79–008 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–835 

RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT, AND DIRECTING 

THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, TO TRANSMIT, RESPECTIVELY, CERTAIN INFORMATION TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REFERRING TO THE SEPARATION OF CHILDREN FROM THEIR 

PARENTS OR GUARDIANS AS A RESULT OF THE PRESIDENT’S ‘‘ZERO TOLERANCE’’ POLICY 

JULY 18, 2018.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

Mr. WALDEN, from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H. Res. 982] 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce, to whom was referred 

the resolution (H. Res. 982) of inquiry requesting the President, 

and directing the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to 

transmit, respectively, certain information to the House of Representatives referring to the separation of children from their parents or guardians as a result of the President’s ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy, having considered the same, report thereon without amendment and without recommendation. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Committee Action .................................................................................................... 11 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 11 

Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................................................... 13 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 13 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 13 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 13 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 13 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 13 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 13 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 13 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 14 

2 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H. Res. 982 requests the President, and directs the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services, to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption 

of the resolution, records relating to the President’s ‘‘zero tolerance’’ 

policy. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Committee began investigating the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement’s (ORR) management and treatment of unaccompanied alien 

children (UAC) beginning in 2014 after the dramatic surge in border crossings by UAC from Central America as well as a series of 

media reports regarding allegations of abuse, including sexual 

abuse, of minors in HHS custody. In 2014, the Committee held a 

bipartisan roundtable for members on issues related to UAC. In 

2015 and 2016, the Committee sent three letters to HHS raising 

concerns about the treatment of children while in the care and custody of ORR and the then-lack of follow up to ensure that children 

were cared for properly after being placed with a sponsor. 

On June 29, 2018, the Committee sent a letter to HHS Secretary 

Alex M. Azar II asking a series of questions and requesting documents about ORR’s operations related to the management and 

treatment of UAC, including the reunification of children with their 

parents. 

On July 9, 2018, Chairman Walden led a bipartisan delegation 

of members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to 

McAllen, Texas, and surrounding areas, to view border facilities 

and the border between the United States and Mexico. Members 

visited the following facilities: 

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) Centralized Processing Center (CPC) 

in McAllen, Texas; 

• Tour of the border between the United States and Mexico 

near McAllen, Texas; 

• Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) grantee facility, Southwest Key Facility ‘‘Casa Padre’’ in Brownsville, Texas; 

• DHS, Gateway Bridge Port of Entry in Brownsville, Texas; 

and 

• DHS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Port Isabel Detention Center. 

This memorandum is compiled from the notes and recollection of 

staff who participated in the CODEL. It is not a comprehensive collection of all information learned during the trip. 

I. THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR AND THE U.S.-MEXICO BORDER

Members received a tour of the ‘‘line’’—the border—between the 

U.S. and Mexico near McAllen, Texas. The Rio Grande Valley 

(RGV) sector of the border includes the facilities visited on July 9. 

The RGV includes more than 34,000 square miles of Southeast 

Texas, including 320 river miles and 250 coastal miles. 

3 

The RGV has the highest apprehension rate of UAC and family 

units on the Southwest border. According to CBP officials, cartels 

and other smugglers send UAC and family units across in dense 

refuge areas—areas with thick vegetation along the Rio Grande 

river—known to CBP. This means that, while CBP agents are apprehending family units and UAC from what are effectively designated areas, cartels and other smugglers can bring in drugs and 

other contraband through other areas along the border in the RGV. 

There are approximately 3,100 CBP agents in the RGV. Each 

day, roughly 900 agents are at checkpoints or on the border line, 

and 200 agents work to process individuals apprehended crossing 

the border illegally. CBP estimated that it needs another 500 

agents in just this area of the border to provide adequately patrol 

coverage. CBP patrols the RGV border line by air, boat, on land (by 

vehicle, horse, and foot), and by utilizing permanent and mobile 

surveillance systems. 

CBP officials explained the various challenges they face within 

the RGV sector due to the variation in the terrain and characteristics of the Rio Grande river. Examples of those challenges include 

dense vegetation and changes in the river’s width and depth. The 

tools and equipment that they need to patrol these various terrains 

are more extensive than other sectors. For example, the river alone 

can require different types of marine vessels or boats given the 

variations in width and depth. CBP has a pilot initiative underway 

to increase the use of drones on the border, but it is difficult to use 

drones because the operator must keep a clear line of site with the 

drone. In addition, CBP must operate drones at specified elevations 

and obtain permits from the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) for missions, especially given the proximity of the border to 

McAllen International Airport. Drones also have limited effectiveness in this sector due to the dense refuge areas on one or both 

sides of the border. The refuge areas on the U.S. side of the Rio 

Grande river are under the jurisdiction of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. There are also many areas where private property runs up 

to the Rio Grande river. Many of the crops grown in this area are 

tall crops, which also makes it difficult to view and detect individuals (or goods, in the case of drugs and other contraband materials) 

moving through the property. 

Due to the dense refuge areas on both sides of the border, individuals crossing the river from Mexico typically cannot be seen 

until they are in a raft on the Mexican side, and are quickly lost 

in the refuge area. They are often apprehended by CBP once they 

emerge from the undergrowth. Family units and UAC are seeking 

to be apprehended by CBP officials. One CBP agent said, ‘‘they arrest us.’’ Roughly 100 UAC per day are apprehended in the RGV. 

CBP officials could not provide an average number of persons apprehended per day in family units. Often individuals are apprehended in large groups that include individuals, UAC, and family 

units. 

CBP officials stated that additional ‘‘enforcement zones’’ and additional technology would be helpful to secure the border in the 

RGV. The delegation viewed one such ‘‘enforcement zone’’ that was 

previously created. The area allows CBP agents to see individuals 

as they exit the refuge area. One CBP agent said that the creation 

4 

of a road along the Rio Grande river in the RGV would be very 

helpful. 

CBP agents emphasized the challenges in the RGV sector but 

noted that different areas of the border with Mexico require different solutions, and something that would be helpful in the RGV 

may not be helpful in another part of the border. CBP showed 

members a video detailing changes in enforcement and apprehensions at different border sectors, including the RGV, from FY 1992 

to FY 2016. The video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/ 

watch?v=jRihEaftS0M. 

CBP estimated that 6,000 individuals illegally enter the U.S. in 

the RGV each week; CBP apprehends roughly 4,000–4,200 people. 

Family units and UAC pay roughly $4,000 to smugglers to make 

it to the U.S. border. According to CBP, family units and UAC 

want to be apprehended by CBP, so their cost is lower. The smuggler will bring the family unit or UAC to the edge of the river on 

the U.S. side of the border and immediately return across to Mexico. The smuggler typically does not leave the raft on the river, so 

it is difficult for CBP to apprehend the smuggler himself. Individuals who want to get past the checkpoints further into the U.S., for 

example, to Houston, pay roughly $8,000. For even more money, 

cartels and smugglers will bring an individual to any city in the 

U.S. An individual seeking to enter the U.S. illegally can also pay 

more money to avoid having to walk or travel through refuge areas. 

CBP estimated that $1.3 billion per year is generated for the cartels and other smugglers bringing individuals into the United 

States through only the RGV. The expenses for the journeys are 

roughly $640 million, which includes rafts, guides, drivers, stash 

houses, bribes, etc., and the profits are roughly $658 million. 

II. DHS CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION CENTRALIZED PROCESSING

CENTER IN MCALLEN, TEXAS

The delegation visited a CBP Centralized Processing Center 

(CPC) facility in McAllen, Texas and was provided a briefing and 

tour of the facility. The briefing included information regarding the 

shift in immigration patterns across the southern border and how 

those shifts in patterns have been addressed by the U.S. to date. 

This CPC facility is an example of the first facility that a person 

or family will visit after being apprehended for an illegal border 

crossing. There are two temporary detention facilities at this location. There is a 55,000-square foot facility which houses family 

units and UAC, which members viewed. There is a second facility 

that houses men and women who are not UAC or part of a family 

unit. The facility was quickly built after the surge of UAC in 2014. 

The facility can hold 3,300 people. On July 9, 2018, approximately 

1,300 people were at the facility. 

Prior to the creation of this facility, individuals and families apprehended at the border were processed at the McAllen station, 

which had a capacity of only 250 people. The video that CBP 

showed the delegation included images of the CBP facilities in 

McAllen prior to the creation of this facility, beginning at minute 

4:12. The video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/ 

watch?v=jRihEaftS0M. 

Individuals are held in this facility for an average of 50 hours for 

processing. The longest instance of someone being held in this facilVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:14 Jul 21, 2018 Jkt 079008 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR835.XXX HR835
5 

ity that CBP could recall was one week. Upon arriving at the facility, the personal belongings of each individual are taken and 

stored. Individuals are provided a ‘‘claim check’’ for their belongings, which are then returned upon an individual’s departure from 

the facility. If an adult or child’s clothes need to be laundered, CBP 

provides new clothing and launders and then returns the original 

clothing. Individuals receive meals and snacks are readily available. Toilet and shower facilities are available, toiletries and other 

items such as diapers are provided, and each individual is issued 

a soft mat for sleeping and a hygienic mylar ‘‘space blanket’’ for 

warmth. Televisions with age-appropriate entertainment were provided in each of the facility’s zones. Representatives from the consulates of several countries are on site. 

The building is divided into four ‘‘zones’’—male head of household (men traveling with children); female head of household 

(women traveling with children); male UAC; and female UAC. In 

most situations, family units are held in the same zone. There are 

exceptions to this. For example, an older daughter traveling with 

her father will not be housed in the male head of household section. At the time of our visit, there was one family where the father 

and one young child were held in the male head of household section, and an older daughter was held in the female UAC section. 

CBP agents said that they would take them out of the respective 

areas to talk with each other any time they asked. 

Processing by CBP includes determining whether a family relationship exists or if there is any evidence of fraud. Most of the 

time, CBP does not discern evidence of fraud or trafficking within 

the family units. However, there are exceptions. For example, CBP 

officials recounted that, just a few days before the Committee’s 

visit, a man crossed the border with a four-month-old baby that he 

claimed was his child. The demeanor of the man raised suspicions 

of CBP agents. Upon questioning, he then said that he was not the 

child’s father, but the child’s uncle. CBP agents searched their 

records and found that he had entered the U.S. the previous year 

with another child. When CBP agents asked about the whereabouts 

of that child, the man said that he did not know. Upon further 

questioning, the man admitted that he was not a relative of the infant at all, and the infant was separated from the man who 

brought him or her across the border. 

After CBP processes those apprehended at the border, UAC are 

sent to HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters. HHS 

tells CBP which shelter a UAC should be sent to, and CBP transfers the UAC. Family units are referred to ICE detention facilities. 

If ICE does not have the capacity to detain the family, then they 

are released, typically with an ankle bracelet, and given a notice 

to appear at a subsequent immigration hearing. While there are 

several thousand ICE detention beds for women traveling with children, there are less than 90 detention beds for men traveling with 

children in the U.S. Adults apprehended illegally entering the 

country without minor children are also referred to ICE detention 

facilities. If ICE does not have the capacity to detain an adult, then 

he or she is released, typically with an ankle bracelet, and given 

a notice to appear at a subsequent immigration hearing. 

Members asked about the implementation of the ‘‘zero tolerance’’ 

initiative and whether there was coordination between federal 

6 

agencies prior to the implementation or announcement of this policy. One CBP official stated that, in his opinion, the ‘‘zero tolerance’’ initiative was a good deterrent, but expressed that the policy 

was not well executed. While CBP did not explicitly state that 

there was no coordination between federal agencies prior to the 

public announcement of the ‘‘zero tolerance’’ initiative, CBP officials did acknowledge that the implementation of the ‘‘zero tolerance’’ initiative was not great, and did not consider second, third, 

and fourth degree impacts, including family separations. CBP officials told staff that, in the RGV, they did not separate children 

under five from their parents unless there were concerns about 

fraud or trafficking, or other endangerment issues for the children. 

CBP officials also clarified that families were not separated in the 

field. CBP officials could not provide a figure for the number of 

children in total separated from their parents at this facility. 

III. HHS OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, SOUTHWEST KEY ‘‘CASA

PADRE’’ FACILITY IN BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS

The delegation visited an HHS ORR facility, managed by HHS 

grantee Southwest Key. The ‘‘Casa Padre’’ facility is licensed to 

hold just under 1,500 boys between the ages of 10 and 17. The facility originally received a license for 1,200 children, and received 

a variance for roughly an additional 240 children. Approximately 

half of all UAC, including separated children, in the RGV are 

housed at this facility. There are two other Southwest Key facilities 

nearby that house female UAC, including separated children. HHS 

also has other grantee sites in the RGV. According to Southwest 

Key staff, there are 23 other facilities in South Texas, but there 

isn’t another program as big as Southwest Key. The average length 

of time that a child stays at this facility is 48 to 52 days. The longest amount of time that a child has stayed at this facility is ‘‘more 

than a year.’’ The Casa Padre facility has approximately 1,200 employees. 

According to Southwest Key, roughly 90 percent of the children 

housed in this facility are true UAC, meaning that they entered the 

U.S. without a parent or guardian. Roughly 10 percent were separated from a parent or legal guardian. For purposes of this section, 

both true UAC and children separated from their parents are defined as ‘‘UAC.’’ 

As noted above, UAC and children separated from their parents 

are first encountered by CBP. CBP notifies HHS ORR that it has 

apprehended a UAC. ORR does an ‘‘intake’’ out of its Washington, 

D.C. office and determines to which facility the UAC or separated 

child should go. DHS facilitates the transfer of the child to that 

shelter. According to ORR, more than 80 percent of UAC enter the 

U.S. with information about a potential sponsor and other paperwork. 

ORR staff stated that they did not receive consistent information 

from DHS regarding whether a child was separated from their parents, including information about who that parent is, upon entry 

pursuant to the ‘‘zero tolerance’’ initiative or otherwise. Sometimes 

this information was in the information provided by DHS, and 

other times ORR learned about the separation from the child itself. 

Case managers work with DHS to obtain additional information 

needed about each UAC. 

7 

Within 24 hours of arriving at Casa Padre, UAC are assessed by 

a clinician and a case manager who immediately starts the reunification process. Within 48 hours of arrival, children are seen by a 

doctor for vaccinations, receive an x-ray for tuberculosis, are 

screened for communicable diseases such as chicken pox, and are 

screened via interview for information about sexual activity, sexual 

abuse, sexually transmitted diseases (STD), and chronic conditions, 

among other medical issues. Southwest Key follows the CDC’s 

catch up schedule for vaccinations. If a UAC says that he or she 

received a vaccination in their home country, Southwest Key asks 

for documentation that they received the vaccination. It is rare that 

this documentation can be provided. If the UAC claims that they 

have been vaccinated, but documentation cannot be provided, the 

facility will still vaccinate the UAC. If a UAC tests positive for a 

reportable communicable disease or STD both the doctor and 

Southwest Key report that to the state. The sexual abuse screen 

asks whether a UAC has been sexually abused either in their home 

country, en route to the U.S., or in CBP or ORR care. UAC are also 

asked about sexual abuse by clinicians and case managers. UAC 

receive an educational assessment within 72 hours and are assigned to one of four educational levels, with four being roughly a 

high school education. 

UAC see a clinician at least once a week, sometimes more. They 

also regularly meet with their case manager. At Casa Padre, each 

UAC can make two ten-minute phone calls a week—one to someone 

in their home country (typically a parent) and another to their potential sponsor in the U.S. UAC receive six hours of school Monday 

through Friday and two hours of outdoor time each day. There are 

also indoor activity rooms and gymnasiums. Meals are served in 

30-minute shifts. The facilities viewed by the delegation were 

clean. Casa Padre is divided into four quadrants. Each quadrant is 

identical and includes bedrooms, classrooms, and activity rooms. 

Each quadrant has an elected student council, including a President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer, and can voice concerns and suggestions to Casa Padre management. 

As noted above, according to ORR, most UAC arrive in the U.S. 

with information about a potential sponsor. The case manager 

works with the potential sponsor to determine the relationship to 

the child. ORR policy requires a bonafide relationship—the sponsor 

must know the UAC in some way. If the potential sponsor is unable to prove his or her relationship to the UAC via birth certificates, then DNA testing is used. Approximately 100–150 UAC at 

Casa Padre are placed with a sponsor each week. The vast majority 

of sponsors are parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. Some 

sponsors are close family friends. If a UAC enters the country without an identified sponsor, ORR works with outside groups to determine whether the UAC has a likelihood of receiving asylum. If 

such a UAC is likely to receive asylum, then he or she would likely 

be placed in foster care. If such a UAC is not likely to receive asylum, then he or she would likely stay at the ORR facility until their 

court date. If a UAC turns 18 while in the care of ORR, they are 

transferred to DHS custody. 

When a sponsor is approved, Southwest Key staff travels with 

the UAC so they can meet their sponsor. Many sponsors are not 

legally present in the U.S., so they cannot travel to the Casa Padre 

8 

facility as it is within the checkpoints in Texas. After a UAC is released to a sponsor, ORR tracks the UAC for 30 days, including by 

follow-up phone call. If ORR finds that the UAC is not doing well, 

for example, it is found that they haven’t been enrolled in school 

or are not attending school, ORR files a report. Members asked 

why HHS does not follow-up at subsequent intervals, such as 3 

months, 6 months, 1 year, etc. According to ORR, the UAC must 

appear for court dates and there are other systems in place should 

the UAC not appear in court. ORR has previously told the Committee that it does not have the resources necessary to conduct 

longer-term follow up of UAC once they are placed with sponsors. 

As Casa Padre is not a detention facility, it cannot forcibly stop 

UAC from leaving the property. If a UAC indicates that he wants 

to leave, staff at Casa Padre speak with the UAC and encourage 

him to stay, but does not restrain the UAC should they elect to 

leave. Casa Padre staff stated that two UAC have walked out of 

the facility since it opened in 2017; one was subsequently apprehended and was stepped up to a higher shelter. 

ORR monitors the capacity of its grantee shelters daily and is 

able to adjust as necessary. For example, Casa Padre applied for 

and received a variance to house more UAC when that became necessary. 

According to ORR officials, children that were separated from 

their parents and are to be reunified with their parents would be 

brought by the shelter where they were placed to a reunification 

site, at which point the children would be transferred to ICE custody and the family unit would be released by ICE due to a lack 

of family detention space. 

IV. GATEWAY BRIDGE PORT OF ENTRY

The delegation visited the Gateway Bridge Port of Entry in 

Brownsville, Texas. The delegation was briefed and provided a tour 

by the CBP officials on the Port of Brownsville. The briefing included information regarding the port’s area of responsibility; operational infrastructure; its processing and inspection process for passenger, pedestrian, commercial, seaport, and rail border traffic; and 

admissibility processing. 

The Port of Brownsville is the only port of entry in the United 

States with all operational disciplines (land, air, sea, and rail) 

under the direction of one port director. The Brownsville area of responsibility extends over 180 square miles and has four international border crossings, an international airport, seaport, rail 

bridge, and two commercial import/export lots. The operational infrastructure consists of 17 vehicle lanes, 10 pedestrian lanes, 17 

immigration processing windows, and eight inbound commercial 

lanes. In 2017 the Brownsville Port ranked 5th in the number of 

vehicles processed—4,848,503; 6th in the number of privately 

owned vehicle passengers processed—10,003,047; 12th in the number of commercially operated vehicles processed—222,406; 13th in 

the number of trains processed—790; and 12th in the number of 

buses processed—6,591. Thus far in FY 2018, the Port of Brownsville has processed individuals claiming asylum from 91 different 

countries. Additionally, they processed approximately 12,000 immigration apprehensions. The Port of Brownsville issues 3,000 to 

4,000 I–94s each day. 

9 

Port officials cannot turn away individuals or families seeking 

asylum once they have crossed the border between the U.S. and 

Mexico at the port of entry. CBP officials process those seeking asylum, creating an ‘‘A-file.’’ Individuals or families can stay at the 

Port for up to 72 hours, and all asylees are sent to ICE ERO after 

processing by CBP at the port. If the individual or family speaks 

Spanish, CBP officials can interview and transfer them to ICE 

ERO within three hours. If a translator is needed then the process 

can take longer, often six to eight hours. If the Port cannot transfer 

the individual or family, then the line quickly backs up. CBP officials stand outside the facility on the Gateway Bridge itself and 

allow people into the facility—both those seeking asylum and those 

otherwise entering the U.S.—as space permits. The CBP officials 

on the bridge also do a preliminary review of any paperwork presented by those wanting to enter the U.S. CBP officials expedite 

asylum processing for humanitarian reasons, including a pregnant 

mother or a family with young children. There are families waiting 

to legally claim asylum waiting in Mexico. CBP officials could not 

provide an estimate of how many families are waiting at this facility or the amount of time that an individual or family typically 

waits before space is available to process their asylum claim. According to CBP officials, they are processing legal asylum claims as 

quickly as ICE ERO can pick up the individuals or families. The 

delegation did not cross into Mexico. 

According to CBP officials, approximately 80 percent of people 

seeking asylum are found to have a ‘‘reasonable fear’’ of persecution, which allows them to stay in the U.S. while their asylum case 

is pending. Ultimately, approximately 20 percent of people seeking 

asylum meet the ‘‘credible fear’’ standard. 

CBP officials examine the documents provided by the individual 

or family for obvious indicators of fraud. According to CBP officials, 

they can often determine if a passport is fraudulent. It is much 

harder to determine if a birth certificate is fraudulent. CBP officials assume the documents presented are accurate and valid unless there is evidence that it is fraudulent. If an individual presents 

fraudulent documents, CBP refers the individual for prosecution. 

The Port of Brownsville facility was last updated in 1983 and the 

CBP officials expressed concern over the fact that they don’t have 

a lot of room to handle UACs or family units. The lack of infrastructure is compounded by the fact that finding a facility to house 

families can take 72 hours. During a walking tour of the facility 

and bridge, the delegation observed what was formerly office space 

that has been converted into a room to hold UACs and family units 

until they are able to transfer them. This room is in the same area 

as the interview rooms and holding cells for criminals that are apprehended at the port of entry. 

In addition to the lack of space, the Port of Brownsville facility 

is largely using old technologies. According to CBP officials, the 

Port does not receive enough electricity to run newer scanning 

technologies or magnetometers. 

CBP officials told the delegation that there has been an increase 

in the male head of household family units coming across the border, 200 last year, and officials shared that there are limited facilities and beds that can accommodate that type of family unit. According to an ICE official at the Port Isabel Detention Center, if a 

10 

male head of household family unit requests asylum at the Port of 

Brownsville facility, CBP officials at Brownsville will interview and 

process the request and make a request to ICE for male head of 

household detention bed space. Given the lack of male head of 

household detention space, ICE will deny the request. The family 

unit will be sent to a CPC and processed with a notice to appear 

for a subsequent immigration hearing. Officials also noted that 

part of the CBP delay is due to the ports infrastructure because the 

facility is not designed to process the high number of individuals 

seeking asylum. 

V. PORT ISABEL DETENTION CENTER

The delegation visited the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Port 

Isabel Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas. The delegation was 

briefed and provided a tour by the ICE officials at the Port Isabel 

Detention Center. The briefing included information about the history of the facility, the size and classification of the population at 

the facility, average length of stay and the various reasons that individuals are detained at the Port Isabel facility. 

The facility was built in the 1960s and was a former military 

base. Some of the infrastructure is new, but the facility still has 

parts of the original structure. The facility is a 1,200-bed facility 

and only holds adults, both male and female, who are awaiting removal or going through the removal process. The facility is authorized to house level 1 (non-criminal), level 2 (convicted of a minor 

crime), and level 3 (criminal felony) individuals. Individuals wear 

different color clothing depending on their level. Individuals classified as level 1 make up the majority of the facility’s population. Individuals classified as level 1 do not interact with individuals classified as level 3. Individuals classified as level 2 can interact with 

individuals in level 1 or level 3, depending on the circumstances. 

Individuals detained at this facility come from a port of entry after 

claiming asylum, after apprehension by CBP after illegally crossing 

the border, often after claiming asylum, or an ICE action. 

Upon arrival at the facility, individuals receive a quick medical 

screening and are classified into levels 1, 2, or 3. Within the first 

12 hours, they receive a more thorough medical screening; females 

are also tested for pregnancy. The average length of stay for an individual is 11 days and on average there are roughly 500 individuals going in and out of the facility on a ‘‘good day.’’ There are approximately 4–5 charter flights per week that hold 135 individuals 

to transport individuals back to their country of origin. Others are 

released into the U.S. after an interview showing that they have 

a reasonable fear of persecution if they return to their home country. Of the facility’s population, officials noted that approximately 

20–30 percent of individuals claim fear of being returned to their 

country. 

According to ICE ERO officials, at this facility, if a pregnant 

woman is less than six months pregnant and can be returned to 

her home country within a week, she will be detained at Port Isabel and then deported. If she is more than six months pregnant, 

or will not be deported within a week, she is released with a notice 

to appear at a subsequent immigration hearing. 

11 

For individuals who are released into the U.S. after a credible 

fear screening, ICE ERO asks relatives or other people a potential 

asylee knows to procure a bus ticket for the individual before they 

are released. Local charitable shelters also help individuals get to 

their intended destinations. 

Currently there are 371 identified parents in custody at Port Isabel, both male and female. ICE is working with HHS and ORR to 

identify parents and as such HHS is on site conducting DNA testing and matching them with children to ensure that they are a legitimate family. The DNA testing started last week and as of Monday, July 9, ICE officials expected that testing to be completed in 

the next 2 days. Despite being designated as a family reunification 

site, officials stated that there they are not equipped to have children at the Port Isabel facility. Instead, a third facility nearby was 

designated as a place for parents and kids to be reunified and they 

are working with ORR on that process. ICE ERO officials explained 

that Port Isabel had been designated as a family reunification site 

because it is a location to which parents have been moved to facilitate reunification with their children. ICE ERO officials at this facility did not have detailed information on the process by which 

parents separated from their children would be reunified with the 

parents at the third facility. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has not held hearings 

on the legislation. 

On July 12, 2018, the Committee met in open markup session 

and ordered H. Res. 982, without amendment, reported to the 

House without recommendation by a record vote of 52 yeas and 0 

nays. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII requires the Committee to list the record 

votes on the motion to report legislation and amendments thereto. 

The following reflects the record votes taken during the Committee 

consideration: 

12 


Insert offset folio 1 here HR835.001

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE-- l!STH CONGRESS 

ROLL CALL VOTE# 76 

BILL: H. Res. 982, Of inquiry requesting the President, and directing the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, to transmit, respectively, records related to the President's "zero tolerance" policy. 

AMENDMENT: A motion by Mr. Walden to order H.Res. 982 reported to the House, without 

recommendation. (Final Passage) 

IHSPOSITION: AGR~:ED TO, by a roll call vote of 52 yeas and 0 nays. 

REPRESENTATIVE YEAS NAYS PRESENT REPRESENT AT!VE YEAS NAYS 

Mr. Walden X Mr. Pallone X 

Mr. Barton X Mr. Rush X 

Mr. Upton X Ms. Eshoo 

Mr. Shimkus X Mr. Engel X 

Mr. Burgess X Mr. Green X 

Mrs. Blackburn X Ms. DeGette X 

Mr. Scalise X Mr. Doyle X 

Mr. Latta X Ms. Schakowsky X 

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers X Mr. Butterfield X 

Mr. Harper Ms. Matsui X 

Mr. Lance X Ms. Castor X 

Mr. Guthrie X Mr. Sarbanes 

Mr. Olson X Mr. McNerney X 

Mr. McKinley X Mr. Welch X 

Mr. Kinzinger X Mr. Lujan X 

Mr. Griffith X Mr. Tonko X 

Mr. Bilirakis X Ms. Clarke X 

Mr. Johnson X Mr. Loebsaek X 

Mr. Long X Mr. Schrader X 

Mr. Bucshon X Mr. Kennedy X 

Mr. Flores X Mr. Cardenas X 

Mrs. Brooks X Mr. Ruiz X 

Mr. Mullin X Mr. Peters X 

Mr. Hudson X Ms. Dingcll X 

Mr. Collins X 

Mr. Cramer X 

Mr. Walberg X 

Mrs. Walters X 

Mr. Costello X 

Mr. Carter X 1---

i\Mr. Duncan X 

07112/2018 

PRESENT 
13 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule 

XIII, the findings and recommendations of the Committee are reflected in this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII, the Committee finds that 

H. Res. 982 would result in no new or increased budget authority, 

entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII, at the time this report 

was filed, the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not available. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance 

goal or objective of this legislation is to request the President and 

direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to furnish certain records relating to the President’s ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

H. Res. 982 requests the President, and directs the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services, to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption 

of the resolution, records relating to the President’s ‘‘zero tolerance’’ 

policy. 

(14) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

I submit these dissenting views, as Ranking Member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, in opposition to the failure by the 

Republican majority of the Committee to act favorably upon H. 

Res. 982. 

On June 14, 2018, I sent a letter to the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) asking him to answer some questions about 

the Trump Administration’s implementation of a ‘‘zero tolerance’’ 

immigration policy that resulted in the forcible separation of all minors, including very young children, from their parents and family 

members. My letter requested details about the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and ORR’s ability to track the minors in 

its care, as well as the role of ORR Director Scott Lloyd in facilitating the release of certain minors. 

Six days later, on June 20, 2018, every Democratic Member of 

the Energy and Commerce Committee signed a hearing request letter to Chairman Walden and Health Subcommittee Chairman Burgess emphasizing that the Committee must immediately hold a 

hearing to examine the implications of the ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy 

and ‘‘to gain clarity on what children are being placed in ORR’s 

custody, how they are being cared for, and the long-term implications these policies may have on their health.’’ The Democratic 

Members urged Chairman Walden and Chairman Burgess to invite 

key officials and other pediatric health care experts to testify regarding the impacts of this policy. 

On June 20, 2018, after sustained public outcry regarding the 

Administration’s family separation policy, President Trump signed 

an Executive Order ending the family separation policy. Following 

this action, I again called on Chairman Walden to schedule a hearing as soon as possible. 

Now, nearly a month after my initial request, the Chairman continues to refuse to schedule a hearing or provide any assurances 

that a hearing will be scheduled in the future. 

On June 26, 2018, I requested additional information from the 

Secretary of HHS and expressed my concern about the ability of 

ORR and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reunite 

separated children and parents in a timely manner. I asked for information about the constantly changing numbers of children in 

ORR’s care that were forcibly separated from their parents, and 

whether all family separations had effectively ceased following the 

June 20 Executive Order. I also inquired about the system by 

which HHS and ORR track those children who are in its care, and 

how HHS ensures identifying information is connected to each 

child. Additionally, I asked how HHS worked with DHS and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to obtain information about a child’s 

parents or family, and who is the primary Administration official 

in charge of managing reunification. Most critically, I further 

15 

sought information on whether ORR took or was taking any steps 

to offer special care or treatment to children who may have suffered trauma as a result of being forcibly separated from their family. 

Following continued inaction from the Chairman, on June 27, 

2018, during a health subcommittee markup, I offered an amendment to H.R. lll, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness 

Reauthorization Act of 2018, which stated that it is the sense of 

Congress that: 

(1) The Secretary of Health and Human Services should consult with such public health officials as may be necessary to 

determine whether the separation of children from their parent 

or guardian as a result of the Trump Administration’s ‘‘zero 

tolerance’’ policy is a public health emergency; 

(2) The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 

of Representatives should hold at least one hearing to examine 

the current status and welfare of those children who have been 

separated from their parent or guardian as a result of the 

Trump Administration’s ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy and the longterm implications of such policy on the health of such children; 

and 

(3) The Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Assistant 

Secretary for Preparedness and Response should be called as 

witnesses for such hearing.’’ 

Collectively, every Republican Member of the Health Subcommittee who cast a vote on my amendment opposed it. My 

amendment failed on a roll-call vote. 

Given the Chairman’s failure to schedule a hearing and the Administration’s failure to provide sufficient answers to the questions 

raised, on July 3, 2018, I introduced H. Res. 982 in order to obtain 

documents and other information on the health and welfare of children forcibly separated from their parents or guardians as a result 

of the President’s ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy, as well as the long-term 

implications of this policy on the health of those children. 

One day before the Committee’s consideration of H. Res. 982, on 

July 11, 2018, I received the first and only written correspondence 

from HHS on this issue. HHS’s response failed to answer most all 

of my questions, including details on the process HHS and DHS are 

utilizing to facilitate reunification. Additionally, HHS’s written response provided no details on the long-term health implications of 

these children or how HHS will ensure reunification if a parent is 

deported without his or her child. These questions remain unanswered. 

At the markup of H. Res. 982, I once again called on Chairman 

Walden to hold a hearing on this matter and presented numerous 

reasons why this resolution should be reported favorably. First, I 

explained that the Resolution was neither premature nor 

overbroad, as the inadequate responses from the Administration to 

my multiple requests on this issue warranted the Resolution. While 

the Resolution requested copies of all documents and other records, 

given the importance of this issue and the immense need for oversight of the Administration’s actions and response, the breadth of 

this request is appropriate. Additionally, my resolution was not 

16 

premature as the Administration was asked to respond in writing 

to each of my questions not later than July 6, 2018. 

I noted further that my resolution only covers categories of information that are already in the possession of the President or HHS 

Secretary and nothing in the Resolution threatens any basis upon 

which the President can assert Executive Privilege on legally cognizable grounds. The Resolution was also drafted in the proper parliamentary form to be respectful to the Constitutional separation of 

powers doctrine. 

During debate of H. Res. 982 Representative Matsui stated that 

‘‘Congress has the responsibility to hold the President and his administration accountable for this disaster.’’ She went on to stress 

that ‘‘the government did this, we have to find out why, and where 

the children are going to be. That is up to us as Congress, we are 

elected. We are elected representatives of our constituents and it 

is up to us to really learn what happened.’’ Additionally, Representative Sarbanes noted that ‘‘This is a classic case of missing in action’’ and emphasized that the topic ‘‘falls squarely within the jurisdiction and responsibility and obligation of the Committee.’’ 

Unfortunately, the Committee ordered H. Res. 982 reported without recommendation. As a result, this Committee will not gain access to critical information required by the Resolution. 

This information would have enabled the Committee to conduct 

essential oversight of the Administration’s actions and ensure the 

Committee has the documents it needs to understand the implications of the ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy. The Administration’s failure to 

provide sufficient information in response to my requests, coupled 

with the Chairman’s failure to hold a hearing on this matter, has 

left Congress in the dark on the Administration’s actions and response, and as a result the Committee cannot effectively oversee 

the Agencies responsible for this policy. 

The health and welfare of the children impacted by the Trump 

Administration’s ‘‘zero tolerance’’ policy must be evaluated immediately. 

My resolution of inquiry is ripe for action. H. Res. 982 is 

straight-forward and entirely reasonable in what it asks of the 

President and directs the Secretary of HHS to provide to our Committee and the House of Representatives. For better, far more than 

worse, family unification is vital to all of as individuals and to our 

physical and mental health and overall well-being. Regardless of 

one’s citizenship status or the country from which they are migrating to the United States, happy and stable families are undeniably 

essential to becoming and staying healthy. For that reason alone, 

separating children from their families, regardless of whose policy 

it is or the objectives behind that policy, is suspect on its face and 

must be balanced by through our input, as a separate and co-equal 

branch of the federal government. Our Committee should not allow 

or tolerate further delay by this Administration in providing answers to our questions or soliciting our advice and reactions regarding this unabated crisis. 

17 

In order to perform our sworn duties as elected representatives 

and leaders, we must convene an oversight hearing as soon as possible. For these reasons, H. Res. 982 should have been favorably reported. 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., 

Ranking Member. 

Æ