, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; 

(Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and Tom Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good afternoon. The Judiciary Committee will 

come to order. And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this afternoon’s hearing on ‘‘An Administration Made Disaster: The South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors.’’ And I will begin by recognizing myself 

for an opening statement. 

There is a tsunami hitting our Nation’s southern border. Unaccompanied alien minors and adults traveling with minors are arriving in unprecedented numbers. Central American minors, largely 

teenagers, are making a perilous journey through Mexico and then 

walking miles across a hostile border environment, assisted by 

smugglers, and coming to the United States in violation of the law. 

According to Deputy Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello, who 

will testify today, the Department of Homeland Security expects to 

apprehend more than 90,000 unaccompanied minors on the border 

this year. The estimated number of UAMs apprehended in 2014 

represents a 1,381 percent increase since 2011, while the projected 
2 

number of 142,000 apprehensions in 2015 represents a 2,232 percent increase. 

It is not just UAMs who are arriving; adults bringing along minors are also coming. Since 2011, the number of apprehended individuals comprising family units has increased from 13,600 to 

42,000 for this year as of June 16. Taking into account just half 

of this year, we have seen a 143 percent increase in families apprehended at the border since 2012. 

The Administration claims that these unlawful aliens are coming 

to the U.S. based upon generalized violence, strife, conflict, and discord in their home countries. It is true that these factors have always played a role in Central Americans coming to the U.S. illegally. 

Undoubtedly, seeing strife in economically disadvantaged countries, along with seeing impoverished women and children showing 

up at our Nation’s doorstep, arouses the deepest of sympathies. 

However, the factors causing the recent and unprecedented surge 

are very different than those claimed by the Administration. 

A May 28, 2014, Rio Grande Valley Sector Intelligence Report 

tells a story that is strikingly different than the claimed humanitarian crisis the Administration paints as responsible for the surge. 

The report summarized interviews conducted with hundreds of apprehended Central American minors and, quite frankly, paints a 

very different picture of the situation. According to the report, 

when these individuals were asked why they made the journey to 

the United States, approximately 95 percent indicated that the 

main reason was to take advantage of the new U.S. law that grants 

a free pass or permit, referred to as ‘‘permisos,’’ being issued by the 

U.S. Government to women traveling with minors and unaccompanied alien minors. 

While no new law has been enacted, the truth is that this Administration has dramatically altered immigration enforcement 

policies. The timing of the change in policies correlates closely with 

the steep uptick of individuals showing up at the border. Apparently, word has gotten out that once encountered by Border Patrol 

agents and processed, thanks to this Administration’s lax enforcement policies, one will likely never be removed. 

Word has spread to the Americas and beyond that the Obama 

administration has taken unprecedented and most likely unconstitutional steps in order to shut down the enforcement of our immigration laws for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens not considered high enough priorities, especially minors and adults with 

minors. The world seems to know that DHS refuses to enforce the 

law under the guise of prosecutorial discretion. The beneficiaries of 

these policies even include many thousands of aliens who have 

been arrested by State and local law enforcement or convicted 

criminals who have been put in removal proceedings and who DHS 

has simply let back out onto our streets. 

And now these beneficiaries include those minors and families 

who continue to arrive at our border and the Administration ushers 

in via ‘‘100 percent reverse escorts’’—that’s a term—into the interior of the United States. Most are ultimately released, often into 

the hands of those who paid smugglers to bring them here in the 

first place. 
3 

In addition to simply not pursuing removable aliens, DHS has 

been granting hundreds of thousands of these individuals administrative legalization and work authorization. DHS does this under 

many guises, invoking doctrines with esoteric names such as ‘‘deferred action’’ and ‘‘parole in place.’’ The net effect of these policies 

has been described by former ICE Acting Director John Sandweg, 

‘‘If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of 

getting deported are close to zero.’’ Apparently those arriving at our 

borders now know this. 

Indeed, Father Heyman Vasquez, the director of a migrant shelter in Mexico, told news outlets that children and families are encouraged to cross into the U.S. illegally because they think they 

will be given amnesty. Vasquez said, ‘‘I remember a little boy of 9 

years old, and I asked if he was going to go meet someone, and he 

told me, ’No, I’m just going to hand myself over because I hear they 

help kids.’ ’’ 

In addition, like so many others across Central America, Robin 

Tulio, a 13 year old, said his mother believed that the Obama administration had quietly changed its policy regarding unaccompanied minors, and that if he made it across he would have a better shot at staying. 

In the meantime, Central American media touts an open door to 

the U.S. for minors and families. Based on information the Committee has received, it seems that the Administration has known 

about this problem for some time. Reverend Richard Ryscavage, 

who serves on the White House immigration advisory panel, 

agrees. 

He stated that ‘‘Officials hid the fast-growing migration crisis 

from the media because they’re still trying to pass a very unpopular immigration rewrite.’’ He indicated, ‘‘That’s the Administration’s priority, to get that Senate-type bill passed. They didn’t do 

anything public about it. They didn’t want to tell anyone about it. 

And now they’re in a stage where they’re feeling we have to figure 

out a strategy.’’ Ryscavage concludes: ‘‘That’s what the Administration is most afraid of, that the border surge will derail any discussion of reform of the immigration laws.’’ 

Unfortunately, these statements show that the Administration 

has made a fundamental miscalculation. Its failure to secure our 

borders, mitigate threats to national security, or enforce our immigration laws only undermines Congress’ ability to reform our immigration laws. 

It was easy to predict that people in South and Central America, 

as well as in Mexico, would recognize a veiled invitation from the 

Administration to send their children and families to the United 

States with little chance of deportation. These individuals know 

that the Administration’s policy of nonenforcement of our immigration laws presents a golden opportunity for unaccompanied minors 

and families with minors to come to the U.S., most likely to be released with very little chance of ever being removed. The Administration’s message is tragic because the journey the Administration 

encourages is so dangerous and results in death, disease, and harm 

to so many minors along the way. 

It is often said that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Unfortunately, it seems that Obama fiddles while our borders implode. I 
4 

look forward to finding out from the witnesses today what, if anything, the Obama administration plans to do about this crisis and 

what solutions could work to end it. I would like to thank all of 

the witnesses, many of whom are career law enforcement professionals, for taking the time to testify. 

And now I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. I had hoped that we could have a balanced discussion about the root causes of the humanitarian crisis we’re seeing 

play out along the southwest border and also begin to identify solutions to this pressing issue. I now see that some have already made 

their conclusions before even hearing the facts. I am very, very disappointed about the conclusions and surmises that have been made 

in the opening statement. 

And the title of this hearing seems to say it all: ‘‘An Administration Made Disaster: The South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors.’’ I couldn’t more strongly disagree with a misleading title such as this and supplanted by the arguments just 

presented. My concern is not just that this title unfairly attacks the 

President of the United States or that it presupposes a conclusion 

without substantial evidence, but that it also dangerously 

mischaracterizes the issue at hand. 

The increase in unaccompanied children apprehended along our 

southwest border in recent years is evidence of a humanitarian crisis unfolding in our region. The facts simply do not support the 

claim that this Administration’s actions have somehow led to the 

current situation. The dramatic flow of children across our southwest borders is a symptom of the real humanitarian crisis that’s 

going on every day in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, 

where most of these children come from. And in each of these countries, the level of violence is sky high and the ability of the government to protect its most vulnerable citizens is terribly low. 

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world and has had 

it for the last 4 years. El Salvador and Guatemala are close behind 

at fourth and fifth. Our State Department even warns American 

citizens not to travel to Honduras and El Salvador because the 

level of crime and violence is critically high, and as a result many 

people are fleeing to ask for protection abroad. 

It’s important to note that they’re not just heading to the United 

States. Since 2008, Mexico, Nicaragua, Belize, Panama, and Costa 

Rica have seen a 712 percent increase in asylum claims from these 

three countries alone. The number of children we are seeing is sure 

to test our resolve with respect to the rule of law and our obligation 

to protect people fleeing persecution, and this is a test that we 

must not fail. 

I can’t help but think of how we responded when tens of thousands of Haitians took to the seas in small boats and dangerous 

conditions after the coup that ousted President Jean-Bertrand 

Aristide. Coast Guard vessels interdicted many of these boats and 

returned people to face persecution without a fair asylum hearing. 

Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past. Although the current situation poses a great challenge to our Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and Justice, we must rise to 
5 

meet the challenge and demonstrate our continuing commitment to 

the rule of law and the protection of refugees. 

Let us also not forget the urgent issue in the background: We 

need to fix our broken immigration system. It has now been a year 

since the Senate passed bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform that would bring much-needed relief to American families, 

businesses and communities. 

And with that, I want to just conclude by pointing out, in the 12 

months since the Senate passed a bill, a House version, H.R. 15, 

has gained the support of 200 cosponsors. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that these bills would jump-start our economy and decrease the deficit by $900 billion over 20 years. And 

public sentiment remains decidedly in favor of comprehensive reform. 

But here at the end of June and another work period, we have 

done nothing to achieve needed reform. So what are we waiting 

for? I’m ready to take a vote now. And if that happened, I’m willing 

to bet that a majority of Members of the House of Representatives 

would vote right along with me. But leadership in the House still 

blames their inaction on the President, saying that he can’t be 

trusted. 

The need to fix our broken immigration system, thousands of 

children flooding across our border, a humanitarian crisis right in 

our backyard, these are difficult issues that cannot be explained, 

let alone solved, by these simplistic accusations and recycling of political sound bites. I am very discouraged, but I will not stop. Now 

is the time to lay down our legislative armor, end the political theatrics and do something simply because it is the right thing to do. 

And of course, if the House fails to act, I fully support the President doing what he can under current law to improve our broken 

system. Either way, America is waiting. And I conclude my remarks on that note. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And I will now turn to the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to yield 

to the Chairman of the National Security Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Reform, who has done great work on this 

issue, as well as Mr. Chairman, fraud and the asylum process, the 

gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the Chairman. 

From the onset, the Obama administration has made it clear 

that certain broad classes of unlawful aliens would not be deported 

if caught within the interior of the United States. This helped create an atmosphere conducive to the current rash of thousands of 

minors, some coming with family members but many unaccompanied, entering from the south of the border into the United 

States. 

In order to deal with this problem, the Obama administration announced a few weeks ago that United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, will expand the number of family detention beds and send trial attorneys and immigration judges to the 
6 

border to address the sudden surge of children, teenagers, and families seeking to enter the United States illegally. 

Unfortunately, the Administration’s plan to deal with the crisis 

at the border created by its failure to enforce our immigration laws 

really will do little to solve the problem it itself created. Many of 

the children, teenagers, and adults arriving at the border are able 

to game the system, our asylum and Administration laws because 

the Obama administration has severely weakened them. All the 

Administration plans to deal with the problem will only ensure 

that the claims will get adjudicated more quickly, and minors and 

adults with minors will be put on the fast track to remaining in 

the United States permanently and legally and with access to a full 

array of taxpayer-provided benefits. 

Unaccompanied alien minors are not subject to expedited removal under current law, and many, if not a majority of them are 

eligible for immigration relief. Many of the minors and families arriving at the border are claiming asylum or a credible fear of persecution. These minors can apply for and will likely receive asylum 

because it’s just as easy to game the system. 

The Committee obtained an internal Department of Homeland 

Security report which shows at least 70 percent of asylum cases 

contain proven or possible fraud. In addition, approval rates of asylum applications are skyrocketing, and former members of violent 

gangs who supposedly renounce their memberships once encountered by immigration authorities are getting asylum. 

Lastly, nondetained aliens who are denied asylum are rarely successfully deported. A minor who wants to make an affirmative 

claim of asylum will first apply with a USCIS asylum officer. Approval rates by asylum officers have increased from 28 percent in 

2007 to 46 percent in 2013. If an asylum officer does not approve 

the application, it is referred to an immigration judge. Approval 

rates by immigration judges in affirmative cases have increased 

from 51 percent in 2007 to 74 percent in 2013. 

Combining these two bites at the apple, the vast majority of 

aliens who affirmatively seek asylum are now successful in their 

claims. This is not even to take into account the appeals to the 

Board of Immigration Appeals or Federal courts. Furthermore, 

family units caught along the border or at ports of entry can claim 

a credible fear of persecution in order to seek a hearing before an 

immigration judge and receive work authorization while their case 

is pending. 

Over the past several years, credible fear claims have been 

granted at ever-growing rates under the Obama administration. 

Currently, data provided by the Department of Homeland Security 

shows that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, 

makes positive credible fear findings in 92 percent of all cases. In 

fact, credible fear claims have increased 586 percent from the year 

2007 to 2013, as word has gotten out of the virtual rubber stamping of the applications. 

This is more troubling because we have received reports that 

drug cartel members are abusing the asylum process to bypass regular immigration checks in order to get into the country. Thereafter, they expand their human and drug smuggling operations in 

the United States. Once here, some of these cartel members even 
7 

engage in the same violent feuds that caused them to flee Mexico 

and other South and Central American countries in the first place. 

Information provided by DHS also details cartel hit squad members who entered the United States after claiming they feared violence when they fell out of grace with their ‘‘employers.’’ In one 

case, two families involved in drug trafficking came to the United 

States claiming credible fear of persecution then began targeting 

each other once they were here. 

It’s outrageous that dangerous criminals are gaming the system 

by claiming they have credible fear of persecution, when often they 

have been the perpetrators of violence themselves. If the Administration really wants to fix the problem, they should enforce our immigration laws already on the books, reverse policies that created 

this mess in the first place, and work with Congress on targeted 

legislative fixes. 

I thank the Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and now recognizes the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration 

and Border Security, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, for her opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is on a serious topic and it deserves a serious 

discussion. Unfortunately, as Mr. Conyers has said, the title, ‘‘An 

Administration Made Disaster,’’ looks like some have made up 

their minds and may indeed intend to turn this into yet another 

partisan attack on the Administration. The facts don’t support that 

attack, and I hope we will be able to give this topic the consideration it deserves. 

There is indeed a spike in the number of unaccompanied minor 

children apprehended along the southwest border. Although the increase actually began in 2011, the rate of apprehension has increased sharply. We may apprehend as many as 90,000 kids during 

the current fiscal year, and they have overwhelmed our resources 

to cope with them. 

Now, in the past, the majority of kids coming alone came from 

Mexico, and they tended to be older children, 16-, 17-year-old boys. 

That is no longer the case. The current spike is driven almost entirely by children from three countries, and we have a chart here, 

and you can see it starkly laid out. 

[Chart.] 

Ms. LOFGREN. The sources of these children coming to the United 

States are El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. And the current 

population has changed, as well. We don’t have that on the chart. 

It contains lots more girls, lots more younger children than have 

come in the past. 

And has been pointed out, and I think all of us will agree, the 

journey to the United States is extremely dangerous, and along the 

way these children could be raped, they could be killed, maimed, 

become victims of trafficking, extorted. Many of them know the 

dangers that they’ll face. So we need to understand what it is, 

knowing what they face that is causing them to come anyway. 

What is so horrible that is going on in those countries that you 

would face potentially being trafficked or raped in order to get 

here? 
8 

Now, the UNHCR, the U.N. refugee agency, has taken a look at 

what’s going on in these three countries, and they report a spike 

in violence by transnational criminal organizations. In fact, news 

reports indicate that officials in El Salvador recently discovered a 

mass grave containing the remains of people, including children, 

who were killed and dismembered elsewhere. 

In Honduras, the Covenant House reports that murders of children are on the rise. And according to the State Department’s 2013 

country report on Guatemala, many hundreds of women and girls 

are killed each year. The report notes, and I quote, that in most 

killings, sexual assault, torture and mutilation were evident, but 

only 1 or 2 percent of these murders resulted in conviction. 

Now, this is a regional catastrophe, and the United States is not 

the only country experiencing an increase in the number of young 

people fleeing from these countries seeking protection. As Mr. Conyers, mentioned, there’s been a 712 percent increase in asylum applications in Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Panama, and Belize. 

It’s significant that there is no measurable increase of any sort 

from children coming from these other countries. Look at Nicaragua. There’s no spike there. Nicaragua actually is a country that 

is poorer than Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. There is no 

spike from these other countries. 

So if the majority is correct that there’s somehow a change in 

policy, which there has not been, that has encouraged people to 

come to the United States, why only from three countries? Why not 

from the poor country of Nicaragua? 

I think also that the UNHCR, which is probably the most experienced in dealing with refugee matters, interviewed 404 of these unaccompanied children and they found out that 58 percent of them 

spoke of serious harm that raised for the U.N. international protection concerns. I remember last year we had a hearing on so-called 

asylum abuse and Chairman Goodlatte asked whether there really 

had been a situation where things had gotten more dangerous in 

recent years. And I think it’s obvious when it comes to Honduras, 

El Salvador, and Guatemala, the answer to that question appears 

to be yes. 

Unfortunately, some have tried to politicize the situation. Some 

have argued the Administration is responsible for this humanitarian crisis, and indeed, the title of this hearing is conclusionary 

in that respect. Put aside the fact that the Obama administration 

has set records in terms of deportations, I think we need to know 

that nothing has changed in terms of the law. 

Looking back at the state of the law, the 1997 court-ordered settlement Flores v. Reno first established that children should be released into the least restrictive environment, because at the time 

little children were being housed in prisons with adults, and we 

found that and the courts found that unconstitutional and wrong. 

Subsequent to that, our former colleague, Dick Armey of Texas, 

introduced the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which codified the 

court settlement and said that unaccompanied children must be released into the least restrictive environment, and of course, the 

William Willberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act that we all championed here, cosponsored by Mr. Berman, 

our former colleague, and Jeff Fortenberry, Chris Smith, and 
9 

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also signed into law by George Bush, further 

codified that settlement, that we’re not going to put little children 

into shackles. 

Now, it’s true that the government is not now using expedited removal to deport these children without an immigration hearing. 

Why is that? Because the law prohibits it. They are following what 

the law says that they must do, and this was the law signed into 

law when George Bush was President in a Republican Congress. 

You know, the regional humanitarian crisis requires a regional 

solution, and I’m hopeful that some of the steps announced last 

week to encourage, even demand the governments of Guatemala, 

El Salvador, and Honduras to take action to prevent the violence 

against these children will have an effect. 

I’m also going to be looking closely at how we detain families. 

The Chairman is correct, we also have a surge of families with 

young children, and we are, as we know, opening up additional facilities for those families to be housed. As the Chairman, I’m sure, 

will recall, in the Refugee Act of 1980, as well as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996, authored by Congressman Smith of Texas, it is required that each case be reviewed 

closely and on a case-by-case basis and that no person or child be 

returned to face persecution or torture abroad. 

This humanitarian crisis poses an enormous challenge. It will 

not help us to face this challenge by suggesting that when we follow the law we are somehow making up a new policy; in fact, we 

are following the policies that have guided us in treating children 

since 1997. And I hope that we will not play partisan games with 

this very dangerous situation. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Without objection, all other opening statements will be made a 

part of the record. 

We welcome our distinguished panel today. And if you would all 

rise, I’ll begin by swearing in the witnesses. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses 

responded in the affirmative. 

I’ll begin by introducing the witnesses. Mr. Thomas Homan is the 

Executive Associate Director for Enforcement and Removal Operations for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security. In this role, Mr. Homan has direct 

oversight of critical ICE programs and operations to identify, arrest, detain, and remove illegal aliens from the United States. Mr. 

Homan is a 30-year veteran of law enforcement and has 27 years 

of immigration enforcement experience. With a bachelor’s degree in 

criminal justice, he began his career as a police officer in New 

York. 

Mr. Ronald Vitiello is the Deputy Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol. 

As the Border Patrol’s chief operating officer, he is responsible for 

the daily operations of the Border Patrol and routinely reports to 

and assists the Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, in planning and directing 

nationwide enforcement at administrative operations. Deputy Chief 

Vitiello entered the Border Patrol in 1985 at the Laredo Station in 

the Laredo Sector where he also served as a supervisory Border Patrol agent and has been with Border Patrol since. 
10 

Mr. Chris Crane currently serves as the President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees. He has worked as an 

immigration enforcement agent for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

since 2003. Prior to his service at ICE, Chris served for 11 years 

in the United States Marine Corps. 

Mr. Brandon Judd is a Border Patrol agent and serves as President of the National Border Patrol Council, representing more than 

17,000 Border Patrol agents and support staff. Beginning in 1997, 

Mr. Judd brings with him more than 17 years of experience as a 

Border Patrol agent. He was first elected president of the Border 

Patrol local in El Centro, California in 2001, and was later elected 

president of the largest Border Patrol local in Tucson, Arizona, in 

2010, where he served a 2-year term. Mr. Judd is currently a Border Patrol agent stationed in Van Buren, Maine. 

The Most Reverend Mark J. Seitz was named the sixth bishop 

of El Paso by His Holiness Pope Francis in 2013. Bishop Seitz 

began his priestly formation in 1972 at Holy Trinity Seminary in 

Irving, Texas, and was ordained to the priesthood for the Diocese 

of Dallas on May 17, 1980. He holds a bachelor of arts degree in 

philosophy, a master’s degree in divinity, and a master of arts degree in theology from the University of Dallas. In 1985, Bishop 

Seitz received a master’s degree in liturgical studies from Saint 

John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. 

We welcome all of you. I ask that each witness summarize his 

testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, 

there’s a timing light on your table. When the light switches from 

green to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. 

When the light turns red, that’s it, your time is up. And we welcome you again. 

And we’ll start with you, Mr. Homan. We’re glad to have you 

with us. 

TESTIMONY OF TOM HOMAN, EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

Mr. HOMAN. Good afternoon. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking 

Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify today about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s role in addressing the influx of unaccompanied 

children along our Nation’s southwest border, namely the Rio 

Grande Valley. Through the whole of government, we are determined to address this situation in a manner that is comprehensive, 

coordinated, and humane. 

On May 12, Secretary Johnson declared a Level IV condition of 

readiness, which was the first step to bring the full interagency resources to bear. On June 1, President Obama, pursuant to the 

Homeland Security Act, directed Secretary Johnson to establish a 

Unified Coordination Group to ensure maximum coordination and 

effort were engaged. This group includes DHS and all of its components, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, 

Justice and State, and the General Services Administration. Secretary Johnson has designated Federal Emergency Management 
11 

Agency Administrator Craig Fugate to serve as the Federal coordinating official for this U.S. Government-wide effort. 

When CBP encounters a child attempting to enter the United 

States, CBP begins the interview process to determine the child’s 

status, review available documentation, and determine if the child 

is accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, we refer to 

it as TVPRA, an unaccompanied child who is a national of Canada 

or Mexico may be permitted to withdraw his or her application for 

admission and be repatriated immediately. However, this is not 

true for the vast majority of children encountered in the Rio 

Grande Valley because almost all of them are nationals of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, and according to the TVPRA 

are required to be processed by a notice to appear in order to see 

an immigration judge. 

Upon determining that an unaccompanied child does not have 

the option under TVPRA to withdraw his or her application for admission, CBP notifies ICE and the Department of Health and 

Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. Once HHS notifies 

CBP and ICE that a shelter bed is available, pursuant to the requirements of the law, it is ICE’s legal responsibility to quickly and 

safely transport the unaccompanied child from CBP custody to an 

ORR shelter facility. 

ICE transports unaccompanied children via ground, commercial 

air, and ICE charter flights. In order to speed up the safe transportation of unaccompanied minors to ORR shelters, ICE has leased 

additional aircraft planes and is closely working with the Houston 

airport authority to have ICE escorting officers fly to Houston rather than making the trip to the Rio Grande Valley where both inbound and outbound flights are limited. 

ICE is also using reverse escorting for unaccompanied children. 

ICE enforcement removal operations officers from other parts of 

the country are assisting and supporting the transportation needs 

in the Rio Grande Valley. This allows for more escorting capabilities, prevents officers in the Rio Grande Valley from breaking the 

overtime salary cap, and offers some relief to those officers in the 

RGV that are working at an incredible pace. 

All 24 ICE ERO field offices have primary and backup juvenile 

coordinators, each of whom receive annual specialized training with 

respect to the unique vulnerabilities of children. Finally, ICE has 

detailed more than 91 officers to the Rio Grande Valley to assist 

with the increased transportation needs. 

In conclusion, with the Committee’s support ICE continues to 

work closely to ensure we have the resources we need to address 

the situation. Together with the Unified Coordination Group, ICE 

is leveraging all available transportation capabilities and resources 

to accommodate the needs of these children. 

Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Committee, I thank you for this opportunity to testify about ICE’s role in managing the arrival of unaccompanied children. I look forward to answering your questions. 

Thank you. 
12 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Homan. 

Mr. Vitiello, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD D. VITIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF OF BORDER PATROL, CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. VITIELLO. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member 

Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the role of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in addressing the influx of unaccompanied alien children along the southwest border. 

For the past 3 years, the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas has 

experienced a significant rise in illegal entrants, including increased amounts of unaccompanied children and family units, 

mostly from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. The recent 

dramatic increase in unaccompanied children is difficult and challenging on many levels. To date, this fiscal year, the number of unaccompanied children encountered by CBP is over 51,000. They 

have more than doubled this compared to the amount encountered 

over the entire previous year. 

Today, there are just over 2,700 unaccompanied children in CBP 

custody. The Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Valley Sector has expanded its enforcement actions against identified south Texas campaign criminal targets and illicit networks using resident and detailed personnel and resources. 

The Border Patrol has augmented Rio Grande Valley’s personnel 

with additional experienced agents detailed from across the southwest border, allowing the sector the flexibility needed to gain more 

interdiction effectiveness, situational awareness, and increase its 

operational footprint in targeted zones within its area of operation. 

These children are an especially vulnerable population while in 

CBP custody. Unaccompanied children are generally separated 

from unrelated adults. They are provided drinking water, food, and 

medical assistance. While these basic necessities and facilities may 

be adequate for a short-term stay, CBP facilities were not designed 

or were services not in place to accommodate large volumes for an 

extended period of time. 

We are working closely with ICE, our DHS and other Federal 

partners to surge resources, personnel, facilities, equipment, and 

supplies to quickly, safely, and humanely screen, then process children in accordance with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and support the transfer of custody to the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement. 

We are working with ICE, HHS, FEMA, and other Federal partners to improve conditions through the utilization of alternate facilities, such as the Nogales Placement Center in Arizona, to temporarily detain, stage unaccompanied children that are awaiting 

transfer to HHS custody. 

The Border Patrol and DHS Health Affairs have established 

medical units at our busiest stations, and it is conducting public 

health screenings with assistance from the Coast Guard and HHS 

preparedness and response for all incoming adult and child detainees. FEMA has deployed field coordinators to assist with these ef-
13 

forts, in addition to several FEMA Corps teams to the Rio Grande 

Valley and the Nogales Placement Center to assist with the dayto-day care and recreation of the unaccompanied children pending 

transfer to HHS. 

I must commend the work that FEMA has done using the National Response Framework in their initial and ongoing coordination. The FEMA team has greatly improved the conditions for our 

workforce and these children. Assistance from nongovernmental 

and charity organizations has also had a big impact on the government-wide effort to address the needs of the children. The additional support in our ramp-up of improvements provided much 

needed relief to law enforcement agents and officers who have been 

and are the caretakers of these children in whatever way is needed, 

including mixing formula and giving of their own children’s clothing for unaccompanied children in need. 

CBP employees are absolutely committed to making sure these 

children are treated in the most respectful and humane way possible under this present circumstance. Our agents have stepped up 

to work this problem with compassion, dedication, and professionalism. They are to be commended. Border Patrol continues to 

work closely and around the clock with our partners to address this 

humanitarian situation, all the while protecting America by securing the border, detecting, and interdicting those who attempt to 

cross our border in violation of law. 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Homan and Mr. Vitiello follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Vitiello. 

Mr. Crane, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL 118, 

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 

Mr. CRANE. Good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Before 

Congress discusses changes to U.S. immigration law related to legalization, it must first ensure that the appropriate enforcement 

safeguards are in place. That is the lessen that must be learned 

from the humanitarian crisis taking place on our border. 

Reports from ICE officers in Texas corroborate leaked intelligence reports indicating that the majority of individuals illegally 

entering the United States are motivated more by rumors of amnesty than the situation in their respective countries. Many reporters have confirmed this information through their own interviews. 

If the Administration continues current policies, it can expect the 

crisis to escalate and other problems to potentially emerge. Desperate people in impoverished countries don’t read our laws or policies and pay no heed to cutoff dates. 

Continued talk in the United States of legalization without appropriate law enforcement safeguards first in place will continue to 

draw millions like a magnet to our southern border. The most humane thing we can do to deter crises like this one is to consistently 

enforce our Nation’s immigration laws. 

Since the crisis started over a year ago, ICE employees in the Rio 

Grande Valley have been overwhelmed. ICE ERO leadership attempted to adjust, but due to extremely limited manpower available had little effect. As a result, ERO employees in the Rio Grande 

Valley have worked day and night since the early stages of this situation. As the severity of the situation increases, however, other 

ICE ERO offices and facilities throughout the Nation are now assisting and experiencing similar workloads. 

By way of buses, charter flights, and commercial aircraft, ICE officers are transferring hundreds of children, family units and adult 

aliens out of the Rio Grande Valley every day to points across the 

Nation. Without ICE officers performing their critical border security mission for the last year, border operations in the Rio Grande 

Valley would have quickly broken down. ICE transport planes have 

been so heavily used during the crisis that two additional planes 

have been leased. In addition to support from ICE’s transport aircraft, 60 to 120 ICE officers from around the Nation board commercial aircraft daily, escorting groups of children for placement with 

the Office of Refugee Resettlement. 

ICE officers nationwide are under orders to be packed for travel 

and ready to respond day or night. From border areas such as the 

Rio Grande Valley, El Paso, and Arizona, to areas on the interior 

like Chicago, Seattle, and Newark, ICE officers are scrambling to 

process, transport, and provide detention space in response to the 

crisis and support Border Patrol operations. 

This crisis is placing a tremendous strain on ERO and its limited 

manpower and resources nationwide. ICE has permanently transferred some officers to the border and temporarily detailed others. 
22 

As ERO’s role in this crisis broadens, ERO is of course experiencing 

manpower and resource losses within its network of offices, detention facilities, and transport assets nationwide. 

As one example, a new detention center established this week in 

New Mexico will be manned by pulling ICE officers from other locations within the U.S. Fugitive operations teams in some areas have 

been shut down with officers reassigned to process and transport 

children and family units. Officers in other programs such as the 

Criminal Alien Program and Secure Communities likewise are 

pulled daily from their public safety missions. ICE ERO’s many 

critical missions, to include its criminal enforcement and public 

safety missions, are being impacted. 

Since 9/11, the Border Patrol has tripled in size while ERO has 

become smaller. It seems clear that few are aware that in addition 

to its own enforcement mission, ERO is also responsible for the detention, transportation, and removal of aliens apprehended by the 

Border Patrol, making ERO a critical border security asset, an 

asset long overlooked and now severely undermanned as it struggles to perform its mission of supporting a Border Patrol that has 

tripled in size. 

In closing, I know that border security is important to every 

Member of Congress. I hope that my testimony today regarding 

ICE ERO’s mission during the current border crisis assists Congress in addressing the problem and helps clarify the critical role 

ICE ERO plays in border security. ERO cannot continue in its current state, drastically understaffed with morale plummeting to the 

record lows. 

We would like to work with Congress and ICE to make the agency more mission ready. In the meantime, Congressman Carter and 

the House Appropriations Committee have recommended funding 

for a single officer position at ERO as is currently in place at the 

U.S. Border Patrol. In doing so, the Appropriations Committee has 

taken an important first step in improving the law enforcement effectiveness of ERO. We greatly appreciate their assistance. 

Thank you. And that concludes my testimony. 

[The testimony of Mr. Crane follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Crane. 

Mr. Judd, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF BRANDON JUDD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES NATIONAL BORDER 

PATROL COUNCIL 

Mr. JUDD. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Members of the Committee, I testify before you today from a law enforcement perspective. During my 17 years in the Border Patrol, 

I’ve seen how policy can directly affect border security. For the 

agents on the border, the latest surge in unaccompanied minors is 

not a surprise. This crisis is the culmination of a variety of factors, 

including but not limited to: 

First, the Catch and Release program. This program is bad policy 

and encourages people from countries other than Mexico to enter 

the United States illegally. Under this policy, and in most cases, 

individuals entering the U.S. illegally know they will be released 

if apprehended. The result is no one is afraid of breaking the law. 

Currently, my understanding is about 90 percent of the unaccompanied minors are being placed with either a family member or a 

close family friend, many of whom are in this country illegally 

themselves. Although unaccompanied minors are still subject to deportation through the removal process, we have to be honest with 

ourselves: Most will never honor the notice to appear in court and 

face deportation. They simply fail to appear and blend into the 

community. 

Second, under sequestration, Border Patrol manpower was decreased by 5 percent. The real-life impact of this decrease means 

that we effectively lost about 1,100 agents. This manpower decrease did not go unnoticed for those trying to enter the country 

illegally. It was a good time to try. 

Third, and possibly the most important: organized crime’s ability 

to quickly adapt to changes in manpower and policies affecting the 

borders of the United States. Our borders are constantly under attack by multinational drug cartels, and this latest surge in unaccompanied minors is just another example. These cartels have a 

well-developed intelligence network and are very skilled at exploiting our weaknesses. 

It is no coincidence that many of the same cartels responsible for 

the violence in Central America are also making hundreds of millions of dollars smuggling unaccompanied minors across the border. 

In fact, the current surge has made all aspects of smuggling easier 

by tying up Border Patrol agents with large groups of unaccompanied minors. 

If efficiency and safety were the goal, it would make more sense 

for the cartels to cross unaccompanied minors into the U.S. 

through ports of entry by way of the U.S. Customs Service. That 

way they can manage uncertainties better and avoid risking harsh 

terrains and inhospitable weather while still gaining entry to the 

United States. 

Instead, the cartels purposely cross between ports of entry to tie 

up Border Patrol manpower, creating holes in our enforcement and 

facilitating their other lines of business, such as drug smuggling 

and the smuggling of known criminals into the United States. 
33 

Make no mistake: This is big business for the cartels. It has been 

reported that nearly 40 percent of our manpower is being pulled 

from the field to perform duties such as processing and caring for 

those in our custody. This decrease has stressed our workforce to 

the breaking point and makes it nearly impossible to effectively patrol the border and fight against organized crime. 

The question I know many of you are asking is what we need to 

do to address this crisis, and I think the following actions would 

improve our Nation’s response: 

End our catch-and-release policy. We need to detain unaccompanied minors until their cases are properly adjudicated. As long 

as we continue to release unaccompanied minors to family and 

friends, this problem will not only continue, but will grow exponentially. Organized crime will continue to exploit our weaknesses and 

take advantage of the policy. We know from experience that once 

released into the community, the chance of minors being deported 

after they fail to appear in court is small. 

We need to follow through enforcing the laws of this Nation so 

that breaking the law carries consequences. Do not grant special 

status. This is a corollary to the Catch and Release program. We 

need to be crystal clear that unaccompanied minors and their families will not be rewarded for breaking the law through special or 

legal status after being arrested. We need to acknowledge that our 

immigration policies over the last 30 years have been, at best, inconsistent. If we are to stop this latest crisis with unaccompanied 

minors, we have to change the cost-benefit analysis for those who 

exploit holes in border security. 

Address manpower shortfall immediately. Congressman Chaffetz 

introduced legislation called the Border Patrol Pay Reform Act that 

would restore manpower on the border while also saving the American taxpayer millions of dollars. This legislation is groundbreaking 

and will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency 

while also saving money. Several Members of this Committee are 

already cosponsors, and I want to thank you for your support. 

We also need to strengthen interior enforcement. We have already discussed how a lack of consequences for breaking the law 

in the form of the Catch and Release program has encouraged a 

new flood of illegal immigration. By the same token, a lack of consequences for those who successfully enter our country without 

being detected is also encouraging illegal immigration. We already 

have laws on the books that, if enforced, will stem the flow; however, these laws only work as a deterrent if they are consistently 

enforced. 

This is a difficult issue with no single solution, but I believe a 

fix is well within our reach. The humanitarian crisis is real and 

our agents are fully aware of the hardship many of the children 

have endured in search of a better life or to be with their family. 

Many agents try to contribute in small ways. Some spend their 

own money to buy toys and diapers. Others spend time with the 

minors in what is undoubtedly a very confusing environment for 

them. 

In the end, the current crisis needs to be addressed through consistent enforcement of the laws we already have and through adequate manpower at the border. We must change the current cost- 
34 

benefit analysis for illegal immigration so the rewards and incentives are less appealing. 

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I 

look forward to answering any of your questions. 

[The testimony of Mr. Judd follows:] 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Judd. 

Reverend Seitz, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF MOST REVEREND MARK SEITZ, BISHOP, 

DIOCESE OF EL PASO, TEXAS 

Rev. SEITZ. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte and 

Ranking Member Conyers, for the opportunity to testify on unaccompanied children entering the United States. I’ve been called to 

serve the church as a bishop, a bishop of the diocese on the border. 

My challenge is to the best of my ability and under the guidance 

of the church to apply the gospel teaching of Jesus to present day 

situations. 

In visiting with these children in my diocese and in their home 

countries, I have witnessed the human consequences of the violence 

they have endured. This challenge tests the moral character of our 

Nation. It is a test we must not fail. Other nations are watching 

how we handle this matter. Our moral authority in the world is at 

stake. 

Let me say upfront that the U.S. Catholic Bishops support the 

right of our Nation to control her borders and to enforce the rule 

of law. Migration to our country should be orderly, safe, and controlled, consistent with the common good. This is why the U.S. 

Bishops have supported the reform of our immigration system, so 

that the rule of law can be restored in a humanitarian manner. We 

hope that the House will understand this call and consider immigration reform as soon as possible. 

In our view, Mr. Chairman, the current challenge we are facing 

is driven primarily by factors in Central America and Mexico, most 

specifically the rise of violence against children fomented by organized criminal networks, including drug cartels. They act with impunity, threatening families and coercing children and youth to join 

their membership or face violence and even death. There are more 

young children arriving, many who are young girls, 13 or younger. 

While there are a variety of ongoing push factors, Mr. Chairman, 

including poverty and family reunification, violence is the straw 

that stirs the drink. Otherwise, it is unlikely we would see such 

large numbers of unaccompanied children on our doorstep. 

Over the long term, Mr. Chairman, there must be a concerted effort to address the root causes of this exodus, specifically the rampant violence in the region. As part of this effort, humane reintegration practices and prevention programs would complement 

antiviolence efforts. 

For the short-term response, we recommend the following. Unaccompanied children should be expeditiously placed in child-friendly 

shelters and not warehoused in CBP border facilities. Families 

should not be detained in restrictive settings but placed in alternative community settings. Their legal proceedings should not be 

short-circuited and undermine due process. Unaccompanied children should be appointed counsel so they can navigate our complex 

legal process. Post-release services, including case management 

support, should be provided to children placed with families and in 

foster care, both for their safety and to assure they appear at their 

legal proceedings. Sufficient funding should be provided to care for 

these children so that Federal agencies do not have to raid other 
39 

budgets, such as the refugee budget. Pastoral services should be 

provided to these children and families, including visitation by 

priests, ministers, and other religious. 

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to relay one 

story of why children are fleeing their homes. In November, I led 

a delegation of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to visit El 

Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico to look at this phenomenon. We met many children who told us their stories. 

At the center for detainee children in Tapachula, Mexico, we met 

two boys, ages 15 and 17, who were clean cut and respectful. They 

had recently arrived from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, a city with 

the highest murder rate in the world, higher than Kabul, Afghanistan, or Damascus, Syria. Organized crime members had attempted to recruit them and had told them that they and their 

families would be killed if they did not cooperate. 

The families quickly insisted they leave and flee to safety. Now 

as they waited for repatriation to Honduras, they told us they 

would not return to their home city, to what they felt was certain 

death. They would try again. Any risk they faced seemed like a better option than returning to their home. 

This story is typical of many of the children coming north. It also 

shows the decisions faced by parents and families who are unable 

to protect their children in their homes and communities. This was 

brought home to me by a mother of our delegation met at a repatriation center in El Salvador who told us, I would rather my child 

die on the journey seeking safety in the United States than on my 

front doorstep. 

In conclusion, I ask you to consider the individual stories of these 

vulnerable children migrants and open your minds and hearts to 

their plight, while seeking meaningful and long-term solutions. I 

ask you to respond to the needs of these children, not to turn them 

away or ostracize them, as Americans are a compassionate people. 

We should not turn our back on these children. 

[The testimony of Rev. Seitz follows:] 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Reverend Seitz. 

Without objection, I would like to enter into the record the following documents: five emails from ICE enforcement and removal 

operations regarding 100 percent reverse escorts, unaccompanied 

minor runaway cases, issuance of notices to appear, and unaccompanied minor daily reporting broadcast message; a FEMA senior 

leadership brief; a DHS unaccompanied minor fact sheet, which 

shows that DHS was aware of this problem in July 2011; and the 

four charts presented here today. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous—Mr. 

Chairman, to your right. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Oh. The gentleman—— 

Mr. ISSA. I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the 

record the emails sent to apparently all Members of Congress and 

their staffs on a congressional tour to the temporary shelter at the 

naval base Ventura County in which it says, no recording devices, 

no questions, no interaction, and photos will be provided only by 

the Government, no photography. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the emails will be made a 

part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
72 
73 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from 

California seek recognition? 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to ask unanimous consent to place the 

following statements into the record: the statement from the First 

Focus Campaign for Children, Human Rights First, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, The National Immigration Forum, 

the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, the Women’s 

Refugee Commission, the Episcopal Church, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and also the chart showing the various numbers of children coming from various Central American 

countries. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, all the documents will be 

made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
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 

Mr. GOODLATTE. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from 

Texas seek recognition? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I am glad that 

the First Focus was put into the record, and I would ask unanimous consent to include into the record a statement from the 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Children on the 

Run, and I would like to put into the record a letter to President 

Barack Obama that mentions that the DACA should be ended. I 

ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, those documents will be 

made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And I will begin the questioning, and I will direct this first question to Mr. Vitiello and Mr. Judd. 

Yesterday White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest challenged 

Republicans, stating that if they are truly concerned about border 

security, we should back the comprehensive immigration reform 

package that passed the Senate last year and is strongly supported 

by President Obama. 

Unfortunately, these statements show the Administration’s lack 

of understanding of this issue. Its failure to secure our borders, 

mitigate threats to national security, or enforce our immigration 

laws only undermines Congress’ ability to reform our immigration 

laws. Further, the Senate bill does not contain any provisions that 

address the problems in current law that would allow us to more 

effectively address the current surge at the southern border. We 

could line Border Patrol agents shoulder to shoulder at the southern border, and it would not matter, due to this Administration’s 

policies. 

Isn’t the point of apprehending aliens to ensure their return to 

their home countries, not to provide them a golden ticket into the 

United States? 

And I will start will you, Mr. Vitiello, and then go to Mr. Judd. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I am not sure—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The question is, isn’t the point of your job of apprehending illegal aliens to ensure that they return to their home 

countries, not to provide them a golden ticket into the United 

States? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is the work of the border control to interdict people who enter between the ports of entry illegally, yes. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Judd? 

Mr. JUDD. The question needs to be asked: why are they entering 

between the ports of entry? Why aren’t they just going to the ports 

of entry? It would be easier, it would be a lot less dangerous. If we 

line our border and were arresting these people and taking our 

manpower out of the field, we are opening up holes for criminal 

cartels. That is what we are doing. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So the Administration’s alleged commitment to 

border security is irrelevant, because the way the laws are written 

and because of the Administration’s credible fear of persecution 

and asylum policies, the more Border Patrol agents we send to the 

border, the more opportunities that aliens have to turn themselves 

over to them so that they can then be released into the country on 

the promise of appearing at an immigration court hearing years 

down the road. Is that an accurate summary of the situation your 

agents face? 

Mr. JUDD. Our agents are arresting these individuals and we 

turn them over, and what happens to them from there? We are seeing what is happening to them from there, but, again, from an enforcement standpoint, if we arrest them and we are just letting 

them go, we are going to continue to see more. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And let me ask you this. While 47,00, according 

to these charts, unaccompanied alien minors have arrived in the 

first 6 months of this year, it is not just unaccompanied alien minors who are arriving. Adults taking along minors are also coming. 
127 

Since 2011, the number of apprehended individuals comprising 

family units has increased from 13,000 to 42,000 for this year as 

of June 16th. Taking into account just half of this year, we have 

seen a 143 percent increase in families apprehended at the border 

since 2012. 

DHS has less than 100 beds for family detention, meaning that 

these families are usually released. Additionally, family members 

of these youth who arrived earlier may have received prosecutorial 

discretion and work authorization. 

To what extent do you think this has caused families to come to 

the United States in violation of the law? And I think maybe more 

appropriately, I should direct that question to you, Mr. Homan. 

Mr. HOMAN. What is the question, sir? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The question is to what extent do you think 

that the families who have arrived earlier may have received prosecutorial discretion and work authorization has caused families to 

come to the United States in violation of the law? 

Mr. HOMAN. Well, I can’t speculate on why everybody is entering 

the country. I defer to Border Patrol, because they do the interview 

of the subjects when they enter the country and they are processing them. I only know what I read. I haven’t had the direct contact with the aliens. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And when they do enter, however, you only 

have 100 beds for them. Is that correct? 

Mr. HOMAN. I have 96 beds. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. 96 beds for, this year, 42,000 people. That is 

kind of cramped, isn’t it? 

Mr. HOMAN. I have 96 family beds is all I have. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Crane, you want to add anything to that? 

Mr. CRANE. I guess, sir, I would just say that it is ridiculous. 

There is no way that we can do our jobs, that we can enforce the 

laws of the United States if we don’t have bed space to hold people 

that we apprehend—period. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And Mr. Homan, let me ask you one more question. We understand that you are a career law enforcement official, 

and we thank you for that. We are just trying to understand the 

operational realities associated with poor policy decisions. 

Part of the White House’s mantra on this matter is that everyone 

is being put into removal proceedings, yet as reported by the New 

York Times this weekend, that doesn’t really mean much, when 

some will wait years for their first court date, then there will be 

procedural moving and posturing that will last years, even if the 

aliens show up for their court dates, which many will not. 

By the time a removal order is issued, won’t these individuals be 

so low on the totem pole for removal, that ICE’s stated priority is 

that they will never actually be—under the stated priorities of ICE, 

that they will never actually be removed; is that the case? 

Mr. HOMAN. I can say that every unaccompanied child and every 

family unit member, our surge with NTA’s and scheduled to be put 

in front of a immigration judge, and so that they had the proceedings scheduled, but it is years out. I mean, there is a lack of 

immigration judges, so some of these hearings take years. It can 

take 2 years, it can take 5 years. 
128 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In fact, isn’t it true that ICE has only been able 

to remove less than 2,000 unaccompanied alien minors per year 

since 2011 as we have seen this surge taking place? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. Last year we removed 1,800, but, again, as I 

said about the immigration courts, when we looked at all the unaccompanied alien children that were—NTA’s were filed with the immigration court in the last 5 years, 87 percent of them are still in 

proceedings. We have no final orders. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

As we have listened to this story unfold, many, including some 

of the witnesses today, say that we can only stop the migration 

flow by changing the cost-benefit analysis made by these children. 

And I wanted to start off with you, Deputy Chief Vitiello, and 

ask you this question: might it not be clear that the possibility of 

coming to this country is motivated by a huge fear of violence and 

death that many of these children have in their home countries, 

and as a matter of fact, an attitude shared frequently by their parents as well? 

Mr. VITIELLO. In the reporting that I have seen, there are several 

factors. The violence and conditions at home is among one of the 

top four, correct. 

Mr. CONYERS. And do you have any reason to believe that your 

organization and Enforcement and Removal Operations are all 

working in good faith with Homeland Security to do their best in 

terms of an incredibly dangerous situation? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So we have done quite a bit to improve conditions 

on the ground in RGV. With FEMA’s help, with some help from the 

Coast Guard, Office of Health Affairs, we are doing the best we can 

given the situations faced there. 

Mr. CONYERS. Are there any assurances that you will be getting 

even further assistance? 

Mr. VITIELLO. We have gotten quite a bit of help from FEMA and 

the interagency coordination directed under the national response 

framework continues, so increased transportation both from ICE 

and from other sources, increased detention capacity for ICE, and 

increased placement or places for placement within HHS. 

Mr. CONYERS. And my last question to you, is that, our staff reports that the number of unaccompanied children from Nicaragua 

that have been apprehended by Border Patrol for this fiscal year 

is 164. Does that comport with your records or knowledge? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I don’t have that number in front of me. I know 

that the number from Nicaragua is small in comparison to the 

other three. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Bishop Seitz, how do we deal with a problem of these huge vulnerable populations from these three countries, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, and have to recognize that from other countries around, we don’t have these same numbers? Doesn’t that 

seem like some kind of a discrepancy to you or an anomaly that 

we might want to inquire into? 

Rev. SEITZ. Yes, Mr. Conyers. You began by asking how do we 

deal with an issue so large, and, of course, my first answer is al-
129 

ways a good deal of prayer would be a good idea. It is a huge problem—huge challenge that we face. 

I think it is so interesting that when you look at the sending 

countries, that Nicaragua is involved in that number. It is the one 

thing that we can distinguish is different in Nicaragua from those 

other three is the presence of pervasive violence within those countries, and so certainly a part of the response has to be that we need 

to do what we can, both church and our Government, to try and 

bolster the ability of these Governments and communities to deal 

with the incredible levels of violence, unimaginable levels of violence that these families are facing. 

Mr. CONYERS. I want to thank you for your comments. 

And I also want to thank the entire panel for the seriousness 

which they approach the gravity of this incredible circumstance of 

young people who are risking their lives and are exposed to all 

kinds of unimaginable dangers in terms of a risk of trying to get 

to this country. 

My last observation, if I can, it is very quick, do you have any 

information that our Government could in any way be aiding or encouraging them to come to this country? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We will allow a brief answer. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I don’t have any answer right now, so—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, if they have answers, they can submit 

them at any time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yeah. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Coble, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman and I thank the panelists for 

being with us today. 

You all may have touched on this, Mr. Vitiello, but if you did, 

I want you to reiterate it. What consequences specifically would 

you like to see put in place to stem the flow of unlawful aliens into 

our country? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So I think that consequences matter. When we 

were struggling with the high levels of illegal migration in Tucson, 

we did quite a bit of work to find out and classify people as they 

were being apprehended and to place them into some sort of proceedings, whether Federal prosecution or administrative hearings 

for removal. 

Mr. COBLE. Now, these were juveniles for the most part? 

Mr. VITIELLO. No. No. The problem in Tucson was much different. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. 

Mr. VITIELLO. These were adults and mostly from Mexico. And 

so what we are working on together in the interagency, specifically 

with ICE’s help, is increased detention for the family units. We 

think that that is going to make a difference in this problem. 

Mr. COBLE. Of course the Bishop suggested it is always in order, 

prayer should not be cast aside. 

Mr. Vitiello, I want to ask you this: We have been reading a lot 

about these juveniles, unescorted juveniles coming to the border. 

When did this start? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I think we have seen an increase over the last several years. This year is much different than anything we have seen 
130 

previously. Typically in the last several years, the high levels of 

traffic would have leveled off, if you will, in the spring, and this 

year it has not. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, has enforcement during this time been relaxed 

as far as enforcing our immigration laws? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It has not. 

Mr. COBLE. Let me ask you this, and I am not sure how I want 

to frame this, but, whoever can answer this. To what extent has 

there been an increase in gang entry, members of gangs who are 

coming, be they juveniles or adults? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So that is always a concern for law enforcement 

and agents in the field ourselves. We haven’t seen a marked increase in the number of people who are gang affiliated or criminal 

records during this influx. 

Mr. COBLE. Because I know much of Mexico is gang infested. I 

just didn’t know how much pour-over there may have been. Anybody else want to put their oars into these waters? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes, Congressman. What we have to look at is most 

of these unaccompanied minors, they are coming across and they 

are giving themselves up. The gang members don’t come across and 

give themselves up. So what we are seeing in influx is unaccompanied minors. There very well could be an influx of gang members. Unfortunately, because our workforce is so stressed and we 

are creating the holes, it is becoming much easier to smuggle those 

that would do harm to our country through the holes that are being 

created. 

Again, the question has to be asked: why aren’t they presenting 

themselves at ports of entry, at secure locations instead of going 

through dangerous desert terrain, across rivers, over fences? They 

could easily go to the ports of entry and present themselves there, 

ask for asylum, and receive the exact same thing that they would 

be getting through going through the desert, but they are not doing 

that. They are going through the desert and they are stressing our 

resources. 

Mr. COBLE. I am wondering if the parents of these juveniles were 

told, send your kids to America, we will take care of them, and 

then they relied upon this to their detriment. Anybody know anything, any more details about that, whether they were told, when 

they were told, if they were told? Bishop, do you? 

Rev. SEITZ. I am sure that some folks, the coyotes, the ones who 

bring them across, have been building up that possibility, there is 

no question about that, but, again, from what we have seen and 

heard, the main reason that they are deciding to leave and still 

face the tremendous dangers that they face on the journey is because they don’t feel they have any other choice, because of the violence. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. Thank the gentlemen. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Recognizes the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Before I start my questions, let me first 

express my dismay at the title of this hearing, ‘‘An AdministrationMade Disaster: The South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied 
131 

Alien Minors.’’ It shows what a farce it is. You announce the conclusion before the inquiry. We are here, presumably, if we are here 

for any purpose other than politics, to find out what is going on 

and why we have this surge at the border, but the conclusion is announced in the title. 

Now, the conclusion, I believe, is wrong, but nonetheless, a proper title for the hearing might be, A Disaster, or A Problem: The 

South Texas Border Surge of Unaccompanied Alien Minors, instead 

of saying it is the Administration’s fault to start with. Now, maybe 

it is. I don’t think so, but that is the conclusion. And it is wrong 

to have a hearing with a conclusion announced before you start the 

testimony. 

Bishop Seitz, we have heard today and you have talked about the 

dismaying violence that is propelling these kids to come here, 

through danger to come here, et cetera. We have also heard that 

the immigration policies of the Obama administration, particularly 

its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, is responsible for 

the recent wave of unaccompanied alien children fleeing to the 

United States, that these kids are making a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis, and with their sophisticated understanding of American policy, they are determining that, well, if I get into the United 

States, I probably won’t have a hearing for a few years and I probably will be in a bed somewhere, so I might as well trek across the 

desert and come here. 

How would you respond to the assertion that what is causing 

this surge in kids coming here unaccompanied is the Administration’s policies, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, as opposed 

to the violence in these countries that we hear about? 

Rev. SEITZ. Well, from what I have seen, there hasn’t been a significant change in recent months in Administration policy, as far 

as I know. What has changed, it appears, is the violence on the 

ground in these countries. 

In Honduras, if you can imagine this, the population of the country is something like 8 million; the number of children being killed 

each month has been in the last couple of years around 70 children; 

in the month of May, it was 102. 

And so it seems that gangs and narcotraffickers are choosing to 

target children and to try and co-opt them into their gangs to cooperate in their work. 

Mr. NADLER. So these kids are fleeing in terror, in effect? 

Rev. SEITZ. Exactly. 

Mr. NADLER. Now, are we seeing an increase, a similar increase 

in unaccompanied youth fleeing these three countries for other 

countries just to get out of there? 

Rev. SEITZ. Well, that is what one would expect if it were simply 

owing to poverty and then an Administration invitation, but as I 

mentioned and what others did as well, Nicaragua, which is perhaps even poorer than those other countries that are senders, has 

not seen a change in—— 

Mr. NADLER. No, no. You misunderstood my question. From the 

three countries where the violence is—— 

Rev. SEITZ. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER [continuing]. Have we seen an increase in kids fleeing there for places other than the United States? 
132 

Rev. SEITZ. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, we have. We have seen huge increases. I believe the chart that was up earlier, I don’t see where 

it went to, shows that, that countries that are receiving, such as 

Panama, Belize, Nicaragua itself, are receiving many more—— 

Mr. NADLER. Many more. 

Rev. SEITZ [continuing]. Asylum seekers. 

Mr. NADLER. And this would be consistent—— 

Rev. SEITZ. I think it is up 400 some percent. 

Mr. NADLER. This should be consistent with the conclusion that 

this increase in kids coming across, coming here as well as other 

places is because of the violence, not because of any Administration 

policy. 

Let me ask Mr. Vitiello or Mr. Crane, would you say anything 

to disagree with what Bishop Seitz was just discussing? Is there 

any evidence—well, why should we not reach the conclusion that 

this increase in kids, unaccompanied kids coming to the border and 

presenting themselves to the border, not trying to sneak across the 

border, presenting themselves to the border guards, why should we 

not believe that this is because of violence and that it is because 

instead of some Administration policy and something else? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Violence is one of the contributing factors, but 

there has been some confusion reported by the media in these locations, that there is some benefit to be had in the United States. 

That is why it is important, I think—— 

Mr. NADLER. And that explains why they are going to other countries, too? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I am not sure, but I think it is important to recognize that the Secretary did write an opinion piece for an editorial 

to the families of people in these countries to tell them that there 

isn’t this benefit that maybe smugglers, maybe others, maybe the 

media is promoting that don’t exist. 

Mr. NADLER. Is there any real evidence, Mr. Crane or Mr. 

Vitiello—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. NADLER. Can I finish this question? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You can finish the question. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Very quickly. 

Mr. NADLER. My question is, the entire premise of this hearing 

is that it is Administration policy on Deferred Action for Childhood 

Arrivals that is causing this problem. 

Are you aware of any evidence that it is that as opposed to violence in the sending countries? 

Mr. JUDD. I work for the Border Patrol, so we are the ones that 

arrest them upfront. What we have to do is we have to interview 

these individuals that we arrest, and one of the things that we 

have to ask, especially if they ask for asylum, we have to ask what 

is the credible fear, and oftentimes they will tell us that they are 

coming here to be reunited with their family or they have been told 

that they’ll be released if they come. 

So, yes, in the initial interviews that take place with the agents 

and those people that we arrest, they are telling us that they are— 

they are coming here because radio is telling them that if they 

come, they will be released, the churches are telling them if they 
133 

come, they will be released, and other organizations are advertising. These are the initial interviews that are taking place, and 

they are documented. These interviews are documented. They are 

a matter of record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair announces that there is a series of votes on the floor. 

The Committee will reconvene immediately following the votes, but 

we have time to get one more Member’s questions in. 

So the Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, 

Mr. Bachus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BACHUS. I appreciate that. 

Bishop Seitz, I have worked very closely with the Catholic church 

on debt relief and Jubilee and had the debt relief bill in the House, 

and I have actually spoken out for legalization of 12 million immigrants that are here, I have spoken out for the need to have some 

pathway to citizenship for our dreamers, I have criticized the Alabama bill, I was probably one of the only public officials that criticized it as being an overreach, so I think I have established at least 

an immigrant friendly position, and I very much sympathize with 

them. We are a country of immigrants. 

I am curious, these children are coming from Honduras, Guatemala, I guess El Salvador and some from Mexico, but the Catholic 

church obviously, and I think you-all offer more—I think your 

statement, you are the largest refugee resettlement agency in the 

world. Is the church undertaking any effort to discourage these 

children from taking these long journeys, or others? Are you speaking out in these countries, the church, the Bishops, the fathers? 

Rev. SEITZ. Very much so. During our mission to Central America in November, we spoke to many groups that are working with 

the children, with the youth in these areas, and their universal 

message is don’t go, and that is personally a message that I have 

conveyed when I have been there speaking to young people. 

We really want to do what we can to stabilize their situation 

there. There is a program, I believe it is organized by Catholic Relief Services called Youth Builders, which is working directly to 

help children who are at risk for fleeing to be able to stay, and 

they’ve been very successful. 

Mr. BACHUS. And, I think even speaking out against the drug 

trafficking, the violence, the church, I think, would be very effective 

in doing that, because I don’t think whether you’re pro-immigration, anti-immigration, you don’t want these children being sent 

unaccompanied. 

Even with the Governments, I don’t know if the Catholic Church 

in countries like Mexico, these countries, they have quite a bit of 

political clout, even going to the president of Mexico and saying, 

you are allowing trains to come here, freight trains just with children hanging off the tops. That could be stopped. I mean, I would 

think just a minimal Government effort could stop a lot of that. I 

mean, I can’t imagine the Mexican Government not being able to 

stop children on their border. I know some of this is just a force 

and a demographic. 

Rev. SEITZ. Yeah. We certainly don’t encourage them to make the 

journey. At the same time, I think we have to recognize that if 
134 

these children feel that their life is in danger, they may well feel 

like a person—— 

Mr. BACHUS. But are there—are there ways—— 

Rev. SEITZ [continuing]. Trying to get out of a burning building. 

Mr. BACHUS. Are there ways to offer those children a place of refuge within those countries where the Catholic church has a large 

presence, I mean, in convents and in places, we have boys, girls 

ranches here, places of that nature? 

Rev. SEITZ. We have a large presence, but unfortunately limited 

resources. We are trying to do the best that we can with the resources we have. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, that is what he was saying wouldn’t they be 

safer if they stayed in Honduras and El Salvador. I wish the 

church, and I am not speaking—I wish we all would say, is there 

a way to stabilize the situation there. I really think—and, if they 

make it to the United States, you offer them shelter and refuge. 

That almost in a way, and I know it is not your intention, but does 

that create somewhat of a magnet? 

Rev. SEITZ. When they arrive to the United States, I don’t think 

we can say, ‘‘I am not going to show you compassion. I am going 

to leave you on the street’’—— 

Mr. BACHUS. Sure. 

Rev. SEITZ [continuing]. ’’Because I don’t want to encourage anyone else.’’ 

Mr. BACHUS. Yeah. 

Rev. SEITZ. We have to care for the situation as it is at—and 

those children in need. 

Mr. BACHUS. I would just encourage you, because they are going 

to continue to do so, that there needs to be an effort, and I know 

I am speaking to the choir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to 

submit for the record from ICE, an escort services for unaccompanied alien children solicitation BERKS RFI, noting that they are 

expecting 65,000 unaccompanied children in the months ahead? 

This was in January of this year. I would ask that it would be submitted into the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, it will be made a part of the 

record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And the Committee will stand in recess until 

the conclusion of this series of five votes. 

For the witnesses, I would advise I expect it to be 45, 50 minutes, so make yourselves comfortable, you can go get something to 

drink or whatever, but we will reconvene probably close to 4:00, 

4:30. 

The Committee will stand in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. ISSA [presiding]. In order to be respectful of all of your time, 

I am going to recognize Mr. Scott and allow him to continue. Thank 

you for your patience. 

The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr.SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Homan, has any law changed that created the situation we 

are in? 

Mr. HOMAN. What law are you referring to, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, we have a new situation. Was that because of 

any change in the law, just change in circumstances? I mean, the 

children are showing up. 

Mr. HOMAN. The law has not changed. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Now, when a child shows up and is apprehended, what sanction does the law now provide? 

Mr. HOMAN. When the child is apprehended by the Border Patrol, they process the child, look at documentation to identify the 

child. If they identify that child as being unaccompanied, which 

means he is not in the presence of a parent or legal guardian, then 

either Border Patrol or ICE will contact Health and Human Services and advise them that we have an unaccompanied alien child. 

We have 72 hours to turn them over to the custody of ORR. My 

office, per the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, requires that ICE 

transport that child from CBP custody to a bed that is identified 

by HHS. 

Not only is it within the TVPRA that we are required to do that 

by law, it is also in my appropriations. I am appropriated for the 

transportation of aliens, which includes, and even delineates that, 

includes the transportation of unaccompanied alien children. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is each child entitled to an individualized hearing? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. And are they entitled to lawyers? 

Mr. HOMAN. Pardon me? 

Mr. SCOTT. Do they have lawyers? 

Mr. HOMAN. Most of them do not. 

Mr. SCOTT. They have a right to a lawyer; is that right? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yeah. They have a right to a lawyer at their own 

expense. 

Mr. SCOTT. But if they can’t afford it, no lawyer is provided? 

Mr. HOMAN. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, you have to ascertain whether or not they are 

victims of trafficking. Is that right? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. I will defer to Border Patrol, that is part of 

their processing and review that Border Patrol does with each 

UAC. 

Mr. SCOTT. And when do you ascertain whether or not they are 

actually entitled to political asylum? 
141 

Mr. HOMAN. I will defer that to the Border Patrol. 

Mr. SCOTT. Border Patrol? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So, in the screening that the Border Patrol does 

onsite, they are screening for credible fear. And then if there is an 

indication of credible fear, then the matter is referred to the asylum officers at Citizenship and Immigration Services, also of the 

Department, but it would move to their venue. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what happens in that venue? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So as I understand it, then those officers will review and do an interview to define whether or not credible fear exists or there is a likelihood that credible fear exists and then they 

will refer the person to an asylum hearing. 

Mr. SCOTT. And how long does the asylum hearing take? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I am not familiar with that. They are referred to 

the immigration court for that purpose. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, does Border Patrol and immigration, do you 

have enough resources to process all these children that are showing up? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So, we are, in fact, processing them rather quickly, 

given their age and the circumstance and—yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. But the present law provides that you find a suitable 

placement for each one? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Right. So, we were there on Friday, we were in the 

RGV Friday where this problem is most acute, and we heard from 

the folks on the ground that are doing this work that they can 

process within the first 20 hours or so, and then the rest of the 

time that they are in our custody is waiting for suitable space to 

send them to. 

Mr. SCOTT. Are the children entitled to protection under the Prison Rape Elimination Act? 

Mr. VITIELLO. They are. 

Mr. SCOTT. They are? Wherever they are placed? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that your understanding, Mr. Homan? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [presiding]. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Issa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chief Vitiello, let me ask a couple of questions following up on 

Mr. Bobby Scott’s questions. If someone tells you their name, do 

you have any way to verify it for a 13 year old who simply says, 

this is my name. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, agents will use their experience. If the person has documents or some—— 

Mr. ISSA. Right. But if they have no documents, they simply say, 

I am Joe. 

Mr. VITIELLO. So, unless they have a prior history in the 

U.S.—— 

Mr. ISSA. So if their prints aren’t on file, and they tell you a 

name, you have to accept the name. Do you know their age other 

than guessing it, because they tell you their age. Is that correct? 
142 

Mr. VITIELLO. Again, if they have other documentation, et cetera, 

then we can verify that, but—— 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Mr. VITIELLO [continuing]. But it is essentially an interview done 

by law enforcement—— 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. 

Mr. VITIELLO [continuing]. Professionals. 

Mr. ISSA. You say you do your best on trafficking, but if they are 

from countries where people have put a gun to their parents’ head, 

they are going to do their best to not have their parents killed by 

their not getting through, so they are going to lie about being victims of traffic; isn’t that correct? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I am not sure I understand. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, the minority would have you believe and the Reverend would have you believe that people come here only because 

they are trying to escape this murderous violence that seems to 

exist in every country but Detroit, Michigan. 

So the question is, you are trying to, and I appreciate you are 

trying to figure it out, but you really don’t know if they are victims 

of trafficking. Now, if they don’t have tattoos and they have never 

been identified with fingerprints, you don’t know if they are gang 

members coming to this country or in some other way coming here 

to commit crimes; is that correct? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So agents can try to verify whether or not, I mean, 

based—— 

Mr. ISSA. No. Look, and I appreciate it. I work with the Border 

Patrol a lot. The fact is I appreciate everything you are trying to 

do. I am just trying to ascertain, with the President willfully and 

deliberately forcing into this country a vast amount of people that 

you are trying to look through and do the best you can, how you 

are being swamped and what your limitations are. 

Now, what bio identification are you taking from a 1-year-old, 5- 

year-old, 10-year-old, 15-year-old person? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So that is all based on interview. That is all, like 

a—— 

Mr. ISSA. A bio identification. 

Mr. VITIELLO. For—— 

Mr. ISSA. Fingerprints? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Under 14, no. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So if I am under 14 and I say I am under 14 

and I look under 14, and I am a gang member that has been deported, you don’t know that, because you are not taking his fingerprints. If I am under 14 and I am being trafficked, you can only 

hope that you can spot the fear to find out whether or not they are 

actually being brought here for illicit purposes by somebody who 

says that they are an accompanying parent. 

All that is true, and you are taking no bio information. So the 

truth is these people can disappear completely, and the name and 

statement they gave is of no value, because you have no markers 

to then recover Jose or Jane or whoever who says, ‘‘I am 13. I am 

coming here and this is my name.’’ At the point that you turn them 

over, you no longer have any ability to bring them back, because 

you have no identification; isn’t that true? 

Mr. VITIELLO. It is much harder that way. 
143 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So children are, in fact, a very useful tool for an 

adult to bring in, because you don’t have any identification for 

them, and if they simply say—if they grab a 12 year old or a 13 

year old and say, ‘‘I will get you over the border, you get me over 

the border. Just tell them I am your mom,’’ they can do that, and 

you really have no protection against that; isn’t that true? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I assume that is possible. That is not what we are 

seeing currently. 

Mr. ISSA. What you are seeing is a flood of illegals coming here 

prepped to say whatever they need to say to get to stay here, because the President of the United States has told them in no uncertain terms if they get here, he won’t enforce the law, or he won’t 

allow you to enforce the law strictly; isn’t that true? 

Mr. VITIELLO. That is not reflected in the reporting that I have 

seen. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, let’s look at these numbers. The numbers are skyrocketing. Is there dramatic new violence in the areas these people 

are coming from, dramatic new violence, or, in fact, are they coming from areas like Guatemala, where violence is down, isn’t it? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So the reports that we see have a variety of things. 

There is about four major factors. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, can anyone else answer the question I asked? Is 

violence down in Guatemala and are people coming in larger numbers? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I am not specifically aware of the rates of violence. 

Mr. ISSA. Right. Anyone else can answer that question? Is there 

anyone that can answer the question of, is there any proven correlation between violence and people and where they are coming 

from? Because I can tell you one thing, and I have a lot of people 

who are first, second and third generation who came in on Bracero 

programs and so on who worked with me for years, and they are 

friends and I have been to their weddings, they do not come from 

the poorest areas of Mexico; they come from the areas of Mexico 

that came before them, they come because they have association. 

So I would say to you that until you prove it to this Committee, 

we cannot accept the link that you are claiming between some violence and this refugee status versus the link between the President’s not enforcing the law, not living up to his responsibility, not 

letting you live up to his responsibility, and this carnage that can 

occur when children are pushed over the border, in some cases left 

in the desert. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this important hearing, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a note. Mr. Judd, you mentioned that there was a catch and 

release policy and I just wanted to note for the record that this 

isn’t a policy, it is the law, and has been the law since 1997 when 

we had the Flores case settled and then Dick Armey’s bill in 2002 

that was enacted into law, signed by President Bush, and then reinforced in the 2008 statute. So it is not just some random decision. 

It is required by law. 
144 

I wanted to ask you, Mr. Vitiello, you have been in the Border 

Patrol for 29 years, so I think you probably have a pretty good 

sense of how all of this works now as compared to past years, and 

I have no doubt that the number of children arriving each day is 

likely placing a strain on Border Patrol agents and facilities, but 

would you say the situation evidences a security problem necessarily? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, in the reports that we got Friday when we 

were there, it was clear to me that based on the reporting that is 

available locally in Rio Grande Valley, that most of the family 

units and the children are coming out of a couple of zones along 

the southwest border. We break down the operational area by 

zones, and, in fact, in Rio Grande Valley, most of this traffic is 

coming out of a couple of zones there, and by and large, the traffic 

is seeking out agents, not the reverse. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So—— 

Mr. VITIELLO. So people are coming up to these agents. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So people are coming up and they are trying to 

find you to give themselves up? 

Mr. VITIELLO. That was what we heard Friday. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And then make their, whatever claim. I would 

note just for the record that when someone comes and appears, and 

again, this is not a new policy, this is in the law that the Congress 

created; there are several ways to comply with the law and gain 

status and if you are the victim of trafficking, in the Anti Slavery 

law that we passed unanimously in this Committee, you are eligible for T Visa as a victim of trafficking; and if you are a victim of 

crime and if a law enforcement officer in the United States requests it, you are eligible for a U Visa. 

And if you are a child who has been abandoned and you have no 

one here, you can be eligible for a special immigrant juvenile visa, 

and that was really created because we had kids, and I remember 

this goes back to the 1970’s where you would have a child who appeared, 5 years old, no parents, they are in foster care, but what 

is their status? 

And if they are going to be part of the country, they are in foster 

care, you have to give them some status, and, if they are going to 

be part of our country. So these kids may fit into some of those categories that Congress created. And then there is a further category, 

which is asylum. 

And if you take a look at the origin of most of these kids, it is 

pretty clear that there is a problem going on in three countries in 

Central America. That doesn’t mean all these kids will be eligible 

for asylum. The case has to be established and looked at individually, and they may or may not be qualified and if they aren’t, they 

are going to be removed back to their country of origin; isn’t that 

correct? 

Mr. VITIELLO. That is correct. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So, the only way to do that is to have a case-bycase review. And I am sorry that we don’t have a witness from the 

Department of Justice, because the immigration judges are actually 

employees of the Department of Justice. 

And it occurs to me that we have these extraordinary delays in 

the adjudication of matters because we don’t have enough per-
145 

sonnel, not necessarily in ICE or Border Patrol, although I am sure 

you could always use more, but that we don’t have enough immigration judges and lawyers to actually adjudicate these matters; 

are you able to comment on that? 

Mr. VITIELLO. That is our experience. We would like to see those 

cycle faster for a number of reasons, and it is part of the work that 

we are doing within the unified command group. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I have just one final question. The Administration 

recently announced it is going to be opening a 700-bed family detention center at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in 

Artesia, New Mexico I am interested in this, I am going to be following it closely, and I want to make sure, I guess this is to you, 

Mr. Homan, that we learn the lessons of the Hutto Center in the 

past. 

I remember when that opened and we sent the chief counsel for 

my Subcommittee down, and we had 5-year-old children in prison 

uniforms and conditions that were so egregious, that eventually 

lawsuits were filed, the facility was closed. I do agree that we need 

to have, you know, facilities to accommodate this surge, but I hope 

that as you do that, we are learning the lessons from the mistakes 

of the past. I don’t know if you could comment on that facility. 

Mr. HOMAN. You are correct that we are in the process of increasing family detention at the FLETC Academy in Artesia. We 

are planning for 700 beds. Yes, we are very well aware of the Flores settlement agreement. We are aware of the requirements, 

which are vast. I mean, our family residential standards is a 5-inch 

book, so there is a lot of requirements we must meet under Flores, 

and we have an entire team there that has been there for 2 weeks 

to make sure we address as many of those Flores requirements as 

necessary. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Judd, you are here, as I understand it, representing the border agents; is that true? 

Mr. JUDD. That is correct, yes, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. And how many border agents would that be that 

you would represent? 

Mr. JUDD. Roughly 16,500. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Homan, you were asked if the law had changed, 

and I think your answer was that it had not changed; is that correct? 

Mr. HOMAN. When it comes to the transportation of unaccompanied alien children. 

Mr. FORBES. But you wouldn’t deny that the enforcement policies 

of this Administration have changed, would you? 

Mr. HOMAN. The enforcement policies have changed. 

Mr. FORBES. Have changed. 

Mr. Crane, you are here representing the ICE agents, as I understand it; is that correct? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. And how many ICE agents would you be representing? 
146 

Mr. CRANE. Approximately 5,000, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. Of those agents, are you familiar with whether or 

not Homeland Security Secretary Johnson conducted a town hall 

meeting at a DHS office in Fairfax, Virginia, on April 23rd, 2014, 

with ICE agents and officers present? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. I have spoken to the officers that were 

present at the meeting. 

Mr. FORBES. To your knowledge, did the ICE agents voice strong 

concerns to the Secretary that gang members, other public safety 

threats and criminals are being released due to new Administration DHS policies, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 

and John Morton’s Arrest Priorities memorandum? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. That is what was reported to me. 

Mr. FORBES. And did these officers and agents tell the Secretary 

that the Administration’s policies have tied their hands, preventing 

them from keeping many dangerous criminals off the streets, and 

that their opinion is boots on the ground officers in the field and 

new policies are a failure? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. And I would add to that, that that is the 

message that every DHS and ICE leader is hearing at every field 

office we have. When they go out to these town hall meetings, officers and agents are standing up and saying exactly the same thing 

each and every time: these policies are not working. 

Mr. FORBES. Were these statements by ICE agents and officers 

clear enough for Secretary Johnson to understand them and were 

they forceful enough for him to remember? 

Mr. CRANE. The statements that were relayed to me, absolutely, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. And it would probably surprise you that a month 

later when he was testifying before us, he couldn’t remember those 

statements and how they were phrased. 

Mr. Judd, your testimony, as I understood it, a little bit earlier, 

representing that 16,500 border agents was that from the interviews that you are getting, they are telling you, these individuals 

coming over, that one of the primary reasons they are coming is because they think there is a lenient enforcement policy in place in 

the country; is that a fair representation? 

Mr. JUDD. When we were on break, I made a couple of phone 

calls to agents that are in the processing centers, and they reiterated exactly that. 

Mr. FORBES. Do any of those interviews reflect that they are coming here equally because of this violence, an uptick in violence that 

is taking place? 

Mr. JUDD. That is one of the other reasons that they are reporting, yes. 

Mr. FORBES. Do you have any evidence—Mr. Issa just mentioned 

about this uptick in violence that is kind of being alleged here taking place since 2009. Do any of you have anything you can supply 

to the Committee today of any particular uptick in the violence 

that has happened in all of these countries that is taken place? 

And I don’t hear anybody. And then—— 

Rev. SEITZ. I could—— 

Mr. FORBES. You—— 
147 

*The information referred to, the data from the National Police of Guatemala, is not reprinted 

in this hearing record but is on file with the Committee, and can be accessed at: http:// 

www.plazapublica.com.gt/content/diez-anos-de-muertes-violentas-en-guatemala. 

Rev. SEITZ [continuing]. Speak to that. In Honduras, as I believed I mentioned earlier, the killings of children are way up in 

recent months. 

Mr. FORBES. And can you also speak, Mr. Seitz, that the data 

from the National Police of Guatemala, for example, shows the lowest level of violence now since 2004? Would you dispute those figures? 

Rev. SEITZ. I am less familiar with the situation in Guatemala, 

but I do know that the number of people reporting—I am sorry, the 

UN agency that did a survey of children that were leaving, something like 400 children, reported that something like 60 percent 

had actionable claims for asylum. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. And, Mr. Chairman, I would just end by saying that the biggest complaint I have heard today from those supporting the Administration is that the title of this hearing was 

wrong. We just had the representative from 16,500 border agents 

who say it is not wrong. 

And also we heard somebody say let’s take a vote. Well, as I understood Mr. Judd’s testimony earlier, he said we need to have 

catch and release policy go away, enforce the law, not grant special 

status, and increase our manpower, or protect our manpower shortage, and if we can get a law to that effect, I think all of us would 

love to vote on that today. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And the Chair asks unanimous consent that the document, the 

data from the National Police of Guatemala that shows the lowest 

level of homicide rates in that country since 2004. 

And without objection, that will be made a part of the record.* 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson 

Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I 

would never underestimate a hearing that deals with the vulnerability of children. 

Let me associate myself, Bishop, and let me thank you for your 

service and commitment to humanitarian issues. I happen to represent Cardinal DiNardo, who is in the Houston-Galveston Council, 

who is in the 18th Congressional District in Houston, Texas. I hope 

you will tell him I said hello—— 

Rev. SEITZ. Glad to. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. To him. I hope you work with 

him as well, and you know the compassion that he has. 

I think it is appropriate, and my Chairman and I and the Ranking Member, we work together to put on the record that we are 

long overdue for putting comprehensive immigration reform on the 

floor of the House and passing it and moving forward so that our 

good friends at ICE and our Border Patrol agents will have a roadmap that they can address. 

I want to just say on the record, and I will pose a question, that 

you said other Nations are watching, and our moral standing is at 
148 

stake. I only have a short period of time, Bishop. Would you just 

quickly say what you mean in that? 

Rev. SEITZ. Yes. Well, there are many other Nations, much less 

populous and much poorer than we are, that are accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees, people who are fleeing violence in 

their home countries, and our Nation has been on record for decades to say that you have a responsibility to receive these people 

who are fleeing the violence. When the violence, or rather, when 

the refugees come to our borders, it behooves us to act under the 

same principles that we have enunciated to them. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you so very much. In Jordan, for example, there are about a million Syrians that have come across the 

borders to Jordan. 

So let me go to Mr. Homan for a comment. I heard you say something about the laws changing, but the removal proceedings are 

still in place, that if you determine that there should be removal 

proceedings, there is a process under the law for you to proceed 

through the immigration courts, et cetera, and some of these families with children can be deported; is that not correct? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the children can be deported going 

through removal proceedings; is that not correct? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I would like to know, what ages, Mr. 

Vitiello, Mr. Judd, have you been seeing coming across the border; 

what is the range of ages? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So we have children as young as five, and in the 

family units, younger than that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yeah. So you have seen someone like this, of 

this age. I don’t know if you can see it there. It is a baby sitting 

on a floor. 

Mr. VITIELLO. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So you have seen babies? 

Mr. VITIELLO. We have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And this just happens to show children laying 

on floors. You have seen those circumstances, right? 

Mr. VITIELLO. We have. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. So, as a parent or being around children would not argue that this baby has the conscious of thought 

to apply for asylum or to not show up at a hearing; is that not correct? 

Mr. VITIELLO. That would be correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. So we know that there is a wide, vast 

range of ages and I do want to say thank you, because I know that 

you have been extending yourselves, ICE and Border Patrol, in 

dealing with these children, so let me first of all say thank you for 

your service. 

But it is clear that the removal proceedings are still there and 

the President has not changed that, or the suggestion that it is the 

President’s changing laws; they are still in place? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Judd, the impression is you are against the Administration, 

you are against the President. Is that accurate? 
149 

Mr. JUDD. That is absolutely not correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can we—— 

Mr. JUDD. I am here testifying from a law enforcement perspective, and I have to give that perspective if I hope that there is 

going to be any positive change. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And we welcome that. We want to engage you. The Senate has passed almost a $2 billion allotment for the child 

immigrants. We need to do the same. Would that resources, just 

generally speaking, and more resources for your agents over time, 

the better facilities, would that be helpful to you? 

Mr. JUDD. Of course it would. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. And the question of the law, I just 

want to be very clear, as my colleague said in 2002 we passed a 

law to provide for HHS assistance. Then we came forward in 2008, 

signed by President Bush, the idea of the responsibility for those 

who are human traffic and those who are smuggling. 

Is it not true that in the course of your work, Mr. Vitiello, maybe 

Mr. Homan, Mr. Judd, that you have seen human smugglers, 

meaning individuals who are smuggling, and human traffickers? 

Have you seen those individuals? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Would you venture to say that their character 

and integrity is not at any level equal to those who you would respect? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentlewoman has expired. The gentleman can answer the question. 

Mr. JUDD. Absolutely not. 

Ms. Jackson Lee. And would they say anything to people who are 

desperate? 

Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Chair recognizes—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And would they not say anything that the 

President’s policy has changed? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And they have not changed. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The law is the same, and it is ridiculous for 

this Committee to even suggest that. The law is the same. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentlewoman has expired. The 

Chair recognize sthe gentleman from Iowa. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman was expired. 

There was no time to yield back. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for your testimony. And I’m looking at an 

article that is printed 25th, June 2014, El Periodico, which is a 

Guatemalan newspaper, it’s an AP story, in Spanish. It says essentially, in Spanish and English, that two-thirds of the children that 

are unaccompanied minors coming to the United States are coming 

from either Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras. I think we’re consistent with that in our testimony that I hear, or at least relatively 

close; that only 12 percent come from Mexico, although the rest of 
150 

them come through Mexico, kind of like our drugs, from or through 

Mexico; that 80 percent are male; and 83 percent are over 14 but 

unaccompanied minors, that means 15, 16 or 17 years old. 

I would say, first, Mr. Vitiello, is that consistent with what you 

have observed on the border? 

Mr. VITIELLO. That is consistent. 

Mr. KING. And Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. I don’t have that type of data, sir. 

Mr. KING. I didn’t actually guess that’s the case. 

And also is that the case for Mr. Judd? 

Mr. JUDD. From what I’ve been told from the agents, yes, that 

is correct. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And I’d ask unanimous consent to introduce this article into the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the article will be made a 

part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
151 
152 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I looked at some other data here, and as I roll down through 

this and listen to the testimony about the fear of violence and that 

that being at least proposed as the primary reason that these 

young people are leaving their countries, and so I began to check 

this out, and I see that 8 of the top 10 most violent countries in 

the world are Central America or northern South America. 

And among these countries, and I’ll read down through the list 

from 1 to 10, Honduras the most violent, as has been testified here, 

90.4 murders per 100,000; Venezuela is second, 53.7; Belize third, 

44.7; El Salvador next with 41.2 murders, homicides per 100,000; 

then Guatemala; then Jamaica; Swaziland in Africa; then Saint 

Kitts; then South Africa; then Colombia tenth. These are very 

shocking numbers and that would tell us all that the most violent 

countries in the world, 8 of 10 of them are to our southern border. 

United States homicide rate 6.5 per 100,000. Mexico is 18.2, 

roughly triple that of the United States. Both those numbers have 

gone up over the last 5 years. And yet going south it gets far more 

dangerous. But I wonder, what can I compare that to? Well, Venezuela, 53.7, number two most violent country in the world, has to 

look up to Detroit. Violent homicide rate in Detroit 54.6, compared 

to Venezuela’s 53.7. The rest of the countries that I read range all 

the way down from 53.7 down to Colombia at 30.8. 

So if we’re going to move kids into America with the idea that 

we’re going to get them away from violence, we at least have to 

keep them out of Detroit. And I don’t see people that are exiting 

Detroit because the city is that dangerous. Some probably do. But 

we should put this in perspective. 

And I’d also make the point that these children that are coming 

here, these thousands of unaccompanied minors that are coming 

here, there was a child in one of my towns that was found wandering on the street in a neighborhood, several blocks away from 

her mother, who was sleeping during the day because she was 

working at night, to her credit, but she nodded off and the child 

got out and walked away. 

Our Department of Human Services picked this child up, referred by a resident, identified the mother, and said to her, if this 

happens again, you’re in danger of having your child taken away 

from you. Because we don’t tolerate child endangerment or child 

abandonment in the United States of America. We don’t tolerate it 

in Iowa; we don’t tolerate it in America. 

Yet, we’re watching tens of thousands of kids that are being 

abandoned into the United States, pushed across thousands of 

miles of Mexico in some of the most dangerous terrain and the dangerous drug and cartel violence that there is, and somehow we as 

a country are reuniting these families by bringing these children, 

under force of law, violating the law and completing the crime and 

putting these children into households where there’s an illegal 

mom or an illegal dad or both. 

No country in its right mind would repatriate families who have 

abandoned their children and pushed them across 1,000 miles of 

Mexico and handed them over to the Border Patrol and said hand 

them over to ICE, and now HHS is going to deliver them into these 

households and not enforce the law. This is so appalling to me. 
153 

But I would ask, Mr. Judd, with this concept that I have laid out 

here, how do we respond to this if we’re going to be a Nation of 

laws and have a rule of law? 

Mr. JUDD. Well, what we’d have to do is we would have to take 

the parents into custody when they take custody of the children, 

but we’re not given that opportunity because we give them over to 

HHS and then HHS gives them over to this new escort service who 

then flies them. 

In fact, my coworker that’s here with me today sat next to an El 

Salvadoran 8 year old on a plane with somebody from this new 

service, and when they got off the plane here in Washington, D.C., 

that child was reunited with the parent. And that child was reunited with the parent, and it wasn’t done under any law enforcement supervision or oversight whatsoever. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. KING. Unanimous consent request, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I object. I object. I object. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I think there’s some unanimous consent requests on both sides. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I have a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. KING. My inquiry is, is there a unanimous consent required 

in order to introduce a document into the record in this Committee? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We’ll consult the parliamentarian momentarily 

and come back to that issue, since I know there’s a desire to have 

more documents placed into the record. But in the meantime, we’ll 

turn to the gentleman from Georgia for his questions. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When I first heard about this increase in the numbers of children, unaccompanied children appearing at our borders, my first 

thought was, what is it that is driving that kind of flow, a spectacular rise in the numbers of children? What is driving that? What 

would cause a parent, because all parents love their children regardless of where they are, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 

America, Virginia, which happens to have a population of 8.6 million people, Virginia, with 42,000 square miles, with a median 

household income of $61,000. Those people love their children 

there. 

And Guatemala, 8.2 million people, same as Virginia, about 

43,000 square miles, as opposed to 42,000 for Virginia, so about the 

same size, but a per capita income of $4,345, but those people in 

Guatemala, they love their children. And what would cause someone to let their children be unaccompanied except by a, whatever 

we call them, coyotes and whatnot, how many of those youths actually when they leave home make it to the border of the U.S.? Is 

anybody concerned about that? I am. 

But I’m concerned really about what would drive a parent to put 

their child in danger like that? It has to be more than just the 

President promising that you may be able to—I don’t know what 
154 

the argument is that’s being raised. It’s ridiculous to think that 

people would put their children at risk. But I would tell you, even 

if a parent in Virginia had 70 children a month being murdered in 

that State, they would look to relocate those children somewhere 

if they could not take them themselves. 

And in Honduras, which has the highest homicide rate in the 

world, over the last 3 years 70 children were murdered monthly. 

And there were 102 children murdered last month, the month of 

May, in Honduras. And in this country of Guatemala, 99.5 murders 

per week. So you take a place like Virginia and you impose the 

same conditions in Virginia and you trap the parents there and the 

parents that love their children, want to see them grow up, they’re 

going to get them out of there. 

And so what is causing that? What is causing that? It’s got to 

be something more than the President offering somebody something. It’s probably the war on drugs, with the militarization of the 

police forces, with the MS-13 gang, 54,000 MS-13 and 18th Street 

gang members in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Since 

2005, murders of men and boys increased 292 percent while murders of women and girls increased 364 percent in that region. Children with parents in the U.S. are targeted for gang extortion because they’re perceived to be receiving remittances. 

I mean, there is just so much violence down there that we cannot 

relate to it here, but if we were in the same situation as those parents are down there, we would be trying to get our children here. 

So it’s really not a matter of illegal immigration, it is a humanitarian disaster with children, not parents but children, babies. It’s 

a humanitarian disaster, and we should be about trying to solve 

the problem as opposed to simply looking for fodder to blame the 

President for something else. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. 

Mr. KING. I seek to be recognized for a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Gentleman may state his request. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I have a case here, a criminal case, it’s 

Mirtha Veronica Nava-Martinez, United States versus her, dated 

December 13, 2013, Judge Andrew Hanen, and an accompanying 

FOX News article that I’d ask unanimous consent to introduce into 

the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Are there additional unanimous consent requests? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I have some unanimous consent requests. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman will state her unanimous consent request. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to enter into the record a statement 

from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society; a statement from the 

Faith Alliance Against Slavery and Trafficking, a paper on the 

nexus between human trafficking and immigration; a statement 

from the American Bar Association; a statement from Kids in Need 

of Defense; a statement from the U.S. Committee for Refugees and 

Immigrants; a statement from the Safe Passage Project; report on 
155 

**The information referred to, report on ‘‘Mission to Central America: The Flight of Unaccompanied Children to the United States,’’ by the Catholic Bishops, is not reprintd in this hearing 

record but is available at www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/upload/Mission-To-CentralAmerica-FINAL-2.pdf. 

***The information referred to, ‘‘Forced From Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central 

America,’’ from the Women’s Refugee Commission, is not reprinted in this hearing record but 

is available at http://womensrefugeecommission.org/forced-from-home-press-kit. 

 The information referred to, ‘‘Considerations for Hondurans in the American Asylum Process,’’ from the Jesuit Conference of the United States, is not reprinted in this hearing record 

but is available at http://www.jesuit.org/Assets/Publications/File/Honduranslasyluml 

reportlFINAL.pdf. 

** ***The information referred to, a U.S. Department of State report on Guatemala pointing 

out that there has been a significant increase in violence and that the police in Guatemala who 

were earlier referenced are part of the violence problem in Guatemala, is not reprinted in this 

hearing record but is available at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220657.pdf. 

‘‘Mission to Central America: The Flight of Unaccompanied Children to the United States,’’ by the Catholic Bishops;** ‘‘Forced 

From Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America,’’ from the 

Women’s Refugee Commission;*** ‘‘Considerations for Hondurans 

in the American Asylum Process,’’ from the Jesuit Conference of 

the United States;  a letter from the California Latino Legislative Caucus; as well as data from the U.N. Office on Drugs and 

Crimes for year 2000 to 2012; and the U.S. Department of State 

report on Guatemala pointing out that there has been a significant 

increase in violence and that the police in Guatemala who were 

earlier referenced are part of the violence problem in Guatemala.** *** 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What purpose does the gentlewoman from Texas 

seek recognition? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to put into the record a letter from First Focus Campaign for 

Children, the president, Bruce Lesley, that argues against eliminating DACA. And I’d like to submit into the record a statement 

dated June 15, 2012, from the Department of Homeland Security 

on DACA indicating that any eligible person for DACA has to continuously reside in the United States for at least 5 years preceding 

the date of their application, preceding the date of this memorandum, which is June 15, 2012. I ask unanimous consent to put 

both statements into the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection—— 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. For what purpose does the gentleman from Illinois seek recognition? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I ask unanimous consent that the following articles be included in the record. An article of February 19, 2013, 

‘‘Nearly 200 Guatemalan Police Removed for Criminal Ties. Report 

Puts Guatemalan National Police Under the Gun;’’ March 26, 2014, 

‘‘Renewing Police Reform Efforts in Guatemala;’’ Dated April 2014, 

‘‘Guatemalan Police Force Adds Over 2,000 New Officers Given Police Corruption;’’ and ‘‘Former Guatemalan Police Chief Found 

Guilty for Killings,’’ and that one is June 6. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, all these documents will be 

made part of the record. 

[The material submitted by Mr. King follows:] 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 

[The material submitted by Ms. Lofgren follows:] 
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 

[The material submitted by Ms. Jackson Lee follows:] 
212 
213 
214 

[The material submitted by Mr. Gutierrez follows:] 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I want to make sure we know all about the Guatemalan police. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. For what purpose does the gentleman from 

Texas seek recognition? Oh, actually, the gentleman from Utah. 

The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank the Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Moving right along. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you all for being here. For those of you 

from the Border Patrol and ICE, question for you. Are you aware 

of any internal assessments regarding why these children are coming north in the way they are? Is there any internal assessment 

that you have seen within your organizations? 

Mr. VITIELLO. There are several reports from varying locations 

about, you know, the intelligence and surveys of—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Our Committee would like to have a copy of 

those. 

Mr. Homan, are you aware of any? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes, I’m aware of external and internal intelligence 

reports. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And what do they say? 

Mr. HOMAN. Pardon me? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What do they say? 

Mr. HOMAN. They talk about various factors, to include—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I guess, in the essence of time, could you please 

provide those to this Committee? 

Mr. HOMAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Judd, when these unaccompanied minors are coming across, 

how are they communicating who they are and where they want 

to go? 

Mr. JUDD. When they come to the processing center, obviously, 

if they’re 5 years old or too young, that’s a little bit difficult, we 

have to turn them over to HHS. But when they’re older than 14 

years old, they tell us, they give us numbers, we allow them to call 

the parents or the relatives or whomever, and they tell us exactly 

where they want to go. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Some of them have, I’ve heard, papers in their 

pockets with an address or a location? 

Mr. JUDD. Sometimes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What sort of vetting is done to figure out the authenticity of the relationships? 

Mr. JUDD. We can’t. There’s no vetting that we can do. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So what happens to them? Do we put them on a 

plane? Put them on a bus? What do we do? 

Mr. JUDD. Yes, sir. We process them with the information that 

they give us. We take the information at face value. Then we turn 

them over to ERO, ERO then turns them over to HHS and so on 

and so forth. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But these are ICE escorts, correct? They’re hired 

under the ICE. Is that right, Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. Yes, sir. They’re turned over from CBP to ICE, and 

then ICE officers fly them to placement that’s directed by ORR. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And when these escorts get to the destination, 

what sort of vetting of the person do they actually do? 
223 

Mr. CRANE. On our end, we don’t. We turn them over to ORR. 

Prior to that, typically, we just try to verify addresses. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When you say verify address, that that address 

is a real address? 

Mr. CRANE. That it is a real address and that there’s someone 

there that’s going to verify that they’re going to receive the child. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But in terms of vetting who they’re giving, I 

mean, you could be giving them to a drug cartel, you could be giving them to a gang, could be a sex trafficker. You just say, are you 

you? Is that all you say? 

Mr. CRANE. There’s no verification of really who that person is. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. My daughter flew from Salt Lake City to Phoenix. 

She happens to be 13 years old. She knows what she’s doing. She 

speaks great English. We had to provide to Delta the telephone 

number, a Social Security Number. They had to provide a driver’s 

license when they approach them. You’re telling me that we’re taking 13-year-old kids, 12-year-old kids, 5-year-old kids, we’re taking 

them and we are, with zero vetting, no vetting, no questions asked, 

and we’re handing them over to somebody in the United States? 

That’s what’s happening? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No. I’m asking these people. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, because they don’t know. They’re not in 

charge of it. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I’m asking the people that are here on this panel. 

I ask unanimous consent to put another 30 seconds back on the 

clock, please. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the gentleman will be recognized for 30 seconds additional. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

The people here on this panel, are the four of you that are involved in ICE and the Border Patrol, do we do any vetting whatsoever of who we turn these minors over to? 

Mr. Homan. 

Mr. HOMAN. I’ll defer to Border Patrol on what type of vetting 

they do during the initial intake and processing. When ICE takes 

these children and hands them over to HHS, HHS does all the vetting of where these children are going to, they do background investigations on the sponsors, and they do the vetting. That’s an 

HHS responsibility. Before that child is placed with a family or a 

sponsor, HHS would do a background investigation. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So what sort of vetting do you do in the pre-part, 

in the beginning? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So during the arrest and the booking cycle, law enforcement professionals, Border Patrol agents interview the individual themselves. Or if it’s part of a family unit, then they’ll interview the parents to elicit the information about their destination 

in the United States, the manner in which they entered, where 

they’re from, what country they’re coming from, et cetera. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Vitiello, what percentage of the border do you 

have under operational control at this point? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I don’t have that information in front of me. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is it less than 10 percent as it was last time it 

was assessed? 
224 

Mr. VITIELLO. I don’t have that information in front of me. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Would it be inaccurate to say that it’s changed 

since then? 

Mr. VITIELLO. The border changes every day. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. How do you say yesterday, how do testify yesterday that you have an adequate supply of personnel? Those are the 

words that you used. 

And then, Mr. Judd, I would appreciate your perspective on this, 

as well. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I appreciate you bringing that up. I could have 

been a bit more precise in my remarks yesterday. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You were fairly precise. I mean, you said ‘‘you 

were adequately staffed.’’ You went on to say that you were adequately or better staffed at the same time than you were last year. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I didn’t want people to imply the fact that we’re 

not concerned about this problem. When we visited with the Secretary we were told by the folks on the ground there that the issue 

of large numbers of family units and these children are entering in 

a specific area. My remarks yesterday were designed to inform everyone that the deployments outside of those two zones are as well 

staffed as they were last year or better staffed. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired, but the gentleman, Mr. Judd, will be allowed to answer the question. 

Mr. JUDD. We are adequately staffed to process them, but we 

have to strip the line to do it. So we create holes on the line. So, 

yes, we’re able to process these people. There’s no doubt about that. 

But the actual border takes a hit because we have to take people 

out of the field to do that processing. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California, Ms. Chu, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Well, first of all, I’d have to say, I heard Mr. Judd say 

that these children are released to these relatives and then they 

disappear. And I don’t know how you could say such a thing when 

once they leave your jurisdiction, you don’t know what the actual 

result is. You don’t know what the end result is for these children. 

Mr. JUDD. We can track that through—because what happens is 

we have to assign what’s called an A number, an alien number, 

and that can be tracked, and you can see what court dates they 

have, everything that’s associated with it, and it will actually show 

if they showed up for their hearing. And from what’s been reported 

to me from intelligence is that they don’t show up to their hearings. 

In fact, the bishop in his written testimony, on page 11, said that 

they don’t show up to their hearings. If you don’t mind, I’ll quote 

it. 

Ms. CHU. Well, let me just keep on going. 

Mr. JUDD. Okay. Sure. 

Ms. CHU. Just 2 weeks ago, I visited the unaccompanied minors 

being housed at the naval base in Ventura County, and I did see 

more than 175 children who had been transferred from the border. 

Thank goodness, the facility was clean and safe. But I came to understand after my visit to the shelter that there are a lot of misconceptions about what is going on, and I came to understand that 

these children are not given a free pass to enter our country. 
225 

And just like this hearing is a misnomer, ‘‘An Administration 

Made Disaster,’’ also this term ‘‘catch-and-release’’ is a misnomer 

because these children are not just released into society. They, first 

of all, are released to a relative, but that’s because of a law that 

dates back to 17 years ago, and that was reinforced by two laws 

that were signed then by President Bush. So that, yes, they are 

with relatives. 

But then they have to have a notice to appear, they have to go 

through a court hearing, and they have to apply if they are going 

to stay here, and they can only stay here if they qualify for asylum 

or a special juvenile status visa or a U visa for victims of violent 

crimes. And so nothing has changed in the law. There is nothing 

that has changed with regard to the Obama administration. All 

these laws were done before the Obama administration. 

But what we do have is a broken immigration system. We have 

a court system that has not been in operation because of the lack 

of immigration judges, the huge backlog. And so all these children 

are being held up with regard to their final dispensation. 

And actually there’s something else I want to ask about the situation to Mr. Homan, because it is very disturbing to me that children as young as 3 or 4 years old have to appear in court without 

counsel against an experienced ICE trial attorney. They are left 

alone to present a defense to their removal, making it nearly impossible for them to assert a claim for relief even if they do qualify. 

And, in fact, just 2 days ago my colleagues and I, led by Mr. 

Jeffries and several other Members of the Committee, introduced 

the Vulnerable Immigrant Voice Act to provide for attorneys for 

unaccompanied minors and individuals with mental disabilities. I 

believe that this is actually cost effective because detained individuals who have information regarding their rights prior to their first 

hearing spend an average 11 fewer days in detention and that 

means more than $164 a day for every individual that is detained, 

which adds up to a lot of money. 

So, Mr. Homan, what procedures are currently being put in place 

to ensure that unaccompanied minors understand the immigration 

proceedings that they’re being placed into and have legal assistance 

to apply for the relief that they may be eligible for? 

Mr. HOMAN. When the child goes before an immigration judge, 

like I said, we looked at in the last 5 years for every unaccompanied child that we filed a case with EOIR, 87 percent of them 

are still in proceedings, which, again, as I testified earlier, was lack 

of immigration judges, first of all. So these hearings aren’t being 

heard for years. But there’s a lot of continuances with unaccompanied children. 

When they’re placed with a sponsor or family member, they certainly can attend a hearing and help the child through. I’m aware 

of, our Office of Principal Legal Advisor thinks that supplying an 

attorney to an unaccompanied child may benefit and make the system move faster. So I would have to defer to DOJ, the immigration 

judges, on how those hearings are conducted. I’m sure they’re conducted differently in every part of the country. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5 

minutes. 
226 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

AND I know it’s been a long day for all of us, but I appreciate 

your patience because this is important. Having spent the weekend 

down at the border, McAllen, Mission, all along the border, along 

the Rio Grande, on public dirt, gravel roads, down miles from a 

hard top road, seeing dozens of people being processed out in the 

public area on dirt roads in the middle of the night, I’ve got a better sense of this. 

The issue of a free pass came up in a hearing in which Pete King 

from New York was asking Secretary Johnson, and Pete King said, 

but if I were a parent in Guatemala, wouldn’t I see that as being 

a free pass? I mean, a child, a 5 year old getting an order to show 

up in immigration court, you know, are you going to actually deport that child? You know, to me, that’s a free pass, from their perspective. 

Secretary Johnson said, Congressman, I don’t see it as a free 

pass, particularly given the danger of migrating over 1,000 miles 

through Mexico into the United States, especially now in the 

months of July and August that we’re facing. A lot of these kids 

stow away lay on top of freight trains. It’s exceedingly dangerous. 

And so he’s saying, because of the danger to get here, it’s not 

considered by Homeland Security as a free pass. But as to the 

child, once they enter the United States, it’s a free pass. And what 

is occurring by this Administration luring these children into 

America by the promise of a free pass once they get here, there are 

children that are suffering and being hurt, being lured here to their 

detriment. 

Now, if they get here successfully, that’s a different story. But 

having looked at hundreds and hundreds of people lying on a concrete floor this weekend in McAllen, Texas, in the sally port because there’s nowhere else to put them, and I ask about, well, I 

hear there’s 18 cases of scabies here. Where are they? Oh, you see 

the little red crime scene tape over here, that’s the best we can do 

because Health and Human Services won’t come pick up these people in a timely manner. 

So they’re lying here on a concrete floor, and those 18 in that little area behind that red crime scene tape are our scabies cases. 

We’re still looking for all the lice cases and the other cases, the flu 

cases. And I didn’t get this from the Federal people, but from Texas 

folks that just sent 2,000 doses of H1N1 vaccine to Lackland Air 

Force Base. They say there’s a case of H1N1 flu at Lackland. 

Does anybody know for sure that that is not true, or do you know 

that we definitely have at least one case of H1N1? 

Mr. VITIELLO. When we were there last Friday they did confirm 

a single case of H1N1. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. And are you familiar with the incubation 

period? I understand it can be 1 to 7 days before it manifests itself. 

Mr. VITIELLO. I spoke to the doc about that, but I don’t know the 

particulars. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And listen, I appreciate, Mr. Vitiello, your commendation of FEMA and these other Federal agencies, but the fact 

is, in 2008, when the Democrat-controlled House and Senate 

passed a bill that made children the responsibility of Health and 

Human Services, which is also trying to take over all our health 
227 

******The information referred to, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, is not reprinted in this 

hearing record but is on file with the Committee, and can be accessed at http://www.dhs.gov/ 

xlibrary/assets/hrl5005lenr.pdf. 

care now, so they seem to be kind of busy, but when that passed 

and was signed into law by President Bush, we really tied the 

hands about Border Patrol and our ICE agents because, as I was 

seeing this weekend, you’ve got hundreds of kids and you’ve got to 

wait on HHS to come get them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No, I wouldn’t. My time is limited, and I would 

like that addressed. 

Let me ask it this way: If Border Patrol had the responsibility 

of the children then you could move without having to wait for 

HHS, correct? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Well, there’s a couple of different pieces of the government that have to do this. Right now, under the law, the responsibility is to move folks into HHS. Their resources are building 

with the help of the interagency, with the help of DOD and FEMA, 

et cetera. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Well, my time is running out. Let me just 

indicate that of all of these people that I watched in a public area 

in the dark of night being interviewed, they were all very honest, 

very candid, not one of them said they were fleeing because of violence. They were saying, well, the mother for these two is in 

Miami, had been there for 4 years, has a good job there. So now 

that we know the children can come and not have to go home, we 

want to get them with their mother in Miami. And these three over 

here, their fathers are in North Carolina and have a good job. Now 

that we know they can stay, get a good education, we want to get 

them with their fathers in North Carolina, all of them there illegally. 

Folks, we have sent the message to the world that we’re open to 

anybody that wants to come in. And I’m telling you, we are not 

doing our job as a Congress—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman—— 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. And the Federal Government is not 

doing their job in protecting us from those people that are coming 

in. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I have a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman will state her unanimous consent request. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would like to place into the record the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 that was the act that transferred this responsibility to Health and Human Services during the Republican majority and signed into law by President Bush. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. There may be a limitation on the number of 

pages that can be submitted into the record. But if there is, we will 

check.****** 

Ms. LOFGREN. If the pages work, I would caveat the request with 

that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I would ask unanimous consent to submit the 

bill that changed that act in 2008, modified that. 
228 

*******The information referred to, the bill that changed that act in 2008, is not reprinted 

in this hearing record but is on file with the Committee, and can be accessed at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ457/pdf/PLAW-110publ457.pdf. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, those documents that meet 

the size conditions will be made a part of the record.******* 

And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Deutch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, it’s estimated this year more than 60,000 children 

will cross the U.S.-Mexican border without parents or guardians. 

Some estimates indicate the migration of unaccompanied children 

across the border could be as high as 90,000 this year, 120,000 in 

2015. It’s a tenfold jump from the previous year. 

Now, some of my colleagues, some of my Republican colleagues 

on this Committee are suggesting that they’re here because of the, 

as we just heard, the free pass that they know that they can get 

if they simply arrive here; that they’re coming here, they’re trying 

to come to the United States due to the Administration’s immigration policies. 

But as we’ve heard all day, and I’m sorry that I’ve not been able 

to be in the hearing the entire time, and I appreciate the witnesses 

very much for your being here, but as we’ve heard, these unaccompanied children are embarking on what are very dangerous journeys, of hundreds of miles, to escape the violence in their home 

countries of El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Bishop, you’ve 

spoken to this extensively today. 

Honduras is the homicide capital of the world, with young boys 

having a 1-in-300 chance of being murdered. In 2013, a Honduran 

woman was killed every 15 minutes. In El Salvador, 174 people 

were murdered in May of 2014; a year later that number climbed 

to 356 in May. And in Guatemala, which is suffering from the spillover of Mexican drug cartel violence, 98 percent of crimes go 

unprosecuted due to fear of retaliation. 

This extraordinary violence driven by organized gangs and drug 

cartels, as well as lack of economic opportunity, are some of the 

reasons that unaccompanied minors are making what is an extremely dangerous journey across Mexico to the United States. According to a recent study issued by the U.N. High Commissioner 

on Refugees, 58 percent of unaccompanied children crossing into 

the U.S. could raise potential international protection needs; 78 

percent of the total number of unaccompanied children fleeing from 

El Salvador will qualify for international protection, 40 percent 

from Guatemala, 57 from Honduras, and 64 percent from Mexico. 

This is a humanitarian crisis. And as a global human rights leader, if that’s a role that we’re to play in this country, if we take that 

responsibility seriously, our credibility is on the line to ensure that 

unaccompanied children fleeing violence in their home country are 

treated humanely and with fairness when they enter the United 

States. 

Now, I also serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I meet 

regularly with representatives from Jordan, from Turkey, and from 

Lebanon. Now, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, these three countries have taken in nearly 2.5 million Syrian 

refugees since the conflict began. Moreover, it’s been reported that 
229 

Germany has offered to resettled approximately 25,000 Syrian refugees. 

These countries are continuing to be inundated by hundreds of 

thousands, if not millions of refugees fleeing the mass slaughter in 

Syria, and we support their efforts and we praise these countries 

for keeping their borders open to people fleeing violence in their 

home countries who are seeking safety. We praise them for doing 

that. 

As we urge other countries around the world to keep their borders open to people fleeing violence in their home countries, especially children fleeing violence in their home countries, it’s incumbent upon us to treat people fairly and humanely who are fleeing 

extreme violence in Central America and seeking safety in the 

United States, if we’re to be taken seriously at all when we speak 

out in support of human rights. 

Now, Bishop, I have a question for you. Tell me whether you believe the United States as a global human rights leader has an obligation to treat unaccompanied children seeking safety in our 

country fairly and humanely. 

Rev. SEITZ. I certainly believe that we have a responsibility and 

the world is watching us. They see us as a leader in human rights. 

And so how we deal with this much smaller population of people 

that are showing up at our borders I think will be looked at with 

a great deal of interest. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Vitiello, what’s the age of the unaccompanied 

children that you see crossing the border? 

Mr. VITIELLO. By definition, it’s anyone that’s under 17. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And I understand that. Do you have a sense how 

many of them are under 13, under 14? 

Mr. VITIELLO. We could get back to you on sort of the specific 

breakdown of the demographics, but it’s generally the older age, 

you know, 14 through 17. But we’ve seen them in each of the categories. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And do these children come across the border and 

tell you—do you have a sense, any of you, how long the journey is 

walking from El Salvador or walking from Honduras or Guatemala 

to the United States? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Not specifically, but it’s got to be days. Days, 

weeks. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Bishop, do they ever walk, or how do they get 

there? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Gentleman’s time has expired, but the witness 

will be allowed to answer the question. 

Rev. SEITZ. I don’t think many of them walk all the way. They 

walk part of the way. Many of them will catch the train that’s referred to as La Bestia, and some of them, if they have enough 

money, they will get bus tickets to take them part way. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, all of you, for being here. 
230 

Bishop, do you know how many refugees we accepted in the 

United States last year? 

Rev. SEITZ. I don’t have those numbers. 

Mr. LABRADOR. That number is 70,000. So I think the United 

States has done a pretty good effort of reaching out to all communities and accepting people. Do you know how many immigrants 

we accepted in the United States last year? 

Rev. SEITZ. Do not. 

Mr. LABRADOR. It’s in the millions. So for anybody to suggest 

that the United States is not accepting people from other countries, 

I would really differ with you, and especially on a refugee status. 

Mr. Judd, Mr. Crane, I’ve heard a lot of reasons why this is happening. If you look at this chart to my right and to your left, the 

numbers started increasing in fiscal year 2012. 

[Chart] 

Mr. LABRADOR. So the law changed in fiscal year 2008, in fiscal 

year 2009 you had about the same number as fiscal year 2010 and 

fiscal year 2011, and then all of a sudden the numbers started increasing by 124 percent, then 305 percent, and then this year we’re 

estimating that there’s going to be an increase of 1,300 percent. 

What has changed in those years in the country conditions in 

Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala? Do you know? 

Mr. CRANE. I do not know, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Is there any evidence that country conditions, because we’ve heard a lot of bad things about those countries from 

the other side, and I agree that the conditions are not great. But 

has anything significantly changed in the last 3 years in those 

three countries? Do you know, Mr. Judd? 

Mr. JUDD. I couldn’t answer that. I have no idea. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Now, is there any evidence that anything has 

changed in those countries, overwhelmingly, that today the police 

is more corrupt than it was 3 years ago? Do we have any evidence 

of that? Mr. Vitiello, Mr. Homan, do we have any evidence of that? 

Mr. VITIELLO. Nothing specific. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So we believe that the conditions are about the 

same as they were in fiscal year 2009, fiscal year 2010, and fiscal 

year 2011, do we not? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I’m just not an expert on what is happening in 

those locations. I’ve synthesized the reports that we’ve developed, 

that have been developed by our agents in the field, and there are 

four major factors that are—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. And what are those four major factors, if you 

could say, really quickly? 

Mr. VITIELLO. So it’s the violence, it’s the economic conditions or 

the lack of opportunity, it’s the failed, you know, services, rule of 

law, et cetera. And there is open-source reporting, and we have our 

own reporting that say that people are under the belief, whether 

it’s been promoted by smugglers or others, that there is some kind 

of benefit to be gained. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But those first three factors are not any different 

today than they were in fiscal year 2008. Do you have any evidence 

that they are? 

Mr. VITIELLO. I don’t know the difference. 
231 

Mr. LABRADOR. And I would submit to you that they’re not. They 

have always been corrupt countries. They have always had corrupt 

police. And the thing that is changing is your number four factor, 

which is that they now believe that they can remain in the United 

States. 

Mr. Crane and Mr. Judd, when you talk to your agents, what are 

they telling you? What are they saying that these children are saying? Why are they coming to the United States? 

Mr. JUDD. Again, our agents are required to interview these individuals, and the biggest report that we’re getting is that they’re 

coming here because they can stay. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Because they can stay. And I find it outrageous 

that anyone would say that things have changed dramatically in 

any of these three countries, and I find it outrageous that nobody 

understands, it seems on the other side, that inviting and saying 

that we are going to actually allow people to stay, whether it’s for 

a month or for 2 years or permanently, that anyone would imply 

that that is not an incentive. 

Because if I had children, if I had been born in Honduras, in 

Guatemala, or El Salvador, and I believed that there was a chance 

for me to remain in the United States, I would do anything in my 

power to bring those children here. 

What do you think, Mr. Judd and Mr. Crane, the one single 

thing that we could do right now to stop what I do believe is a humanitarian crisis, but it’s a humanitarian crisis that has been created by this President and by the lack of enforcement, what is the 

one thing that we could do today to change it? Mr. Judd and Mr. 

Crane. 

Mr. JUDD. I’m going to have to answer I want to stop the smugglers. I want these individuals to be safe. I’ve seen too many dead 

bodies in the desert. I don’t want to see anymore dead bodies. I 

want them to present themselves at ports of entry. I want to stop 

the smugglers. That’s what I want to stop. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

Mr. Crane. 

Mr. CRANE. If it’s just one answer, I would say that we have to 

send a different message to the world, and that starts with enforcing the laws that we have on the books and taking a second look 

at things like DACA. 

Mr. LABRADOR. If we start enforcing the law today, I will submit 

to you that we can save children. You won’t see those dead bodies, 

you won’t see these girls that are getting raped, and you won’t see 

these children that are getting abused by these criminal gangs. I 

think it’s time that we took this very seriously and we stopped 

playing games on immigration. 

Thank you very much, all of you, for being here. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The gentlewoman will state her unanimous consent request. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add into the 

record an article entitled ‘‘Why 90,000 Children Flooding Our Border Is Not an Immigration Story,’’ and this is out of the 

NationalJournal.com. I ask unanimous consent. 
232 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the document will be made a 

part of the voluminous record of this hearing. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, one simply needs to Google things and you find a different reality than that being expressed here. Poorest country: Central America, Nicaragua. But you bring us your own charts and 

show us there is absolutely no increase in the numbers of Nicaraguan unaccompanied children to this country. None. There is no 

increase from Mexico. 

It’s increased from three specific countries. And you go back. You 

want to talk about the Guatemalan police. Google it 1 second. The 

former head of the Guatemalan police was convicted on June 6 of 

this month for murdering people. It is pervasive, the violence. They 

are part and parcel of the criminal enterprise in many instances 

that plagues Guatemala. And you want us to believe them, the 

very people that help facilitate these processes? Please. 

The other thing is, let’s be clear, because I would like a little 

more honesty here, Mr. Chairman. We have unions that come here 

that when their directors give prosecutorial discretion, they get together with their union, right, and then condemn their supervisors 

for initiating those prosecutorial discretion memorandums. That is 

the truth and that is the reality. So you already come. 

You don’t like DACA, you don’t like anything that has to do with 

compassion. You don’t like anything that has to do with prosecutorial discretion. But it is the law. And I’m happy that the President of the United States is initiating prosecutorial discretion because this is a Nation of laws, and it’s also a Nation of compassion. 

It’s also a Nation that understands that there is truth and justice 

in our law. 

I mean, all I’ve heard here today is, let’s lock them up and throw 

them back. I haven’t heard a solution here. Please, tell me what 

the solution that has been offered here that would stop the children 

from coming here, other than to say that if we locked them up and 

sent them back, which is not the law of the land, it is simply not 

the law of the United States. 

You want to change the law and you want to send them back? 

Then prepare legislation that says exactly that, get it passed by the 

Congress of the United States and signed by the President of the 

United States. But that’s not the law. 

What we hear is now they’re bringing diseases. How many times 

do we have to hear about poor children fleeing drug cartels, crime, 

violence, murder, rape, and they finally arrive in this country, and 

what do we do to those children? Do we continue what was said 

in Virginia just a couple of weeks ago when Mr. Cantor’s opponent 

says, I’m going to Congress to continue the Judeo-Christian tradition that this country was founded on. That’s the Judeo-Christian 

tradition, to take children fleeing murderers, drug traffickers, 

human traffickers, and then demonize them and criminalize them? 

That is. 

And then one of my colleagues on the Republican side says, oh, 

they’re reuniting them with their parents. I’m aghast. Really? 

What a sin. What a sin. The government of the United States is 

spending money to reunite children with their parents. 
238 

I say we have sensible, comprehensive immigration reform, 

which I am ready to work and have been ready to work with the 

other side of the aisle. You know why they’re coming? I’ll tell you 

why. Because the drug traffickers and the drug cartels, they’re 

filming this hearing. And what they have heard time and time 

again from the Republicans is, what? You get a free pass. How 

many times haven’t we heard them say that, you get a free pass? 

You don’t think the drug traffickers and the drug cartels print that 

stuff up and then go? Let’s tell them the truth of what our laws 

are. 

The fact is, they’re being placed in removal proceedings. We 

know that. We know that the vast majority will not receive anything from the government of the United States and they will be 

ordered deported from the United States after going through these 

long trials and tribulations and murderous road to get here. 

I’ve got to tell you something. I am astonished and ashamed that 

this Committee is going to have a trip to visit the centers in Texas 

and has this hearing and prejudges the very expedition that we’re 

taking out next week. 

Look, I want to continue the Judeo-Christian tradition of this 

country, too, and that is one that is welcoming of people that are 

refugees, that come here seeking peace and humanity. I don’t know 

about the rest of my colleagues, but I think that should be our goal 

each and every instance. And I want to thank Mr. Deutch for reminding us of what we’re doing given the terrible crisis of Syria 

and what we’ve asked other people to do. That’s all we’re asking. 

But it just seems to be that if they come from our own specific 

hemisphere, it’s bad. 

Let me tell you something. We spend trillions of dollars in countries where people don’t like us. Let’s spend some money in countries where people love this Nation, and I think we would be a lot 

better off. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Time of the gentleman has expired. 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to thank the witnesses for joining us today. 

I think we can all agree that we have a crisis on our hands. It’s 

profoundly disappointing, however, that some of my colleagues are 

using this crisis as an excuse for inaction. Inaction is what got us 

here in the first place. We have now waited a full year since the 

bipartisan Senate bill was passed, a full year. If we had passed immigration reform, we would have taken care of the people who are 

already here and directed resources to criminals, traffickers, and 

people who wish to do this Nation harm. 

We have been able to provide reintegration assistance and legal 

representation to these children, and we would have a comprehensive strategy at the border, so we could stop throwing money at the 

problem and stop militarizing border communities. 

Just yesterday, Speaker Boehner wrote the President asking him 

to send troops to the border, to send National Guard troops to the 

border. To do what? These are children. They need help, not a gun 

in their face. Others are using this as excuse to end DACA and deport all the young people who have benefitted from that program. 
239 

DACA is a program that Secretary Johnson testified before this 

Committee as a success very recently. 

These young people have become assets in our community. They 

want nothing more than to go to school and contribute to our country, to their country. In fact, I have a dreamer interning in my office this summer. 

No matter who you think is at fault, the fact of the matter is that 

there are hundreds of kids arriving at our border each day, hungry, 

thirsty, often traumatized by the journey. They aren’t here because 

they’re trying to game the immigration system. They are here out 

of desperation. You don’t hand your 10-year-old daughter to a coyote and let her travel thousands of miles through a desert on the 

backs of trucks through a foreign country because you’re hoping 

she will be your immigration in. They feel they have no other 

choice; in fact, in many cases, they have no other choice. 

These kids are coming from places where children are recruited 

by gangs, where they are used as pawns to coerce their families. 

They’re here because of a foreign policy that has ignored the problems in our own backyard and because the immigration system is 

too broken to deal with reality. We need to fix our immigration system and invest in this part of the world to get to the root of the 

problem in this crisis. Using these kids to score political points is 

unproductive and simply beneath us. Stop finger pointing and start 

governing, is what we should be doing. 

Now, I’ve just been astonished by some of the questions here, but 

I want to ask any of you here, have you heard any, with the exception of some of the Members across the aisle, have any of you heard 

U.S. officials saying to people come to the United States so you can 

stay? 

Mr. HOMAN. I have not heard any U.S. officials say that, no. 

Mr. GARCIA. Mr. Crane? 

Mr. CRANE. No, sir, I have not. 

Mr. GARCIA. Good. 

I wanted to ask the bishop, because somehow you got involved 

in the conspiracy, somehow the Catholic Church is now in collusion 

with the coyotes trying to come here, could you state for the record 

what the Catholic Church thinks about people breaking the law 

and coming to the United States as they want to portray it? 

Rev. SEITZ. Well, first of all, we do not recommend that youth, 

children, anyone leave their home country and make that journey. 

We try to discourage them from coming. However, I think we also 

recognize that there are people, as you said, that feel they have no 

other option. Like the woman said that I quoted in my testimony, 

she said she would rather see them die on the journey, take a 

chance of dying on the journey, than to die on her doorstep. And 

that is the option that I believe many of these people feel. 

Mr. GARCIA. Bishop, one final question. I sometimes look at 

bumper stickers and I always love the little monogram, you know, 

WWJD, what would Jesus do? Could you tell me who Jesus would 

deport, just so I know? 

Rev. SEITZ. Well, I think we have plenty of indications in the 

Gospel that Jesus identified in a special way with people who are 

on the margins, with people who have no voice. He told the story 

of the Good Samaritan, and he said that the neighbor was the one 
240 

who showed compassion. I don’t think we ever get a pass on compassion, especially to the one who is standing before us. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all of our witnesses for 

attending. Without objection, all Members will have—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent to put in 

the record a—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I’m going to cover that right now. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And the hearing is adjourned. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 6:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(241) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
242 

*The Committee had not received a response to its questions at the time this hearing record 

was finalized and submitted for printing on August 25, 2014. 

Questions for the Record submitted to Thomas Homan, Executive Associate 

Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement* 
243 

f 
244 

Response to Questions for the Record from Ronald D. Vitiello, Deputy Chief 

of Border Patrol, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security 
245 

f 
246 

Response to Questions for the Record from Chris Crane, President, National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, American 

Federation of Government Employees 

Æ