come to order. without objection the chair's authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. welcome, everyone, to this morning's hearing on oversight of the trump administration's family separation policy. i will now recognize myself in opening statement. two years into the trump administration's wide array of dramatic and damaging immigration policy changes, it is unbelievable that so much harm has occurred to so many people with so little congressional oversight. that ends with this new congress. now the first immigration related hearing in this congress, the judiciary committee will finally seek to hold the administration accountable for its indefensible and repugnant family separation policy and for the injuries that it has inflicted on thousands of children and families. even now, months after the height of the crisis created by the administration's implementation of its cruel and inhumane anti-immigrant policies basic questions remain unanswered. in part, that is because the department of justice and the department of homeland security, until last night, stonewalled the legitimate request for information by this committee, that were made over six weeks ago. although we have referred several document productions by the department of health and human services, we only received our first document productions of under 100 pages each last night from doj and dhs. that is absolutely inexcusable. these requests were made six weeks ago. i expect these agencies to comply with our request in the future. and i expect the witnesses to be prepared to answer all of our questions today. starting with four fundamental ones. first, why did the administration think that seizing children from the arms of their parents was acceptable policy? second, who is responsible for developing and implementing the family separation policy? third, what are you doing to reunify all of the families you separated? and fourth, what plans are in place to repair the traumatizing damage to children and families caused by their actions? as part of this policy, the department of homeland security apprehended thousands of families crossing our southern border. many of them fleeing for their lives. and tore children away from their parents seemingly for no reason, other than to deter people from seeking the protection our country has historically provided to those seeking asylum. and the department did so in such a wreckless and callous way that it failed even, that it failed even to capture sufficient information to identify which child belonged to which parent. when a stranger rips a child from a parent's arms without any plan to reunify them, it is called kidnapping. this administration is responsible for the harm suffered by thousands of children and their parents, and it must be held accountable. after, after all the children are reunified. that is why we must have a full accounting of which officials were responsible for directing and planning this shameful policy of kidnapping. not only was the family separation policy abhorrent, administration was either incompetent, or grossly negligent in its implementation. which only compounded the trauma inflicted on these innocent children. it is now apparent that none of the agencies present here today were ready to implement this policy. according to reports from the dhs inspector general, the department of health and human services inspector general, and the government accountability office, the agencies failed to take the basic and necessary steps to prepare for and implement the family separation policy. for example, the dhs inspector general found that the department quote struggled to identify track and reunite families unquote and caused confusion by providing quote inconsistent information unquote to separated families. the gao reported that dhs and hhs front line staff were not aware of their roles in family separation, until then attorney general sessions announced the policy in april of 2018 speech. this utter lack of preparation is indefensible on its own. it is particularly appalling given the fact that dhs and the justice department had already conducted a five-month pilot program involving family separation in the el paso sector. how is it remotely possible that after quietly conducting this family separation program for five months, the agencies at this hearing did not recognize the obvious need for critical officer training, for a system for tracking families, or a plan for eventual reunification. the failure to take these steps as the program was expanded demonstrates an utter indifference to human suffering that shocks the conscience. lastly, i expect our witnesses to tell us what they are currently doing to repair the untold harm their agencies inflicted on these children and their parents. and their families. the american association of pediatrics has stated that, quote, highly stressful experiences like family separation can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child's brain architecture, and affecting his or her short and long term health and can carry life-long consequences for children. closed quote. so i must ask, who in your respective agencies are now monitoring and addressing the medical and psychological needs of separated children, both during custody, and after being reunified with their parents. with their families. incredibly, the health and human services inspector general reported last january, that is to say, last month, that thousands more, that thousands more children may have been forcibly separated from their parents or legal guardians in the administration, than the administration had previously acknowledged. in fact, the actual number is still unknown. even worse, the government has neither attempted nor intends to reunify these unaccounted for children with their parents. because they say it would just be too complicated and burdensome. while there may be some logistical challenges and jurisdictional questions as to how that should happen, there is absolutely no justification to not even try to reunify a child with his or her parents. it is simply unacceptable to allow anyone who inflicted such traumatic damage to these families to side step responsibility for the consequences of their actions. we as a nation can and must do better. i expect that the witnesses will all be prepared to answer fully and clearly how this disaster ous and unconscionable policy was developed and implemented. how their agencies intend to locate and reunify every child with every parent, with every family that was separated, whether it's part of the zero tolerance policy, or prior to the zero tolerance policy being announced. including reunifying children with parents who are deported without their children, if the parents want that. and how the agencies intend to repair the damage they caused. i look forward to discussing these issues further with our panel and i now yield to yield to the distinguished mr. colins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the human immigration law and when what happens, the law sig norred by republican and democratic administrations and abused by those seeking the united states at almost any cost. together these factors have undercut american sovereignty and the generosity of our immigration system. caravans of thousands of central americans are endangering themselves and others as they pursue entry very often illegal entry into the u.s., fraud and abuse mow is rampant in our asylum system, which is supposed to protect the vulnerable from persecution. adults are delivering children into the hands of human traffickers while gangs of aliens violently assault the border patrol agents simply trying to keep americans and migrants safe. the president once noted, we have have seen a significant rise in apprehensions and processing of children and individuals from central america who are cross can into the unls and the rio grande valley areas of southwest border. these individuals who embark upon this journey are subject to violent crime, abuse, and extortion, as they rely on dangerous human smuggling networks to transport them through central america, and mexico. this was true when president obama wrote this. in a letter to congress in june of 2014. and it remains true today. that summer president obama asked congress for 3.billion in emergency supplemental precipitations to help address the border crisis and the house republicans passed such a bill. >> during that crisis, the obama administration was doing the same thing, that is happening today. they were apprehending illegal border crossers in the same way the trump administration does today. they were detaining and processing the illegal entrants ins same facilities with the same petitions, where the trump administration detains and processes them today. they were providing the same humanitarian relief. diapers, food, mylam blankets as the trump administration provides today. of course, none of that stops illegal border crossings because the perverse incentives to come to the u.s. illegally and to falsely claim asylum remain strong. to make the situation worse, a 2015 federal court ruling incorrectly interpreted the forest settlement agreement. that ruling provided more incentive for aliens to come to the u.s. illegally since word got out that adults who bring a child with him across the board remember guaranteed release into the america's interior within a matter of days. the obama administration rightly appealed the ruling but lost. leaving congress the duty to act on what should be a bipartisan humanitarian policy, correcting the errant flores ruling. so here we, are five years later, misguided policies, inconsistent enforcement, and limited resources have further fueled the humanitarian border crisis. family unit apprehensions are up 280% over the same time last year. and overall apprehensions by border patrol were up 81%. agents routinely see groups of 300 or more aliens enter together illegally as central american caravans filled with family units, unaccompanied minors and single adults have become the norm. my colleagues across the aisle have offered no solutions to secure the border and end the perverse incentives that cause children to be traffic and abused on the journey north. or honor illegal immigrants by fighting the widespread abuse of the current system. instead we have seen abdication for mass legalization of illegal aliens to abolish the entire law enforcement agency of i.c.e. and legislation that would further am string any efforts to deter abuse of the existing system and laws. even today, the hostility to the rule of law is on display. my colleagues had the opportunity to hold their first immigration related hearing on the topic that would curb incentive force illegal immigration and remove incentives for parents to endanger their own children by paying murderous cartels to smuggle children across the u.s. mexico border, instead we have decided that the first hearing would ignore every opportunity to protect americans and their neighbors in favor of a political spectacle. none of that is helpful. and nop of it represents a serious attempt to protect our sovereign borders, our citizens and our neighbors to the south and the rule of law. when he took office, president trump applied the current law in good faith effort to deter illegal border crossings. january 25, 2017 immigration enforcement executive order directed the attorney general to prioritize progre prioritize prosecutions of the southern border, and the dhs implemented the zero tolerance policy under which dhs would defer any alien who entered illegally under the southwest corner to d.o.j. for prosecution under the code 1325 a. do d.o.j. would prosecute those aliens. children accompanying aliens who would be prosecuted became by law unaccompanied alien children and were placed in the resettlement and the department. and i will state personally, we must be fair. when we look back in this in hindsight, it is clear the system was not ready to handle the large number of children arriving at the border and separated from their parents. it was not handled in a way that could be fitting and that was a mistake in the system. agents involved here made some mistakes. the administration could have and should have done a better job reuniting families for adult prosecutions. today we will hear from accuracies involved in the zero toll ration policy about what they are done to ensure going forward, tracking children and if appropriate reunited with the paren. but we should also talk about how congress can stop incentivizing illegal entry. we should hear from the witnesses, especially border patrol and i.c.e., what resources and legislative changes they believe are necessary to end the humanitarian crisis, at our southern border, and make interior safer for citizens and legal immigrants. with lep, we help no one here today, by upholding the status quo. we cannot simply say and have a hearing on what is now, without looking to the future. without saying what got us here, how do we get it fixed and how do we have honest interpretations of who is held and who is not and when we do, that then we do a service to the american public, and not only those who were seeking a better life as they come here, doing it legally, but also to make sure that our border is safe and those doing. and mr. chairman before i yield back the time i want to recognize some members of audience, we will hear a lot about separation and other things and those are things we do need to hear about, with us in the room are marian mendoza, son, police sergeant brandon men zoe da, killed by a criminal illegal alien driving while intoxicated. steve robinback whose son grant was killed by an illegal alien who while walking at a convenience store that the alien decided to rob. and marla wolf whose husband fbi agent carlos wolf was killed by a criminal illegal alien while standing next to his vehicle on the side of the road. our immigration system is broken. it needs to be fixed. we cannot continue the perverse incentive to come illegally across our borders and we need to fix the legal ways that we can make the country the greatest it is in the world. with open doors. to those who want to do, and come here, to participate legally. this is our problem. this is what we should be dealing with today. and that is my hope, mr. charch, as i yield back. >> thank you, mr. collins. it is now my pleasure to recognize the chair of the subcommittee on immigration and citizenship, the distinguished gentle woman from california, ms. loufgrin, for her opening statement. >> thank you, chairman nadler. i've served in congress for almost 25 years, and i have participated in hundreds of hearings. but i've rarely been confronted with overseeing policy choices so dreadful and grave that they fundamentally undermine our standing as a nation. we're here today to document and hold this administration accountable for using children, including babies and toddlers, as pawns, in its ongoing war on immigrants. i take no pleasure in holding this hearing and there will be no winners at the end of it. the family separation policy has stained the nation and hurt our people. leaving families in pain and our government in shame. but the hearing is critical because there are many questions that remain unanswered. today, we expect the witnesses to be prepared to provide detailed, thorough, and concrete answers to those questions. at the outset, here's what we already know. we know that when democrats criticized the proposal, to separate families as a deterrent, unauthorized immigration in early 201, former secretary of dhs john kelly publicly said he would abandon the idea. and that is what we originally thought had happened. but in the summer of 201, we were hearing many reports from the field of family separations, our staffs reach out to dhs, but the department denied that family separations were taking place. we've since learned that despite these denials, the department had quietly implemented a family separation pilot program in the el paso sector. we know that despite the pilot program, dhs was entirely unprepared to expand that pilot across the southern border. after announcing the zero tolerance policy, dhs began to separate families without recording data that could be tracked through the detention system. so the department effectively lost mothers and children. think about that. dhs snatched screaming children from their parents' arms, without bothering to make sure they captured snisufficient dato reunite them in the future. the despitd protestations to the contrary by secretary nielsen, we know separated families was the specific intent of the zero tolerance policy. at least 2,816 families, and maybe thousands more, were subjected to it. leaked internal memos including one signed by the secretary herself, make clear that the goal was to create fear and chaos so that future asylum seeking families would be deterred from coming. it's a terrible irony that so many of these families undertook a perilous journey to protect their children, only to see their children ripped from their arms, by those who were supposed to provide refuge. finally, responding to intense outrage, within the congress and really across the country, we know that president trump ostensibly ordered the cessation of family separations on september 27, 2018. yet we continue to receive reports that families are being torn apart at the border. that's what we know. here is what we don't know. we don't know why the administration prioritized the separation of families as its go to deterrent strategy. every administration grapples with the challenges of unlawful border crossings. but not one has resorted to the cruelty of systematically separating children from their mothers and fathers. we even know that the obama administration briefly studied the idea but quickly abandoned it as irreconcilable with american values. why did this administration fervently pursue this heartless approach? we don't know what criteria dhs used to separate families. what information its officers gathered before shoving parents and kids in different directions. what its plans were to reunite them. indeed, reports conclude that the department appears to have made no plans at all. we don't know why hhs received no forwarning that thousands of traumatized children would quickly be turned over to is custody or why so many children arrived without the vital data needed to facilitate eventual reunion. and we don't know if dhs is separating families now, in violation of the president's order. or if it has dreamed up a new justification to accomplish the same result. we don't even know how many families were separated because apparently nobody kept count. eight months after a federal court ordered all families reunited, some remain apart. and thousands more families may be separated and entirely unaccounted for. we don't know when or if these families will ever see each other again. as a mother and grandmother, my heartaches for all of them. as a member of this committee, i have a duty to get to the bottom of what happened, and i intend to do that. and let me be clear. we will continue to bring the administration before this committee, until every one of these children is home with their families. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentle lady and now pleased to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. no one on this committee wants to see families separated. but to avoid this, we need to take an honest look at the incentives that drive illegal immigration. the loopholes in our laws that encourage bad actors to exploit and expose children to the dangerous journey through central america, mexico, to our southern border, and the crisis at our southern border, mr. chairman, make know no america, there is a crisis on our southern border, one created by congress's unwillingness to act and perpetrated by democrats open borders policy that allows drugs, guns, gangs, and human and child trafficking operations to spill across our border. drug cartels, drug cartels and human traffickers that control the smuggling routes along the border are bringing unprecedented amounts of heroin and fentanyl into our country. which is driving the growing opioid crisis. in fact, we just saw the largest fentanyl bust in history just a few weeks ago where authorities seized 254 pounds of fentanyl. enough to kill hundreds if not thousands of american citizens. on top of the drug crisis that these policies are perpetrating, these open border policies are exposing children to historian douse conditions. coyotes and child smugglers expose children to drug trafficking, assault, sexual abuse, and other criminal activity. in fact, one in three females who are trafficked are subject to sexual exploitation during the dangerous trip to the border. this is not to mention the spike in ms-13 and other gang activity in the country. in fact, in 2017, the u.s. border patrol acting chief karla provost testified before the senate judiciary committee that ms machine 13 took full advantage of flows of foreign nationals into the united states, by hiding in the populations of young individuals entering our country illegally. many of these individuals came across the borders as unaccompanied alien children, or uacs during president obama's time and continued to enter our country now. as of last summer, health and human services estimated that 83% of individuals crossing the border came as uacs. law enforcement has been working hard to catch these criminals, and curtail gang activity. but these open borders policies that democrats have continued to push are forcing our domestic law enforcement officers to deal with the problem that should have stopped at the border. we are also seeing unprecedented numbers of family units with children crossing the border every month. before 2011, more than 90% of illegal border crossings were single adult males. not anymore. now, we're seeing record number of families and children making the dangerous journey here. in october, there were over 23,000 family apprehensions. in november, 25,000. in december, 27,000, these are historically high numbers. unfortunately, years of in effectively enforcement and misguided laws created loopholes invent sized people to break our laws and exploit children and families and continue running drugs into our country. simply put many adults who illegally crossed our border believe if they come with a child they will not be detained and will instead be released into the interior of the united states. we must work to address these loop holes and solve these problems. we cannot continue pushing our border policies and wondering why there is gang activity, drug running, gang violence, and illegal immigration in our interior. when president trump signed an executive order on june 20, 2018, ending the zero tolerance initiative that led to an increase in family separation, he aptly entitled the order, affording congress an opportunity to address family separation. it's time congress do so. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about their work in enforcing the law, while protecting vulnerable populations on the border. i look forward to hearing how congress can act to address the root causes of exploitation of children on our southern border. and how congress can act to protect those truly seeking refuge while eliminating frivolous claims that clog our immigration courts. i yield back. >> thank you gentlemen. i will now introduce today's witnesses. karla provost is the chief of the u.s. border patrol of u.s. customs and border protection in the department of homeland security. she urned a bash lof of science degree are in sociology and criminal justice in kansas city and a master's in natural resource strategy from the industrial college of the armed forces at the national defense university in washington, d.c. natalie asher, is the acting executive associate director for enforcement and removal operations at u.s. immigration and customs enforcement in the department of homeland security. she graduated from cedarville university with a bachelor of arts in spanish and business. >> scott lloyd, is a senior adviser at the center for faith and opportunity initiatives in the department of health and human services and a former director of the office of refugee resettlement at hhs and received education at james madison university and earned his jd at catholic university of america, columbus school of law. jonathan white is a command ner the u.s. public health service, commission corps, at the department of health and human services. he is currently a senior adviser in the office of emergency management and medical operations and he was the federal health coordinating official for unaccompanying alien children reunification. he received a bachelor of arts of british and american literature new college of florida and a ph.d. from george washington degree and a master of social work from catholic university of america. james mchenry, is director of the executive office of immigration review the at department of justice. he earned a bachelor of science from georgetown university school of foreign service, a master of arts in political science from vanderbilt university graduate school, and a jurisdoctorate from the vanderbilt university law school. we welcome all of our distinguished witnesses and thank them for participating in today's hearing. now, if you would please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. raise your right hands, please. do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you god? let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. thank you, and please be seated. please note that each of of your written statements will be entered into the entirety, i'm sorry, each of your written statements will be entered into the record in its entirety. not the other way around. accordingly, i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow, you have one minute to conclude your testimony. when the light turns red, it signals your five minutes has expired. before i call on chief provost to begin, i want to make one comment. and that is that regardless of the intelligence or lack of intelligence of our immigration policy, regardless of the efficiency or lack of efficiency of our enforcement of that policy, regardless of anything else, deliberate separation of families is immoral. and is not justified and cannot be justified by good or bad policies, good or bad intentions. there are no good intentions about dragging children away from their parents and there are no excuses. and the purpose of this hearing is to find out why it happened and how we're going to set it right. i will now recognize our first witness, chieve provost, you may begin. >> good morning, chairman nadler, ranking member collins and members of the committee. it is my honor to appear before you today on behalf of u.s. customs and border protection. as the chief of the united states border patrol, i could not be more proud to represent the men and women who dedicate their lives to our border security mission. i am honored to work alongside these well-trained, experienced, and compassionate law enforcement professionals. you have asked me to speak today about the zero tolerance prosecution initiative. since june 20, 2018, zero tolerance is focused on single adults who violate the law by crossing the border illegally. it no longer applies to parents or legal guardians who cross the border with children. with no consequences to crossing the border illegally the flow of family units across our southwest border is unprecedented. in the first four months of fiscal year '19, family unit apprehensions along the southwest border are 290% high are than the same period last year. for the first time in our history, family units and unaccompanied alien children make up 60% of southwest border apprehensions. we are also seeing a dangerous new trend. families and unaccompanied children are crossing in large groups, ranging from 100 to nearly 350 people. 68 groups so far this year. compared to only 13 last year. and two the year before. the gaps created by layers of outdated laws and judicial rulings related to the treatment of minors are a significant pull factor for this population. would be border crossers know under the current system, adults with children will neither be detained during their immigration proceedings nor prosecuted for illegal entry. as word of mouth and social media spread news of their release into the united states, more migrants are emboldened to make this dangerous journey. unless congress addresses flores and tpra, we expect this influx to not only continue, but escalate. >> unless congress adopts, you said two things. >> unless congress addresses flores and tbra, we expect this influx to not only continue, but escalate. every agency represented here today is affected by this phenomenon. border patrol is uniquely impacted. as we are the only part of the system with no ability to control who comes our way, and when or where they do it. ports of entry have hours of operation. i.c.e. and hhs arrange placement before individuals reach the custody and individual courts schedule dockets. not only are my agents apprehending over 2,000 people every day but our ability to transfer people out of our custody is dependent upon the capacity of our partners. our temporary holding facilities were simply not set up to process and care for a population of this size and demographic. this situation is unsustainable, both for our operations, and for those in our care and custody. each day, nearly 25% of my agents are diverted away from our border security mission to care for, transport, and process family members and unaccompanied children. as more migrants arrive with medical needs, agents are transporting and escorting an average of 55 people a day to medical facilities. we are committed to addressing this humanitarian need. but we know that when agents are occupied, narcotics smugglers, criminal aliens, gang members, and others use the opportunity to violate our borders and our laws. will is an ongoing debate about whether this constitutes a border security crisis or a humanitarian crisis. let me be clear. it is both. i've been asked many times how the current situation can be a crisis compared to years when we surpassed one million apprehensions. to understand the numbers, you have to look at what is happening on the ground. in the 1990s, a time when mexican nationals represented up to 90% of apprehensions, an agent might have apprehended and returned the same individual multiple times within one shift. today, nearly 80% of those apprehendrd from countries other than mem co. oasis the vast majority are central american family units and unaccompanied children that require significant care in border patrol custody and then enter a backlogged immigration system. what the numbers don't show is how my men and women care for these vulnerable populations with the limited resources that they have. as i have said before, we do not leave our humanity behind when we report for duty. this humanitarian and border security crisis demands whole of government solutions. within border patrol's mission, we know that a combination of barriers, technology, and personnel, will improve our operational control of the border. i thank congress for the down payments on these investments and for addressing the humanitarian costs that have depleted our operational funds at the expense of fuel, gear, and equipment my agents need to do their jobs. however, to achieve lasting change, congress must address vulnerabilities in our legal framework that encourage parents to bring or send their children on a very dangerous journey to our border. reducing the humanitarian demands on our resources lets us focus on the critical border security mission the nation has entrusted us to fulfill. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. ms. asher? >> good morning, chairman nadler. ranking member collins, and distinguished members of the committee. i am natalie asher, acting executive associate director for u.s. immigration and customs enforcement, enforcement and removal operations. as a career law enforcement officer, with more than two decades of experience, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, to discuss i.c.e.'s role to support the administration's family reunification efforts as well as the critical mission of protecting the homeland and ensuring the integrity of our nation's immigration system through the enforcement of our country's intricate immigration laws. when the zero tolerance policy was announced, is.c.e. was calld upon to assist cbp by arranging transportation to hhs custody and providing adult detention beds for the parents. subsequently the bed kated men and women tirelessly assisted with the effort to reunify families by identifying separated parents in its custody, establishing communication between parents and children, transporting parens to designated i.c.e. facilities to be reunified with their children and housing a limited number of families together in its family residential centers, frcs. as they already do on a daily basis, these law enforcement and support personnel of ero carried out this unprecedented mission with the utmost professionalism and compassion and i stand proud of their accomplishment am this endeavor. in february, 2018, the aclu filed a lawsuit, alleging the separation of parents and children violated the aliens constitutional right to maintain family unity immigration proceedings. the court later certified a class of plaintiffs in custody whose children were separated from them at the border. the court excluded from the class parens with criminal history or communicable diseases or those apprehended in the interior. despite a host of logistical challenges, i.c.e. and its partners have done everything possible comply with these findings. these efforts have been praised by the court which noted the government deserved great credit for its efforts. to be clear, throughout the reunification process, the government's primary goal has been the possession and care of the children involved. and i.c.e. has carried out its supporting role with this goal in mind. during the reunification process, i.c.e.'s primarily role consisted of separated parents in i.c.e. children were identified, could communicate with their children in custody and could be transported to a designated center for reunification. due to the volume of separations under the zero tolerance policy, i.c.e. developed a process for coordinating closely with partner agencies and for sharing relevant data in realtime. ero worked closely with border patrol and hhs to identify these parents. a challenging process which involved manual comparison of information across agencies. additionally, to ensure that parents could communicate with their children in hhs custody, ero officers and hhs staff worked together to facilitate communications via telephone, skype, and face time. i.c.e. also displayed posters in multiple languages throughout the adult detention facilities, to explain how parents could request an opportunity to communicate with their children who were in hhs custody. to streamline the reunification process, ero san antonio, el paso, and phoenix, were designated as centers of reunification for children ages five to 17 whose parents were eligible to be reunified based on an hhs evaluation. i.c.e. then transported parents to these designated locations for reunification while closely coordinating with local ngos to ensure that necessary services such as food, shelter, clothing, and travel were available for the families as they continued to their intended final destinations. despite president trump's june 20, 2018 executive order, which clarified dma the administration would seek to enforce the law while maintaining family unity, our country still faces numerous challenges with regard to the ever-increasing numbers of family units and uars who since the initial surge seen in fy 2014 continue to arrive at our southwest border. in fact, since december 21, 2018, i.c.e. has released over 72,000 family members directly into the united states, as current laws and court rulings essentially mandate the immediate release of these family members. os pen ostensibly never to be heard from again. they place in paralleled strain to our immigrant system and over 800,000 cases. in conclusion, our nation continues to experience a staggering in flux at the southwest border with loopholes and federal law and various court decisions that prevent the detention of minors and family units during the pendency of the removal proceedings and inhibit the removal of those who receive final orders from an immigration judge. as a result legislative changes of outdated laws are needed to ensure that dhs and i.c.e. have the necessary authority to have the safe and successful repatriation of persons who have had their day in court and ordered removed in accordance with our laws. thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and i will be pleased to answer your questions. >> thank you. mr. lloyd is recognized for five minutes. >> chairman nadler, and ranking member collins, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding my past efforts of director of office of refugee resettlement. it is an honor to appear before you today. as the program office within the administration for children and families, within the u.s. department of health and human services, while i was director of rrr, i coordinated refugee resettlement efforts for hhs and oversaw the unaccompanied children program. i left to take a position with the hhs center for faith and opportunity initiatives as a senior adviser. my testimony today focuses on how orr cares for uac and places them with sponsors as well as how orr reunifies children separated from their paren o-parents. uac program provides care through its shelter and services to alien children who are in orr custody, before release to a suitable sponsor, usually a parent or a close relative. orr does not enforce immigration laws or apprehend families or who cross the board illegally. rather orr assumes custody of children who are refer odd orr care by other federal agencies. hhs does not separate alien children from their adult parents, hhs makes no recommendations and is not consulted by dhs as it makes its decisions to enforce the law. orr did not under my direction separate a child from his or her parent for any purpose. orr can receive referrals from, of alien children from dhs and other federal agencies under a variety of circumstances. the most alien children referred to orr were encountered by dhs when entering the country illegally without a parent. dhs may separate a child from a parent who is too ill to care for that child. dhs may also separate a parent and a child if the parent has criminal history or if there is evidence that the parent is unfit or dangerous. the child who enters the united states illegally with an adult may be referred to orr if dhs doubts that the adult is the parent. a child may also be referred to orr care if the u.s. department of justice prosecutes the parent for violating immigration laws. in cases where an alien child is separated from his or her parent, knowing the identity of that parent may be important for a case planning purposes, especially since the parent may be unavailable or unable to take custody. moreover, the facts of the separation may be important factors in determining the child's individual needs. which are then incorporated into service planning for the child. in fact, the child's best interests in some cases is placement with another relative who is not the parent. dhs's border patrol and u.s. immigration and customs enforcement are responsible for the majority of uac referrals to orr. in the summer of 2018, orr added a check box to the referral page to indicate whether a child has been separated from his or her parent. this check box offers a consistent format for dhs to provide information on the status, separated or norn separated, of each referral case. the referral page also has a note section where border patrol and i.c.e. can type in the name of other, and other information, of the separated family member, including their alien number. additionally, border patrol and i.c.e. can enter this information in the parent relevant information section. and can learn of a parent's separation after the child's admission to an orr care provider or facility. prior to the summer of 2018 there was no automated means for as gating the indicators of separation in the records for the children through the orr portal. this is not the same as saying there is no information about separations in uac case files. this is just to say that before this summer of 2018, in order to create a comprehensive record of cases where separation occurred, it is necessary to go into each case file and retrieve that information case by case. orr treats all alien children referred to its care including children separated from its parents in accordance with the policies and procedures. this includes placing a highland in the least restrictive setting and finding a suitable responser to which orr could safely release the child. on april 6, 2018, d.o.j. announced a zero tolerance policy to the crime of improper entry. at the direction of the secretary of homeland security, the u.s. border patrol referred parents who entered the country illegally to d.o.j. for prosecution. the parents were incarcerated during their criminal proceedings. dhs transferred their children to hhs. on june 20, 2018, president trump issued an executive order and that and the decision in the case of miso versus i.c.e., changed the operational picture for hhs considerably. hhs secretary azar tasked the incident management team from the office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response and orr to focussing on reunifying the children of miso class members. i supported the incident management team while managing the rest of orr's programs, including the more than 10,000 other alien children who are not separated from parents. orr has now reunified nearly all of the children of potential miso class members. i'm aware that orr has taken additional steps to enhance this process by no longer involved in, but am no longer involved in orr operations so i am not able to discuss further pro processes in great detail. however i have great confidence in secretary johnson, acting orr director jonathan hayes, and the orr career staff to serve the uac population compassionately. thank you for this opportunity to discuss the uac program. and for your commitment to the safety and well-being of alien children. i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, commander white is recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. chairman nadler, ranking member collins and members of the committee, it is my honor to appear before you today on behalf of the u.s. department of health and human services. my name is jonathan white. i'm a career officer in the united states public health service commission corps. i'm a clinical social worker and emergency manager. i'm presently assigned to the office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. and i previously served as the deputy director of the office of refugee resettlement, the senior career official over the unaccompanied alien childrens program. more recently i served as the federal health coordinator official, that is hhs's operational lead for the inner-agency mission to reunify children who are in orr care on the 26th of june, 2018, who had been separated from their parents at the border by the department of homeland security. and that's what i will be talking about for the next couple of moments. the president issued executive order 13841, on june 20, of 2018, and on june 22, the secretary of hhs directed the office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response to help orr comply with that executive order. to execute this direction from the secretary, we formed an incident management team, an imt, which at its largest included more than 60 staff working at the hhs headquarters in washington, and more than 250 field response personnel from acf and aspre, including the national disaster medical systems, disaster medical cency teams, the united states public health commission corps and contractors. we were joined by partners from i.c.e., cbp, and the u.s. coast guard. for assistance. the u.s. district court for the southern direct of california in the miso versus i.c.e. case issued the preliminary injunction and class certification orders four days later on june 26 and the secretary directed hhs and those of us on the imt in particular to take all reasonable actions to comply with that injunction. the orders required the reunification of children in orr care, as of june 26, who had parents who might potentially be miso class members. and as a result, our first task was to identify and develop a list of the children in orr care who were the possible children of miso class members to. do that, we worked closely with dhs, including both cbp and i.c.e. to try to identify all of the parents of children in orr care who potentially met the court's criteria for class membership. we formed an inter-agency data team that analyzed more than 60 sets of aggregated data from cbp and i.c.e., as well as the individualized case management records for children in our orr, uac portal. that's our i.t. system of record. collectively, hundreds of hhs personnel manually reviewed the case management records for every child in orr care as of the 26th of june. looking for any indication anywhere in their record that they were possibly separated. and orr also required every one of its more than approximately 110 residential shelter programs to provide a certified list under penalty of perjury of the children in that program's care that shelter staff believed were potentially separated. so going forward, orr continued to amass new information about the children in orr care through the case management process. and we recategorized children where appropriate based on that information. as a result, we have fully accounted for such children who were in orr care on the 26th of june, 201. to be clear. as i have said before, the count of 2,816 children does not include children who were discharged by orr before june 26. and it doesn't include children referred to orr care after that date. working in close partnership with colleagues in i.c.e., d.o.j., and the department of state, we first worked to reunify children with parents in i.c.e. custody. this was an unprecedented effort, requiring a novel process that we developed together, and which the miso court approved. under the compressed schedule required by the court order, of 15 days for children under the age of five, and 30 days for children between the ages of five and 17, we refuned, 1,441 children with parents in i.c.e. custody. all of the children of eligible and available miso class members in i.c.e. custody. and absent specific doubts about parentage or about child safety, adults in i.c.e. custody were transported to refune fiction locations run by i.c.e. where deployed field teams from hhs interviewed them and during the interviews, we sought verbal confirmation of parentage and the desire to reunify that. the child was brought -- we expedited a reunification process. for parents who had departed the united states, we developed a different operational plan, also approved by the miso court. first, hhs identified and resolved any doubts about parentage or child safety and well-being. or our case managers established contact with the parents in their home countries and provided contact information for all of the parents. to the aclu. which is legal counsel for the miso class. the aclu counselled parents about the options and rights and obtained from the parents their wishes whether they wanted the child to come to them or remain in orr care of the 2,816 children reported to the miso kurtd as of this week we have reyou know fi55 from the parent in which they were separated. in most cases released to a family sponsor. there are 18 children still in orr case who were separated. we can't reunify them with their parent because we have made a determination doing so would be unsafe for the child based on the criminal history of the parent being dangerous to the child or credible allegations of abuse the child made against the parent. there are 39 children in orr care whose parents are outside the u.s. and have waived reunification. their children are on a pathway to sponsorship in the country. there are 14 children care that we learned who hadn't been separated after all. there are five -- there are five children of the 2,816 still in care where the parents are waiving unification and five who might be reunified with a parent if there's a change in the status of the parent and the parent conveys their wishes to us. those are the only five who might be reunified. they are the only outstanding children. our program's mission is a child welfare mission. we seek to serve the best interest of each individual child. that also guided us every day on the imt and orr in our work to get each separated child back in his or her parent's arms or discharged to another sponsor where that was the wish or the parent posed a danger to the child. we look forward to the day when every child is back in their parent's arms. that's the focus of our effort. thank you. i'm glad to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, commander. direct mchenry is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, ranking member collins and other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the hunt opportunity tok with you regarding the department of justice role in the zero tolerance prosecution initiative. i welcome the opportunity to address this from the department's perspective. the department as mission is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the united states according to the law to ensure public safety against threats, foreign and domestic, to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just punishment for those who commit crimes and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all americans. following this mission and carrying out authorities defined by congress, the department plays a key role in enforcing this nation's immigration laws. the department enforces the criminal laws enacted by congress and seeks punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior. the department's law enforcement role applies no less to immigration crimes than to other categories. it's clear congress passed immigration laws with the expectation they would be enforced. the attorney general was directed to establish guidelines and allocate resources to ensure federal prosecutors accord a high priority to the southern border. on april 11, 2017, then attorney general sessions issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors outlining certain immigration related offenses as high priority for prosecution, including improper entry under section 1325. on april 6, 2018, attorney general sessions issued a memorandum entitled zero tolerance for offenses under 8 united states code section 1325a. that directed federal prosecutors to adopt a zero tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution by the department of homeland security under section 1325a. that memorandum remains in force today. illegal or improper entry among other offenses remains a prosecution priority for the department. furth furthermore, the president restated the pry ortizati -- pr advertising this. either executive order 13767, nor the april 2017 memorandum, nor the april 2018 memorandum created a policy of family separation. zero tolerance prosecution initiative is simple. it makes clear those who violate our criminal immigration laws are referred for prosecution by dhs, should in fact be prosecuted consistent with the will of congress. criminal proceedings are separate from administrative immigration proceedings. prosecution for illegal entry does not forclose an aeforeclos asylum. he or she may seek protection or relief from removal or alternatively may not contest removal from or depart the united states. if an adult alien seeks protection in the united states, that claim is considered by dhs in the first instance. as the claim progresses it may be reviewed by an immigration judge. as applicable law and the facts warrant, an immigration judge will determine an alien's removable and adjudication to remain in the united states. children will also have their cases heard by an immigration judge. as the issues of family separation and reunification have reached federal courts, the department continues to provide representation to those agencies that do provide care for aliens subject to removal. consequently, i may be limited in my ability to speak to certain issues, either because they are currently in litigation or because they are more properly directed to another agency. nevertheless, the department recognizes the seriousness of the situation and is advising dhs and the department of health and human services as they continue to abide by any orders issues on these matters. the current immigration system faces numerous legal and logistical challenges. nationwide enforcement of immigration laws is being dictated by court orders rather than by sound policy choices or congressional action. nevertheless, as the executive order 13841, which is affording congress an opportunity to address family separation indicates, the department stands ready to work with congress to respond to the challenges and to improve existing laws to avoid a recurrence of the present situation. thank you for this opportunity to speak before you today. i look forward to other discussions or additional discussions on these issues. >> we will proceed under the five minute rule. i will recognize myself. let's put aside morality and legality and talk about the zero tolerance policy. i'm sure most border patrol officers done want to rip children away from their parents. the uissue is how the departmen moved forward without a system or process for tracking which child belonged to which parent. we heard about orr's efforts to reconstruct the information to match after the fact separated parents up with their children. how did cbp not ensure it had an adequate system to track and reunify families before separating them? >> mr. chairman, as commander white stated, we had the ability to track. we have always had the ability to track. we did not have a searchable field prior to that time frame focused on specifically separated members of families. every separation that we have done back during that time and since has had alien registration numbers tied with the parent to the child. >> why have they had trouble finding the kids? >> we had to do manual searches, because we did not have a searchable field prior to that time. since then, we have updated that as commander white stated as well with a searchable field to make it much easier to pull that information from our systems. >> in other words, the border patrol was not prepared to implement the zero tolerance policy when it went into affect because you didn't have a searchable field? >> the prosecution initiative was that. it was focused on prosecuting every amenable adult and we did have -- >> i understand that. one of the affects of that was you took kids away from their parents when you didn't have a searchable field and were not prepared to reunify them and have the information to reunify them? >> we had the ability to provide the information. it took a manual poll at that point in time for it. sense then, le we have updated with a searchable field. >> we have found out there were thousands of kids taken away from their parents prior to the initiation of the zero tolerance policy. do we know the names of the kids, parents, the location of both so they can be reunified quickly? if not, why not? >> throughout my career, we have always had cases where we have separated family members. that's something that has gone on throughout numerous administrations. >> when you did that, you had adequate information to reunify them quickly? >> the information is within the system. it was not easily searchable. >> so you separated thousands of kids under a system in which you could not readily reunify them if a court ordered or someone else ordered it? >> we provided the information within the alien registration number of the child to any family member. it was the numbers we deal with, not an easily searchable -- >> therefore, not easily reunifiable, is that correct? >> since then, we have updated the system -- >> since then. but at that point, it wasn't -- you weren't prepared? >> i would not say we were not prepared. i would say it was not as easily searchable. >> they concluded that dhs was inadequately prepared to implement this policy in an organized and efficient manner. the ig of dhs noted that dhs was not prepared to implement the policy or to deal with some of the after affects. do you agree with the ig and goa assessments? >> on whether we were prepared? i can speak to border patrol. border patrol was prepared for a prosecution initiative. >> you were prepared for prosecution. were you prepared for the consequences of separating the kids? to reunify them quickly. >> as i stated before, the information was present. we have had lessons learned. >> in other words, the answer is, you were not prepared to reunify them quickly. the information was present but not easily accessible? >> unification is not something border patrol handles. we handle apprehension and transfer. >> you were prepared to apprehend and transfer and separate without proper -- without adequate ability to reunify quickly? >> the reunification process is part of what i.c.e. and hhs has done. that information has been provided to them as commander white stated. there was not a searchable field. >> what are you doing now to identify and track all separated children, including those separated before the zero tolerance policy that we found in court there may have been thousands of kids separated before the zero tolerance policy was initiated? do you have a number? do you need more resources to enable the rapid reunification of the families? >> we track, as we always have tracked, but now with a searchable field. since zero tolerance, we tracked every separation that we have had in border patrol custody. we provide that information on the hhs referral form to our partners at hhs whenever we do do a separation. >> finally, what's more confounding is that dhs cared about tracking other things under zero tolerance. according to documents obtained by democracy forward, border patrol agents were instructed to track the number of cases referred for prosecution. we have e-mails including in which you were copied with a form to be used by agents to track prosecution so that cpb could show, quote, progress towards 100% prosecution and to acquire additional assets, closed quote, including i.c.e. detention beds. you spent time thinking about how to track prosecutions so you could please the president and justify additional -- obtaining additional resources. you did not spend time thinking about tracking separated family members. is that a correct conclusion? >> as i stated before, it was a prosecution initiative. therefore, our focus was on tracking the prosecution numbers under that specific initiative. >> your focus was on tracking prosecution numbers but not the separation of kids numbers? >> our focus was on the prosecutions. >> thank you very much. i recognize the ranking member, mr. collins. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think one of the things i said was there was lessons learned. there's things that should have been handled differently. you are experiencing something on the boarder from your side that we have not experienced before. thousands coming in caravans. that's not something you would have the equipment really to handle either. that's not a situation that you have. correct? >> yes, sir. as i stated in my opening statement, we have a humanitarian and border security crisis going on right now. >> let's get into that. i think this is -- we're going to discuss this today as far as what had happened. let's look forward to what can we do to stop this in the future. how can we look at that? this could be something we could get bipartisan. can you explain how a low credible fear standard and the as you said earlier the protection act are to make it dangerous and what can we do to address that if legislation? >> specifically, when it comes to flores, it creates a pull factor. since 2015 when a court decision made a determination to treat all children the same as unaccompanied alien children where they could not be detained longer than 20 days. that's the factor that comes with if you bring a child with you, the expectation of being released into the country. when it comes to tvpra, it's the differences in how children are treated, whether they come from a contiguous country versus if they come from a non-contiguous country. those issues need to be addressed to stop those factors. >> i want to go back to this in general. isn't it in some ways, especially the bigger picture, there were released into custody of a family member who is here probably illegal in many cases who possibly actually initiated the trip across the border to get them across, in some ways were because of the policy we have, we're finishing the contract in some way? that would be a fair statement? >> yes, sir. all of those things push towards factors -- i shouldn't say push. create those factors for them to come. the smugglers take advantage of those individuals as well. it's a dangerous journey for all of them to be coming. we don't want them making that dangerous trip. certainly, don't want them crossing illegally between the ports of entry if they make that journey. the smugglers take advantage of them. there are several factors that play into the continued increased numbers. just to speak of those numbers, in june of 2018, we had 9,000 family units cross the border. this month in february, the shortest month in the year, we are already over 30,000. >> would you go back to the flores, the original question, how that affects -- >> yes, sir. thank you for the question. to reiterate the chief's point, clearly without the ability to detain families -- that's what the flores act does prevent us from doing. as you well know, we cannot detain families beyond 20 days. clearly, we cannot get any proceedings started. we're lucky if we get the credible fear process done. it's essentially a through put as current family residential centers exist today. again, the smuggling organizations play well to our vulnerabilities. it's highly marketable for families, for individuals to make unlawful entry as a family unit versus a single adult knowing that those -- the opportunity to detain these individuals for the pen aimmigr proceedings is virtually impossible. >> in congress, i know it's amazing that we make blanket statements that cover everything. never this. never that. one of the things that is said, they talk about fraud. many times it's blown off as it doesn't happen. dls identified 336 claimed family unit members who were separated due to a lack of family relationship. that's an interesting -- from the -- it does show that there is what we just talked about, an issue of fraud that is happening because of the way the system is set up now. would that be a fair statement? >> yes, sir, that's correct. the majority of those identifiers of false relationships come from our colleagues in cbp. then there's that second layer of individuals who come to us sayi inin ining that the relati a fraudulent claim. >> pmy time is running out. there's problems. we will have plenty of hearing that today. i understand the concern. i have those concerns about a process implemented with as you said searchable fields, things that wasn't happening. as we go forward, we have to put into play things that actually will help this find a better way to do this for people who want to come here legally instead of using the incentive and in some cases fraud but other things to fix this. this needs to be not only a hearing of what happened but a proactive hearing on what we can do to support what your efforts are, which is many times unthanked. i am thank you. with that, i yield back. >> i recognize the distinguished gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commander white, you are a career professional. you didn't make the decision on whether children should be separated. but you had to do with it once that decision was made. you recently testified before the committee on energy and commerce that you raised concerns about the family separations multiple times, both before and during the zero policy. you specifically identified then orr director lloyd as one of the individuals you raised concerns to. when did you specifically raise these concerns to mr. lloyd? what were those concerns? >> i first recognized concerns about an ongoing policy proposal discussion. this actually preceded mr. lloyd's arrival. i raised it in february -- beginning on the 17th of february, 2017. following the first meeting i attended at which a policy which would have the effect of resulting in family separation was discussed. i raised concerns about that both as regards the effects on children and also the effect on the capacity of the program to serve children and particularly very young children. i raised those issues on a number of oceancasions, primari prior to mr. lloyd's arrival. subsequently, the issues were resurfaced in late summer as we began to see an indication that increased separations were occurring. although, it was our understanding there was no policy to affect separation. i raised concerns with the director of orr and hhs leadership at that time as well. subsequently again over the ensuing months into january of 2018. >> were those concerns in writing? >> i identified these concerns primarily in meetings, also in writing. >> if there are documents, would you please provide them to the committee? >> i'm confident that hhs will provide those. >> what response did you receive from orr and mr. lloyd and others when you raised these concerns? >> from the director of orr and the acting assistant secretary of acf and the secretary's counselor for human services, i was advised there was no policy which would result in family separation. >> all right. i appreciate your comments as to the children in custody on a particular day. we now have a report from the office of the inspector general that there were thousands of children not included in that, potentially thousands of additional separations. i'm just looking at the oig report. it says, border patrol agents do not appear to take measures to ensure that pre-verbal children separated from their parents can be correctly identified. for instance, based on oig's observations, border patrol does not provide pre-verbal children with wrist bracelets or other means of identification, nor does the border patrol fingerprint or photograph children to ensure they can be linked with the proper file. that looks like ar recipe for catastrophe. if you have a 10-month-old, they can't speak up for themselves. we went back into court, the doj, and the doj argued that reuniting these children would be too onerous and that these agencies would fight any ruling to force them to act. commander white and miss asher, is that the position of your agents that you would fight a ruling to identify and reunite these additional children? >> so as to what position we would take in court, i could not speak to that. i can certainly clarify anything i have said in declarations which is our legal authority over children ends when we discharge them. those children who were discharged to other family members are outside our sphere of control. >> i understand that. >> that is the fact. >> miss asher. >> if i'm understanding your question -- >> i'm saying, it was said it would be too onerous for the government to reunite these children with their parents. is that your position? >> while it's a challenge, there's evidence that we did accomplish, in a timely fashion, granted it was deadlines given to us in the court, but we did accomplish that. we have all learned post this situation that crossing of our information is imperative so we have better track so we can respond in a more timely fashion in the event that we are to do something other differently than we currently do in i.c.e. we reunify at time of removal. the difference for us in this process was that we had to reunify while the adults were still in custody. >> the inspector general actually found contrary to that, that if children were separated and the parents went to court and they all -- almost all got sentenced for time served. it's a misdemeanor. that they could be reunited with their children back at cbp. so then i.c.e. and the courts sent them to i.c.e. to prevent the reunification. that's what the inspector general found. my time has expired. perhaps we can direct additional questions in writing to the witnesses later. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i think everything we have heard today, both in the testimony as well as in answers to the questions, boil down to two things. number one, the agencies are overwhel ma overwhelmed by the vast increase in numbers. number two, there is a real problem in delayed processing. and one of the issues in the processing is determine whether there are false claims of familiarifamily relationship. i would like to ask a couple questions to commander white and mr. lloyd. the last congress i authored the bipartisan rapid dna act which the president signed into law. the rapid dna act allows law enforcement agencies to perform real time dna testing at the time of an arrest and with their own booking procedures. this technology is readily available, provides for rapid and accurate testing and is already used by the department of homeland security to confirm biological relationships of refugee applicants. these are refugee applicants, these are not people who crossed the border and claim asylum. my questions are, what role if any do you see rapid dna technology playing in family reunification efforts, particularly in answer to the concerns that i raised at the beginning? second, are there any statutory or other barriers that exist such as privacy and security requirements in implementing such a program? if so, what are they so we can fix them and you can get a quick dna answer to solve many of the questions that have been testified to this morning? either mr. lloyd or commander white, you choose who can be first. >> yes, sir. per the orders of the court in the context of the reunification matter, we are not permitted to use dna unless we have very specific reason to doubt parentage. let me talk about in the steady state program. among the things that in the vetting of family member sponsors is always required is verification of identity, verification of relationship. our standard method for verification of family relationship is birth certificates for both the sponsor and the child that are verified by the government that issued them. in cases where documents are unavailable, we do use dna testing as a second line method. it is the program's position that the document method, which is sufficiently timely for our case management process, is the best because first of all, it's cheapest to the american taxpayer. second, because it is often a better indicator of actual family relationship than dna, particularly given the number of sponsors that we have who are, for example, aunts, uncles and grandparents. as to the benefits of a particular dna method, we would need to get back to you about that. i did want to contentual -- >> i know the documents are good if the person is the person who is described in the document. how are you able to sort out if somebody comes in and hands you a document and the child, for example, is not the person who is described in the document? children's pictures can change quickly from the time the document is issued and the time it's handed over to be examined. >> the case management process is fairly robust and has a number of ways that we work -- our case managers work to verify identity and to verify relationship. we follow up on red flags. at present, it's not our practice to use dna in all cases. nor do i believe that we're appropriated to do so. the cost differential between dna testing which costs $525 per incident and the much lower cost of documents on the 40 to 60,000 children we receive each year makes verified documents our preferred method. we're open to learning more about rapid dna testing. >> when you do use dna, do you ever use rapid dna? >> the standard -- the provider we use -- we don't commonly use rapid dna. our time frame for all the other things that we have to check is longer than the time frame for the standard one-week turnaround process, including mailing on paternity and maternity verification. >> i think it would be a good idea to give it a try. >> we are open to learning more. i wanted to be responsive to your question. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. let me say that i hope you will take a look at it. the committee will take a hard look at that rapid dna proposap. the gentle lady from texas is recognized. >> i would like to introduce into the record the following documents from amnesty international, american college of doctors, church world service, the episcopal church. ask unanimous consent to submit these into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you so very much. let me first of all thank each and every one of you for your service. as a member of the homeland security committee since 9/11, i know the importance of the work you do, understand the importance of the work we do to try to improve systems and processes that reflect the values of this nation. let me also indicate that anyone who does harm to any injure, th brought to justice. let me comment and indicate that the april 6, 2018 zero policy -- zero tolerance initiative of the trump administration was ill timed, ill considered and inappropriate according to the gao report that was given, dhs, we interviewed agencies and they indicated that they did not plan for the potential increase in the number of children separation -- separated from their parents of legal guardian or results of the attorney general's april 28, zero policy. they did not plan for the high numbers of those that were being separated from legal parents. then, of course, the inspector general said that the dls whs w not prepared to implement the zero tolerance policy or deal with certain affects of the policy following implementation. which meant that we were going to -- the government was going to fail. they did fail in doing the job that should be done. i have a series of questions that i would like to indicate. i would like to just reflect on -- these are children, none of whom i think in this particular picture -- under 12 maybe, could be a threat to anybody here in the united states of america. none of these are a threat to anyone here in the united states. they were children younger than this. as a member of the women's working group on immigration, united states members of congress, working group on immigration, i held baby roger in my hands. i will remember roger. he was nine months old. snatched from his guardians. he had no ability to talk. he was not identified. he had no band, no i.d., nothing. one wonders where roger is today. i frankly believe that there are much more than you have indicated. that is my fear. that is my concern. let me quickly raise these questions. mr. lloyd, picking up on the lack of tracking, when dhs was made aware of the zero tolerance apology, how long did it take to notice there were no tracking of which parents were separated from what children? >> congresswoman, the tracking that occurred, i wouldn't agree with the characterization there was no tracking. the tracking that occurred occurred within our normal case management system as part -- >> how long was that, sir? >> i'm sorry? >> how long did it take? for you and orr to notice there was no tracking of which parents were separated from their children? >> again, i would disagree with your characterization. the tracking -- >> can you tell me when you decided to take note of that? >> the tracking that occurred was in our -- >> how long after april 2018? >> our tracking of the circumstances under which kids come into our care is ongoing. it never stopped. >> did you approach cbp about tracking separated parents? if so, when did this occur? >> i missed the first part. >> did you approach cbp about tracking separated parents? if so, when did this occur? >> we interact with cbp on a daily basis. >> i'm speaking specifically about tracking. >> tracking of? >> when did you approach cbp about tracking separated parents? >> as part of the case management process, that would be one of the king things the manager does. >> you can document that was going on? i listened to cbp. i visited their facility. i think they were doing the best they could. they had no process for tracking. are you telling me you contacted them about tracking? let me continue my question. it has been reported you had little interest in reuniting children with their patients. it had been reported that during an internal review of the family separation policy, a top hhs official found that you instructed your staff to stop keeping a spreadsheet tracking separated families. did you make this decision? if so, why? why in the world would you choose to make a decision like this as a father yourself? can you explain how this could have happened? >> thank you, congresswoman. that was an incorrect reporting. i did not make that order. >> i have a facility in my district called southwest keys. it's under investigation by the federal government. i do not want that facility to open. there is another facility by the name of shy liloh that has been accused of abusing children. i would like a report on that. i would like a further report on your reunification efforts and whether you tracked. i need dates and typeimes. >> the time has expired. the witness may answer the question. >> thank you, congressman. the last question? what was that? >> the last question, sir, was dealing with southwest keys in my district. i do not want it to open because it's under investigation. they have about 12,000 unaccompanied children. by the way, those separated from their families are -- >> the witness may answer. >> closing shiloh that has been accused of abusing children, immigrants as well. >> we cooperate with any ongoing investigation. we're happy to cooperate with those investigations and provide any information that comes out of them. as far as new facilities, that's guided by the state licensing authorities. >> they get federal funds. thank you. >> the time of the gentle lady expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, i don't favor separating children from their families. i don't think most people in this room do. it's my belief that to the extent that such separations are required by existing law, it's our responsibility as representatives of the american people as the congress of the united states to work on legislation to provide a fix to that situation. we ought not to be separating children from their parents. however, part of the problem, of course, is that there's a backlog of pending cases before the immigration courts nationwide. it's been reported that back in 2008, immigration courts had a backlog of 200,000 cases. ms. asher, let me ask you this. in your written testimony i believe you said it has grown four times, to more than 800,000 cases today. is that correct? >> yes, sir, that is correct. >> thank you. mr. mchenry, let me ask you, one of your chief functions as director of the immigration review at the department of justice is to conduct immigration court proceedings. that's correct, isn't it? >> yes, congressman, it is. >> in the face of the immigration backlog described by ms. asher, what steps is your office taking to reduce the backlog of pending cases? what should we be providing for you to do a better job? is it more money for judges? what do you need? >> thank you for the question. backlog -- the growth has been in two phases. the first phase from roughly 2008 until about 2016, 2017, was driven by a combination of factors, more continuances, lack of judge hiring, things we were responsible for. we have been able to solve a lot of those problems. we hired more judges. we have approximately 430 right now on board. we have been able to complete more cases that at any time since 2011. we're on pace to complete more cases since 2006. since about 2016, the backlog is increased for factors that extend beyond us. there's been an increase, as some of the other witnesses have testified to, increased numbers of aliens coming to the united states that are leading to more cases. more cases have been filed. there's an increased emphasis on enforcement. that's caused the backlog to go. >> you need additional resources. we need to provide them. let me move on because i have limited time. isn't it true that it is a federal crime to illegally enter the united states? is that correct? >> that's correct. >> we hear, they didn't actually commit a crime. all they did was come into the united states illegally. >> it is. >> isn't it true that parents traveling with children are not being referred for prosecution for violating that law? so there's an incentive to bring a child across the border? it's a get out of jail free card, to some degree. would you agree with that? >> i defer to my operational colleagues. it's my understanding that dhs is not referring parents who are traveling with children right now. they wouldn't be prosecuted. >> thank you. chief, let me ask you this. let me make sure i've got this straight. in the past, most of the people that were coming to our southern border and trying to enter illegally were males from mexico. now, that's no longer the case. now it's people coming from central america with children who know that they cannot be separated now. they maybe were. now they can't be. we don't have the facilities available to house or take care of these folks. instead of detaining them for the most part, they are now given a court date down the road and a court date for which the vast majority no longer show up. they essentially disappear into the population. they then basically successfully cut in line in front of people from all over the world that are trying to do it the right way, who are trying to follow the law, become american citizens, bring their families here, the correct way, which is far less dangerous than dragging your kids through the desert or hundreds of miles at the whim of the coyotes and drug cartels and the rest. is that right? >> yes, sir. whether it co you are correct on the changes that have happened. i'm sure ms. asher wants to weigh in as well. this is where i stated before, the flores decision and the inability to detain these family units because of the children longer than 20 days to await an immigration hearing is causing that factor. >> thank you. ms. asher. >> thank you. what i would like to add is, even when individuals, particularly family units, do have their day in court, so to speak, we know through a recent exercise there were just over 2,600 cases heard before the immigration judge in a detained unit. there were just over 2,500 in absentia orders. the individuals failed to appear for the hearing. now you have the additional challenge as it relates to my resources in i.c.e. that now we have individuals who are throughout the country with final orders of removal. i don't have the resources necessarily to prioritize to go and find these family units to facilitate removal. it proves great challenges. >> the time has expired. mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. this examination of president trump's barbaric policy of separating families, tearing little children away from the arms of their parents is long overdue. i would like to get to the bottom of why anyone in this administration thought that they could get away with this. this is what former chief of staff and department of homeland security director john kelly said. quote, jeff sessions was the one that instituted the zero tolerance process on the border that resulted in both people being detained and the family separation. he surprised us, end quote. mr. mchenry, was the zero tolerance policy just alluded to, was that a policy developed by the justice department? >> yes, sir, it was. it was issued by the attorney general on april 6, 2018, following a memorandum he issued in april 2017 following an executive order. >> does the department of justice usually do initiatives without consulting the white house first? >> i can't speak to what consultations -- >> thank you, sir. on april 23, there was a memo signed by department of homeland security secretary nielsen approving family separation. this was an a naturnalysi natun not been provided to this committee. attorney general jeff sessions said on may 7, 2018, as it relates to the family separation policy, quote, if you cross the border unlawfully, then we will prosecute you. if you don't want your child separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally. end quote. subsequently, district judge dana sabrow found the way dhs carried out separations was not lawful. did the department of justice provide any legal analysis and justification for the zero tolerance policy, director mchenry? >> to the extent that's an issue in litigation, i couldn't speak to it. >> the question is, did the department of justice provide a legal nanalysis? >> any guidance -- >> you refuse to answer the question. thank you. was any legal research or analysis done by the department of justice on this policy? >> sorry. i don't follow the question. >> was any legal research or analysis done by the department of justice on the zero tolerance family separation policy? >> i can't speak specifically to the deliberations. >> why is that? you are with the department of justice. you are here to testify. why can't you answer that question? >> we don't typically discuss internal policy deliberation. >> i'm not asking about internal policy deliberations. i'm asking whether or not your department did any legal research or analysis on this issue. >> any analysis or research would go toward those internal deliberations. >> all right. let me move on to the chief. since you are not going to answer my questions, director mchenry. chief, you don't have enough border patrol agents, isn't that correct? you have a shortage? >> that is correct. i could use more agents. >> in november, i believe it was, of 2017, trump issued an executive order. it mandated that 5,000 additional border patrol agents be hired. isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> you were down by about 1,815 agents at that particular time. correct? >> that sounds about correct. >> to address the border patrol officer shortage, your agency signed a five-year contract of $297 million with a federal service to recruit and hire border patrol agents. >> i believe it goes up to that amount. >> yes, ma'am. the office of inspector general reported that as of october 1, 2018, the first ten months of the program, they received $13.6 million of that contract but had only processes two accepted job offers. isn't that correct? >> i do not know. that's a human resource management side. >> you don't know about this gross mismanagement, fraud, waste and abuse that's taking place in your agency that was found to be true by the office of inspector general? >> i can't speak to -- >> the time has -- >> i know that we have the contract. >> that's ridiculous that you, the head of the agency, don't know of this issue of waste, fraud and abuse that is rampant within your agency. >> that's a cbp contract. i'm the head of the border patrol. >> you are the office of border patrol, the law enforcement arm of the office of border protection, which you -- >> within cbp. >> the time has expired. the gentlemen from texas. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate the witnesses being here. director mchenry, isn't it true that every day in cities all across america, every administration going back to the beginning of the department of justice has separated parents, suspected of committing crimes, from their children? >> what i can say is that any individual -- >> you can say yes or no. it's not a hard question. if you don't know the answer, then you don't need to be in your position. it goes on every day. all of us that have been involved in the justice system know, it goes on every day. is that correct or not in your opinion? >> individuals who are parents who are prosecuted for crimes, there's the potential that they may be separated during -- >> you are saying there are chan chances you may put children in jail with their parents? no more questions for you. you are not aware. we don't put children in jail with suspects just because they are children of the adults. chief, you mentioned before about this issue of separation. apparently, like under the clinton administration, bush administration, obama administration, children were being separated from parents that were illegally coming into the country. isn't that correct? >> yes, sir. i worked throughout all four administrations. i myself have experienced it in the field, on the ground. >> that's because we don't want to put children in detention with parents who are suspected of committing an offense. correct? >> that is correct. >> it's not a mean spirited idea. it's just a notion that's been true in this country that children should not have to pay for the sins of the parents. we don't hold the children accountable for coming in illegally, because they are not of majority age and, therefore, they don't have the intent to violate the law. that is what our law has been. correct? >> that is correct. >> you talked about the system that was a manual system. you have a number for the parent. you have a number for the children. you have said you manually have to go back and find those so you can match back the children with the parent. correct? >> if i may clarify just briefly. the system is not manual. we have within cbp our system, the system did not speak automatically to the system at hhs. actually, in april, before the may 5 date was when we added the searchable field to help us be able to pull data more easily -- i guess easier. >> okay. would you say that the clinton administration, the bush administration or the obama administration was callus and immoral because they didn't do something to make it an easier fix to match up the parents and children? >> no, sir. >> if we were going to be fair and we were not going to say that about the clinton, bush or obama administration, really the only difference is that when the zero tolerance policy was put in place, it accentuated the lack of the fix from those prior administrations, correct? >> yes, sir. there's always lessons learned. we always improve. >> you have also said something that really is mind boggling but very critical. was it 90% at one time were males coming across from mexico? that was who were illegally coming in. >> 90% are mexican nationals. now 90% are other than that. the vast majority of the mexican nationals were adult single males. for the first time in our history in october, family units surpassed single adult apprehension. >> that happens to have coinc e coincided with the outrage about parents being separated from children. you dealt with the drug cartel and their work as a result of what you do. you know as we were told, the reason they send most of the drugs across through mexico and our u.s. southern border is because they are business people. when they see a way they can manipulate our system, that's what they do. isn't that why you are seeing the huge increase of families and children coming into this country? >> it's true that the transnational criminal organizations utilize them as a tactic to -- when they know our resources are focused on the family units, that it takes our resources away from border security side. they do utilize that to their advantage. >> my time has expired. i appreciate you all being here. >> thank you. the gentlemen from florida is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the trump administration's forced child separation policy will forever be a dark time in our nation's history. the policy undermines our moral standing that generations of americans have worked so hard and given their lives to build. i am concerned with documents that have been turned over by hhs that record a high number of sexual assaults on unaccompanied children in the custody of the office of refugee and resettlement. these documents detail an environment of systemic sexual assault by staff on unaccompanied children. i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a document request. >> without objection. >> an untitled document that describes zero tolerance policy for all forms of sexual abuse. >> without objection. >> charts for each fiscal year from 2015 through 2018 on allegations of sexual abuse reported to doj. >> without objection. >> charts detailing incidents of sexual abuse that occurred in orr's unaccompanied alien children program. >> without objection. >> and finally, mr. chairman, charts from 2017 and 2018 listing incidents of sexual abuse, dates when the incident was reported to orr, the fbi and the care provider. >> without objection. documents will be entered into the record. >> thank you. commander white, these documents demonstrate there have been 154 staff on unaccompanied minor -- let me repeat that. staff on unaccompanied minor allegations of sexual assault. this works out on average to one sexual assault by hhs staff on an unaccompanied minor per week. these documents tell us that there is a problem with adults, employees of hhs, sexually abusing children. when you carried out the zero tolerance policy, for you and mr. lloyd, when you carried out the policy, you knew putting thousands of kids into a situation where they were at risk of sexual abuse was going to be the result. did you discuss this issue before going forward, did you discuss the threat of sexual abuse to these kids among each other? were there discussions with staff? >> representative, let me first correct an error. those are not hhs staff in any of those allegations. that statement is false. no, no. sir, those are not -- >> commander white -- >> you are speaking of sexual abuse against members of my team. >> i don't have a lot of time. you know what i have seen in these reports that were delivered to us buried in documents? without any notation. i saw thousands of cases of sexual abuse if not by hhs staff then by the people that hhs staff oversee. i will make that clarification. it doesn't make what happened anything less horrific. let me continue. hold on, commander white. the question is, when you went forward with this policy, did anyone discuss this? was this a hesitation given that these -- you had this history, did anyone worry about what was going to happen to the kids? was the secretary aware of the numbers in these charts? >> you are speaking of the numbers of our reports and those 154 are allegations. this is a longer conversation. >> it's a longer conversation, commander white. >> in every conversation that we had about separation, we opposed had about space, we opposed separation. >> i appreciate that. >> that was based on actual facts. >> and was the secretary aware of these numbers? was the secretary aware that in moving forward and doing the work that you do and for everyone on the panel, do people consider that when you went forward on the zero tolerance policy that removing -- a policy that would put these kids at risk of sexual assaults? that's the question. and if the answer is, you don't know, i would ask staff to deliver to you these two charts, in particular, the one that you're right, does contain the allegations. it also contains the results of investigations. those employees who were reassigned, those who were terminated, those who continue to be employed, there are 1,000 questions that we have, but i would ask that you deliver these to the secretary so that we can have a full exploration of them. the details of these sexual abuse allegations are shocking. mr. chairman, and chairman -- chairperson lofgren, i know will join me in continuing to press the administration on these issues. it was our obligation, the 4radministration's obligation to help keep these kids safe, child's best interest and safety of alien children. mr. chairman, we failed and this is just the start of what i believe to be a very important series of questions that this administration must answer and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. gates. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commander white, are people more likely to be sexually abused on their way into our country through the cartel and human trafficking routes or are they more likely to be sexually abused, if every allegation made against every u.s. government official were true, which would be the greater propensity of sexual violence? >> obviously in transit, but that's not the point. we are committed to keep an environment safe for children. we don't set ourselves the standard of just doing better than smugglers and traffickers. >> no, i understand, and i hear that, but what's troubling to me is we all on this committee, all human beings, want to decrease the frequency of family separation and decrease the frequency of anyone being the victim of sexual violence. the question we have to answer is whether or not the policies of open borders or the policies of a secure border would greater facilitate those policy objectives. i wanted to ask miss asher, miss asher, what impact duds oes it on your colleagues when members of congress talk about abolishing i.c.e.? does it impact morale, recruitment or operational capability? >> thank you for the question, sir. there's no doubt that in the last year, year and a half, even up to 2 years, my 6,500 or so officers in the field who do interior enforcement, which we don't talk about that too much these days, are facing much scrutiny, unfair allegations made by media and various organizations, assaults on my officers while conducting interior enforcement has gone up well over 160%. there's no question that it is a very chilling environment for my officers as they conduct their mission in promoting public safety and, quite frankly, upholding the laws that congress has passed. >> and have any of the people you've worked with shared their views with you regarding the impact on their job performance when members of congress demonize the work done by i.c.e.? >> we have on a regular basis our -- my field office directors, our leaders in the field, do regular town halls with our officers, our first and second line supervisors take very seriously the repercussions of these allegations, et cetera, on our officers and so morale, yes, has gone down. >> thank you for that. i have limited time. i wanted to recount the story of guirre motee, only way we know him. a 57-year-old construction worker. he would have came to the united states without a child, but because we treat people differently if we bring kids, he brought his 16-year-old daughter to the country and he said this. and i'm quoting, "this is the reason i brought a minor child with me. she was my passport." chief provost, is it becoming more and more typical that people who want to come to our country illegally are viewing children as their passport or their mechanism of entry? >> as i stated before, our numbers of family units are increasing dramatically. also, the increase that we are seeing is just a couple of years ago the ratio of male parent with child was a one to five ratio. it's now almost 50/50 with female parents that are coming here. this is a tactic that we have through interviews, it is something that is being utilized. >> so it's not -- as i hear your testimony, correct me if i'm wrong -- it's not a function of a greater desire to have the children in the country for the sake of having the children in the country, at least with some of these individuals the child is viewed as a mechanism of transit. is that consistent with your understanding? >> as i stated in my opening statement, that is a trend that we are seeing and as social media and other news spreads that that will impact your ability to be released into the country. i believe that it is part of the pull factor. >> and i appreciate and take with all sincerity the children my colleagues have about children being separated from their families once they reach the united states, but it's deeply troubling to me that i don't seem to be hearing any democrats referencing the challenge that occurs when a family is separated south of our border to facilitate smuggling or transit or a child literally functioning as a passport. the mayor of chemalga, guatemala, mayor rivera, chronicled what he called illegitimate dongs adoptions fo. whereas in his town, people would buy and sell kids like they would buy and sell passports to the people could get people better treatment then we came to our country illeg illegally. he said, and i quote, "this is the most serious problem we have." so i'm wondering if you could share with us the feedback you've received from people in other countries about the impact of the united states' policies on family separation that occurs south of our border. >> well, what i can easily speak to is the fact those numbers are increasing, of the fraudulent cases we've identified at least 1,700 cases so far since april of this year, or of this past year, of definite fraud cases. those are the ones we've been able to identify of individuals that are coming with a child that they are not a parent or guardian to. >> mr. chairman, may i be recognized for unanimous consent request? >> gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i see my time is expired but i would seek unanimous consent to enter into the record a "new york times" article entitled "why are parents bringing their children on treacherous treks to the u.s. border?" >> without objection, the article from "the new york times," sometimes referred to as the fake news, is admitted into the record. >> or the failing "new york times." mr. chairman, for further unanimous consent request from the "washington post," for central americans, children open a path to the u.s. and bring a discount. november 23rd, 2018. seek unanimous consent to enter into the record. >> "washington post," too, without objection. >> one final one from "the washington times" from tuesday, may 22nd, 2018. eye-popping surge of illegal immigrants abducting children." >> gentleman -- the gentleman? the document will be admitted to the record without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> gentlelady from california, ms. bass is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. in the doj's filing last week of a joint report 11 children were identified as being parents excluded from reunification under the judge's order due to criminality. a total of 18 children as i understand separated from their families could not be reunified because the parent was determined to be unfit or presented danger to the child. mr. mchenry, is that accurate? to your knowledge? >> yes, ma'am, the filing represents our position. >> thank you. so removing a child from their family in our domestic child welfare system requires trained child welfare agency staff and a determination by a judge that removal is in the child's best interest. it's a system that is designed to protect parents' rights and to protect the best interest of children. at the border, the decision to remove a child from their parent is made solely by u.s. customs and border protection agencies -- agents in the field. miss asher, is that correct, who makes the determination? >> no, ma'am, i'm with i.c.e. >> i'm sorry. >> so we make that determination, of course, we do utilize our office of chief counsel, we work with the consulates of the countries -- >> so in medical or domestic child welfare settings, trained staff often use screening tools to identify abuse, neglect, and trafficking. i don't believe it's within your agency's purview to really make those decisions in the sense that you don't have the training. so i'm not blaming you, i'm just saying you guys are making the decisions without the proper training. so in the domestic child welfare setting the determination of a child's best interest is made by a judge. what training do cbp agents have to inform a determination of a child's best interest? >> my agents are trained starting at the border patrol academy in dealing with children and the potential for fraudulent families or -- >> fraudulent families, but are they trained in a child that might be neglected or abused like a social worker? so cbp officers are social workers? >> no, ma'am. we are trained throughout our career, we also follow the law, tbpra and various policies when it comes to separation. it is a temporary -- >> so what are the protocols that the agents follow in determining that parents pose a danger to their children? >> if, for one example, the one that they are separated most often are for serious criminal -- >> like, could you give me an example? when i went to the border i was at mcallen and i talked to one of the cbp officers and i asked could you give me an example of a crime? and the officer recounted a parent who had been convicted of a dui. so, you know, in our nation's child welfare system, if a parent is deemed to have neglected our abused their child, a whole process takes place. no one person decides right there on the spot we're going to -- you're ineligible to receive your child back. so that's what i'm trying to get at here is that my concern is is that we have one system that is in place to protect children, and your agency, which, you know, and, again, this is an unfair burden on you, so i'm not faulting you, but based on what would you make that determination? >> we do an initial determination and we are not making a determination that they cannot be placed back together, but as an example, and i see this because i get the daily reports, quite often we have individuals that have convictions for domestic violence, and if i may explain a little further as well. >> yeah, very quickly because i'm only interrupting you because i'm running out of time. >> i turn them over to i.c.e. i.c.e. is not going to put somebody with that type of criminal conviction in a family residential center so we have to make that separation temporarily. >> okay. let me just finish. so tell me what happens to these long term. so we have determined that a child cannot be reunited with their parent. what happens to that child long term if that child does not have family in the united states? is that you, commander white? >> yes, ma'am. for those children where there's been a final determine face by o.r.r. that the child can't safely be reunified, which is a child welfare decision, that's a different decision than the one you were just discussing with chief provost. >> okay. >> very, very few children in the mazell class were in that situation. >> but what happens? >> they had their cases reviewed by the aclu and the judge. those children become true uacs and sponsors are sought for them. >> so are they eventually put up for adoption? >> the uac program does not put children up for adoption. >> okay. let me ask you one more question. if a parent is deported and they know where their child is in the united states, how do they get their child back? >> we contact the participaents. we provide their contact information. >> right. >> the aclu -- >> so i'm in guatemala, i know my child is in new york. how do i get my child back and who incurs the expenses? >> for children who were separated? >> right. and the parents were deported. >> we transport the child at our expense for reunification. it's a partnership of i.c.e. and hhs and the aclu to effect -- and the government of the home country. >> so the parents do not have to pay? >> that's correct. yes, ma'am. >> i yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs, is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you holding this hearing today. i'm grateful to the witnesses for being here. and i've heard that the -- the zero tolerance policy, i've heard it alleged today that it was designed to specifically separate children, use them as tools by this administration and yet i've heard it rebutted by the witnesses today. i've heard that we are using children, toddlers and infants, and yet i've talked to border patrol agents. i've been down to the border. and i think the three times removed when i was down at the border, at that time, i talked to agents, one described seeing a child dropped from the top of a fence into the united states. a child dropped from the top of a fence into the united states. saw another -- talked to another agent who found a toddler, young child, wandering on the u.s. side of the border with a note pinned to their shirt saying, my mom is in -- then gave the phone number. i just received an e-mail or a text exchanged recently where two young boys on a list in a facility with their parents named there, they inquired of the youngest, 9 years old, you know, is this your parent? he was confused because he had no parent there. he was unaccompanied. he was used because that parent was going to be released as well as the child. in fact, the children there that were identified as brothers attached to that adult, one was from honduras and the other from guatemala. they were not even brothers. there was not a family unit there. these are not anomalies. this is what is going on on a regular basis. i have pictured behind me -- one last point to that. we see an increased use of children by human and drug traffickers because of our policies. specifically the flores case really leads to this. we talk about human separation and the tragedy of that, of families being torn asunder. somebody even called it kidnapping today which is kind of outrageous, it wasn't kidnapping. what we have here behind me are victims of forced separation because of illegal aliens who were in the country who committed criminal conduct. they have mary ann mendoza who is in the gallery today, her son was killed by an illegal alien. steve ronenbeck, his son was killed by an illegal alien. marla wolf, her husband, the father of her two children, was killed by an illegal alien. that is permanent separation. and that is in part due to policies that fail to control our border and prosecute. and when you have policies that allow 72,000 people last year, alone, to be let loose into the interior because of an antithesis -- or an antipathy toward family separation or actually the antipathy is more toward prosecution of these illegal aliens, then you see our communities receiving these people, large numbers of people. ironically, the folk who want to keep families together passed a bill recently that eliminates, 2,500 family beds. that it reduces the funding for detention of those who are in this country illegally and who are being detained for one reason or another. well, as we proceed here and we see that our policies don't provide deterrent, they actually provide incentives to come into this country, which is why you are seeing the marked increase, month over month, year over year, of unaccompanied minors and families coming into this country. so this hearing is interesting, i appreciate the chairman for holding it, but we need to do more than that. we need to enforce our laws. and i yield back. >> recognize the gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, madam chair. it is hard to put into words the practice of ripping innocent children, many of whom are arriving seeking protection and asylum from unspeakable violence and ripping them from the arms of their parents, it is hard to describe in words how that practice does violence to our moral standing in the world and to our great history as a country. but the court in the maisel case maybe said it best when it described this practice of separating children from their parents and the way it was implemented as so egregious, so outrageous as to shock the conscience and so brutal and offensive that it doesn't comport with traditional ideas of decency. and so i'm pleased that our chairman is finally -- because the democrats took the majority, we're having a hearing so we can get to the bottom of how this happened, and i reject the notion that we have to make a choice between securing our borders and the hideous policy of separating children from their families. with he can secure our borders and keep this country safe and do it in a way that is consistent with our values. so the first thing i want to ask you is i sent all of the witnesses a letter back on february 7th asking specific questions about how many children have been separated, how many have been united, whether the individuals can be identified, the parents and the children. miss asher, can you answer the questions i put in that letter to you on february 7th? >> thank you for the question, sir. >> by the way, you don't need to thank me for the question. i have limited time. i ask you to answer the question, respectfully. >> the various questions that you have posed in there are in a consolidated report that's updated regularly and that's the joint status report from the court. >> will you send that in response to my letter, will you forward that to me? >> we can have that sent to you, why he. >> thank you very much. so it's very clear, captain -- i'm sorry, chief provost, that at the time that this policy was announced, this zero tolerance policy was announced, that cpb did not have in place a system for the tracking and identification of children being separated from their parents, correct? >> no, i would disagree with that. we had the ability to track. we also had added a searchable field within our systems. our systems were different than hhs' and we have been improving on that. >> chief, i'm going to read to you exactly from the office of the inspector general. i know criticism is tough. in june of 2018, and i quote, "centralized system existed to identify, track, or connect families separated by dhs." the court order, the court decision, similarly says, "the practice of separating these families was implemented without any system or procedure for tracking the children after they were separated from their parents, enabling communication between the parents and children after separation and reuniting the parents and children after the parents returned to immigration policy following completion of the sentence." so the court after listening to evidence the inspector general said there was no system in place. my question to you, chief, is, when that order of family separation or zero tolerance was announced, did you or anyone in your department say, we don't have the system in place to keep track of these kids. we need to build a system before we can stop separating children from their parents, that's a yes or a no. >> i don't believe it's a yes or a no and there is a system to track. >> since that time. i'm asking at the time you began to separate children from their parents -- when a system -- so you disagree with the court's finding and the inspector general both? >> i disagree with that finding. >> in addition to that, are you aware of a pilot program -- the number that has been used at this hearing is 2,816 children separated. that was far specific date in litigation, correct, miss asher? >> if that's what it says in the report, yes. >> well, you're -- do you know how many children have been separated from chair children, period, during the time you've been in charge of this policy? >> as in my agency is responsible for the adults through this process. you're asking about the exact number for the children. >> yes. >> i'm merely telling you that right off the top of my head i can't tell you the exact number. >> well, can you find out that number for us? >> the number is in the joint status report. >> are you familiar with a pilot program that was started in july of 2017, it went up through november of 2017, that was not publicly announced where children were separated from their parents, part of an el paso pilot program? >> that is -- >> miss asher, are you familiar with that program? >> it's a question for miss asher, then i'll get to you, chief. are you familiar with that program? >> i'm not familiar with that program, to. >> you've never heard about it? >> i'm not familiar with the program you referenced. >> okay. chief, are you familiar with the program? >> we had a prosecution initiative in el paso where we worked with the department of justice within that there were some subjects that were separated. >> so the truth is today, as you sit here before congress, nobody on this panel can tell us how many children were actually separated from their parents before that date that the court decision came or since it and whether or not those young children have been reunited with their parents? >> we don't actually know? >> we have numbers. i have numbers for border patrol. when it comes to tracking, we can provide you those numbers of who we have -- >> from before that date that was used in the court order? >> order. >> may she be made to answer the question? >> finish the answer. >> from the timeframe during zero tolerance and since then. >> i'm asking -- my question was about before zero tolerance was officially announced. >> we'd have to do a manual poll -- >> order. >> and you haven't done that? >> order. >> i would ask -- i have a unanimous consent consent. that's not an out of order. >> you've been ordered. you've been going over -- >> you're not the chairman of the committee. >> i can ask for order. >> no, you can't. >> the person who presides over the hearing controls the hearing. >> i can ask for order. >> well, i'd ask unanimous consent -- thank you. >> request. >> i'd ask unanimous consent, the following article be made part of the record. a propublic report, families are being separated at the border months after zero tolerance was reversed. another article, "families still being separated at the border months after trump's zero tolerance policy reversed." a second article from the "washington post," "seven questions about the family separation policy answered." a vox article, "the trump administration's separation of families at the border explained." buzzfeed news, "the trump administration is slowing the asylum process to discourage applicants an official told congress." an nfr report, "after traveling 2,000 miles for asylum, this family's journey halts at a bridge." an npr report "trump's administration begins remain in mexico policy sending asylum seekers back." and finally an article entitled, "asylum seekers being turned away no matter where they cross the border." dated november of 2018. >> okay. without objection. they will be accepted. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. thank you to all the witnesses who came here today. the work you do is absolutely critical for the safety and security of our nation, so thank you. there's definitely no question in my mind that we're dealing with a humanitarian crisis at the southern border. i just wanted to throw out some statistics. in april 2017, 1,118 family units, that's, as you testified, adults traveling with minors, were apprehended by border patrol. by 2018, december 2018, that number was up to 27,518 family units. that's a 2,332% increase. so over 2,000% increase in just under 2 years. in following the precedent of administrations that came before the current dhs, dhs has separated adults and children in certain situations, including when they believe a child has been trafficked. so rather than debate what i think is a nonexistent family separation policy, i'd like to focus on something that poses a very real threat, and that's the despicable practice of human trafficking. the stats speak for themselves. during the fiscal year 2018, i.c.e. and homeland security investigations made 1,588 trafficking arrests and identified 308 victims. sew of the 1,588 arrests, 1,543 were for sex trafficking violations. this is modern day slavery. as a nation, we have a moral obligation to protect women and children from falling prey to this practice. i applaud president trump for the steps he has already taken to combat criminal organizations that engage in human trafficking, to strengthen programs supporting survivors and also bring human traffickers to justice. i know several of you mentioned human trafficking in your testimony already, but can you please elaborate on how the current family reunification process and the current policy help combat human trafficking? >> so i can start from my point, sir, from ero. as we have done is a longstanding process where our reunification primarily occurs at the time of removal and that is a very well-vetted process when the parent who happens to be in single adult custody at the time receives the removal, we're made aware that they have a child in the united states, we go through a process in asking if the individual would like to take their child back. as part of that vetting, we also look and ensure that the individual is essentially safe to return with their child. probably one of the most important pieces to making that reunification specifically for removals is we do have to have that removal cleared with consular officials from home country. so on a regular basis, a daily basis, my officers work with consular officials to do those types of checks as well as to confirm familial relationships and the like prior to issuing travel documents so they can return to their home country. >> is there anything that you think congress can do that would help combat human trafficking? >> so i can certainly support that much more is needed in that realm. i, under i.c.e., i'm in enforcement and removal operations. my partners, hsi, homeland security, are the primaries in my agency conducting human trafficking, and undoubtedly, they could always use more resources and stronger support from congress to do the great work that they do in trafficking. i'll defer to the chief as well as her viewpoint. >> and i would just add to that we work closely with our partners at homeland security and investigations. this is an area of focus for them and any information they we have of suspected human trafficking, we provide to hsi for investigation. >> thank you. i appreciate it. and i yield back the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. on june 20th the president punitively ended his scandalous and dangerous family separation policy, but family separations are still happening at the border under a shadowy set of rules that apparently do not offer sufficient accountability or due process. the january homeland security oig report found at least 118 kids had been separated from their parents and placed in hhs care after the supposed end of the separation policy. the numbers may even be higher in ongoing lawsuit over family separation. the federal government just admitted that at least 245 families have been separated since late june. when the texas civil rights group followed up on these cases it found the parents often had no idea that they were being separated from their children or why. dozens of other kids were also separated from adult siblings, cousins, grandparents or other relatives. now, there can be valid health or safety reasons to separate a child from a parent, such as where there are signs of child abuse or trafficking, but dhs does not appear to have a principled or consistent policy on family separations and it doesn't give hhs enough information to know whether the separations are, in fact, justified. so let me start with you, chief provost, if i may. since the president's executive order, how many children have been separated from their parents who were apprehended by cbp either at ports of entry or between the ports? >> i can speak to the numbers between the ports of entry. the area that i have, we have 304. >> okay. who makes the determination to separate a child from his or her parent or legal guardian, and what are the criteria used in that process? >> the criteria used are if they have a serious criminal conviction, if they have a medical condition, meaning the parent may have a medical condition and need to be hospitalized, if it's not welfare or the child, if they present a danger to the child. those are the instances in which we would separate them. as i stated -- >> can i just ask you about that one? so what's the character of the inquiry or investigation about the welfare of the child? are there social workers involved in that process? >> as i said before, this is a temporary separation because we have to place into i.c.e. custody. we work with the consulates as well just like i.c.e. does. we work with our counsel when it comes to the criminality issue in relation to them. i.c.e. is not going to take somebody into their family residential centers where a parent has a serious criminal conviction, like i stated earlier. >> criminal conviction that seems like something that's definable, you can see it on paper, if they have a medical condition, obviously, if they're suffering a heart attack or something, they can't take care of the kids. welfare of the child is a very big slippery standard. so who's making that decision? the customs agent? >> my agents working with our counsel, the consulates. we make an initial determination and we err on the side of the caution for the child based on laws on the books. we are following tvpra, we are following for the concern of the child, but we -- >> do the parents have an opportunity to be heard during that process? >> of course. we interview them. >> is the decision to divide them from their children, is that an appealable decision? >> yes, that is not -- that is, as i stated before, that is a temporary. we give the parents information when we do the separation, we do track all of this and we provide the information to hhs -- >> do you have written guidance for the agents? >> we have guidance that has gone out on it since the executive order and -- >> can we see a copy of that? can you show us the guidance? do you have a copy of that guidance? >> we can provide that guidance. >> could you? this goes out to every agent and say, here are the steps you follow? >> we sent the guidance out once we -- once the executive order came out and then, of course, ms. elle, after that we provided further guidance. >> okay. do cbp officers receive training about how to make these determinations? >> we receive training about dealing with family members from day one at the border patrol academy. we are trained every year on tvpra and on flores. that's a recurring training for our agents on the law. >> it's been reported that dhs may be separating u.s. citizen children from their parents at the border as well. is that right? >> i'm not sure in relation to -- >> well, if their parents are noncitizens but they're citizens, then there have been cases like that. >> that would not be a reason for a separation from our perspective on it. >> okay. >> it would have to be the other circumstances that would revolve around it from border -- >> okay. finally, does any federal government agency have the responsibility to track all of these children who have been separated from their kids today? >> we provide that information to hhs. i don't know if the commander wants to weigh in or mr. lloyd. >> yeah, so any child referred to us then we have responsibility to track those children. >> okay. so if someone is missing his or her child because they've been separated, you'd be able to locate them today? >> yes. >> gentleman's time is expired. >> to clarify, o.r.r. can identify at any given moment the l location of every single child in care. we are also able, where appropriate, to say to whom we release the child but we do not have any authority or oversight over a child who has been released from our care. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. commander white, i think you were the victim of the drive-by slander a few minutes ago. you and your colleagues were all but accuse the of being serial child molesters and weren't given a chance to respond. would you like to respond now? >> we share the concern that i think everyone in this room feels. any time a child is abused in the care of o.r.r. is one time too many. we abide fully with the laws this congress has passed in terms of pria, the prison rape elimination act, and the violence against women act. and we're very proud of the outstanding track record of full kblin compliance, including referring every allegation, every allegation for investigation and the vast majority of allegations prove to be unfounded when investigated by state law enforcement and federal law enforcement and the state licensure authorities to whom we refer them. it is important to note i'm not aware of a single instance anywhere of an allegation against a member of the o.r.r. federal staff for abuse of a child, and i apoll ja popol pop sounded forceful in refuting that statement. to be clear, however, that has not happened. >> under the circumstances i think you were remarkably restrained and i am embarrassed that such a question would be put to you in this committee, and i think i speak for many of my colleagues. chief provost, i'm still trying to get a grasp of the fundamental principles here. it is a misdemeanor to cross the border illegally, correct? >> that is correct. >> and it's actually a felony to cross the border after being deported. >> yes, sir. >> now, any other crime for which we make an arrest, we arrest the perpetrator, correct? we don't arrest the children of the perpetrator. >> yes, sir. >> so, for example, if an american citizen is arrested for drunk driving with a toddler in the back seat, we arrest the perpetrator and we take the toddler into protective custody until we can reunite them with their family, is that accurate? >> yes, sir. >> to ms. bass' point, then, who makes that immediate decision? is it the arresting officer or is it a judge or social worker? >> i can't speak -- well, when i was a local law enforcement before joining the border patrol, and they do -- just like we work with hhs -- >> you made that decision when you took the perpetrator into custody, correct? >> they work with cps to turn the child over, much like we turn them over to hhs. >> right. so what we're calling family separations is exactly the same process for any other arrest. we arrest the perpetrator and then we take the child under protective custody and take care of the child until we can find a family member to put them back in custody with, is that accurate? >> i would say that's accurate, yes. >> it seems to me that there are essentially just two alternatives to this particular practice. we can arrest and incarcerate the child for the crime of the parent, which to my ear sounds completely medieval, our don't arrest the perpetrator, don't enforce the law, in which case the law means precisely nothing. is there any other alternative you can think of? >> this comes back to the outdated laws that have an impact on our ability or on i.c.e.'s ability to detain families temporarily together until they can have an immigration from the administrative side, an immigration proceeding. >> right. basically, we arrest the perpetrator and take care of the child. that's our current policy. >> yes. >> the two alternatives are arrest the child for the crime of the parent or don't enforce the law. obviously, my colleagues on the left reject the first policy, so, obviously, they are arguing for one of the two others and, frankly, i just don't understand that. but just to be clear, the zero tolerance policy we keep hearing about, that simply means enforce the law in the same manner as we enforce any other law? >> yes, sir, it's a prosecution initiative. actually, of the timeframe from may 5th through june 20th when adults that had children with them were a part of that group, they made up 40% of our family units made up 40% of our apprehensions. it was approximately 10% of the prosecutions were individuals that had children with them. >> let me ask you this, if we don't enforce our immigration law, then what exactly do our borders mean? do they mean anything? >> my experience in my 27 years in law enforcement is if we do not enforce the law and there is no consequence for violating the law, people continue to violate those laws. >> now, is there a legal way to enter our country? >> through you a port of entry. >> how many people legally enter our country every year? >> huge numbers. >> so those who enter our country illegally, they do have a legal way to apply for entry. they simply choose not to do it, they simply choose to break the law. >> coming between the ports of entry is a violation of law, yes. >> thank you for your earnest efforts to enforce its law and defend our country. >> the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. let me remind anybody that might be watching, it is legal to seek asylum. it is, in fact, not just legal within our laws, it is legal within the human rights conventions we are party to. so when the gentleman asks whether people should come through legal ports of entry, let me also remind people that the trump administration tried to ban asylum seeking and started the process of metering which then prevented people fromle toing through legal ports of entry to actually take advantage of a process that is legal. everybody knows that i have been haunted by what i heard from 176 women in a federal prison. i was the first member of congress to go speak to these women who were asylum seekers, who had been ripped apart from their children. and i am a parent and it haunts me to this day. chief provost, are you a parent? >> yes, i am. >> miss asher? >> yes, i am, and a grandmother. >> thank you. mr. lloyd? >> yes, congresswoman. >> commander white? >> yes, ma'am. >> director mchenry? >> i am. >> i think it is critical that we ask that question because we are talking about children and we have -- we are all parents who understand what that means. so as parents i don't think anybody on this panel would argue that you would be not devastated if the government tried to forcibly separate you from your child, including, by the way, a breast-feeding baby that was taken. commander white, you testified on february 7th in the house energy and commerce committee that you as an expert in child welfare had expressed concerns to mr. lloyd specifically that family separation, these are your words, would be inconsistent with the office of refugee resettlements, legal requirement, to act in the best interest of the child and would expose children to unnecessary risk of harm. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> in fact, commander white, you testified that you warned three trump appointees about the potential health risks of family separation, more than a year in advance of this policy, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> commander white, i want to thank you for raising these concerns repeatedly and for having at least a sense of compassion and moral obligation that seems to be completely missing from anybody else. mr. lloyd, you were the head of o.r.r., the primary agency tasked with caring for these children. when commander white as a child welfare expert warned you about the cruel consequences of family separation, were you concerned? yes or no is fine? >> i accepted that he told me. >> so you were concerned? or not? you obviously were not -- >> he reported what the consequences would be and i listened. >> so you heard his deep concerns and you at that point according to the october 2018 government accountability office report on family separation, this is at a time when o.r.r. officials noted to you that there was more than a tenfold increase in children separated from their parents in 2017, did you take any actions whatsoever to address those concerns? >> yes, we did. so in the -- >> make it brief, please. >> in 2017, we, commander white noted to me what we were seeing in our field and so we followed up on what had been anecdotal reports of these -- >> did you do anything to start tracking the children? >> yes. absolutely. we did. >> so did you ask dhs to make sure that your agency had what it needed to eventually reunite children with their parents? >> we did communicate with dhs regarding -- >> i just want to remind you that your testimony here is under oath. according to gao, this is a quote, "o.r.r. officials noted that they considered planning for continued increases in separated children but did not do so because dhs officials told them that dhs did not have an official policy of separating parents and children." did you tell o.r.r. officials not to engage in any planning, mr. lloyd? >> no, i did not. >> and your employees, many of whom -- >> may i clarify that? >> briefly. >> so planning is something that -- so i never directed anybody to not plan. we -- >> you didn't direct anybody to not plan and you didn't direct anybody to plan. >> that's not true. >> to ensure -- >> that's not true. >> -- that we actually could address the serious concerns raised by commander white, a child welfare expert, about the long-term consequences to these children. commander white, when children are separated from their parents, even if they are reunited three months or six months later, can you tell me if the impact on those children for the entire life is potentially devastating to them? >> best available evidence is that separation of children from parents entails very significant and potentially lifelong risk of psychological and physical harm. >> very significant and potentially life -- >> lifelong. >> long. lifelong impacts. and mr. lloyd, you are the head of this agency at the time of family separation and you did not even allow your staff to continue to do a spreadsheet that tracked where people were. you did not put into place any policies that would pull this -- this -- i don't even have words for it, horrendous policy back. did you ever say to the administration, this is a bad idea, here is what my child welfare experts have told us, we need to stop this policy. did you once say that to anybody above you? >> the gentlelady's time has expired but you may answer the question. >> in answer to your last question i did not say those words. >> you never said that to anybody. >> order. >> you never told anybody that this was a deeply harmful policy. madam chair, i believe that this is just outrageous. >> order. >> i get worked up every time i see it because i see nobody is actually taking this -- i shouldn't say nobody. commander white has. >> order. >> people are not taking this seriously in terms of the deep long-term effects on these children. madam chair, i yield back. >> i have a parliamentary inquiry. how many questions do you get past your five minutes? and how long do you get to enter into a diatribe? that's my parliamentary inquiry. are we going to abide by the five-minute rule? so is there no response to my parliamentary inquiry? >> that is not a parliamentary inquiry, but the gentlewoman from florida is recognized. >> thank you so much, madam chairwoman. and let me just thank our witnesses for being here. look, it appears to me that you have been given an improper and unjust order, and the person who's ultimately responsible for the mess that's been created, the self-inflicted wounds, is not in this room. i served as a 27-year law enforcement officer as well, chief. thank you for your service. but before that, i served as a social worker working with foster care children. children in america have a tough enough time, but when they're placed in foster care separated from their parents, the emotional, psychological damage, as you've already been said, can have lasting results and we're talking about kids who many times have been physically ab e abused or emotionally or sexually abused, but it was interesting with those children no matter how difficult the home situation may have been, they yearned and longed to be reunited with their families. the mess that we have here today has been self-created and self-inflicted and what all of america's challenges it just -- it amazes me that we would create this mess at the border and then require our men and women of cbp and others to make it right. i had a zero tolerance policy, too, as a police chief. you know who it was for? for murderers and rapers and robbers and other people who committed violent crime. not people trying to get across the border who had committed no violent offense, just trying to make a better life for their families. i'm ashamed of my colleagues' statements across the aisle. we can do better than this. chief, i'd like to know, if we can begin with you. what is your -- what does that mean, your zero policy? what is that? and i know it wasn't yours, but you are charged with carrying out -- carrying it out, so what do you believe it is? >> so the zero tolerance policy in conjunction with department of justice is to attempt to prosecute all violators for 8 usc 138258, single adults at this point, who cross the border illegally. >> which is a misdemeanor. >> the first time it is a misdemeanor, yes. >> we're prosecuting every -- you know what, as a police chief, i sure wish i could have prosecuted every person who shoplifted, but tsit was an und burden on the resources, and that's why there's a mess at the border because the resources have been strained trying to prosecute every person. i heard my colleagues say that if a person crossed the border, isn't that a misdemeanor and shouldn't we enforce the laws? let me ask you this. if a woman crossed the border who was being chased by a man with a knife trying to stab her, would you arrest her? >> i still have an obligation -- >> would you arrest her? >> we would arrest her. >> would you arrest her? ultimately, would you prosecute her? >> i would not in that case, but we are not prosecuting everyone that comes across. >> let's talk about the two children who died in government custody because we ought to be doing -- if we're going to stay in the family separation business, and lord knows i hope we don't, we ought to make sure what happened to those children -- you know, as a police chief, yeah, we arrested parents and, but we took every effort to make sure that the children who were already traumatized were taken care of. they didn't -- they don't deserve what has happened to them. we have victimized them and victimized them over and over again. so we had two children that died. an 8-year-old and a 108-year-old. what policies have changed? in your operations to prevent children in your custody -- because when, if a child died in our custody as law enforcement, we took it very seriously. we took every step. something had to change. what policies have changed to make sure that children who are not the violators, don't die in your custody? commander white or chief, what would like to answer that question? >> i'm going to have to defer to cbp. those children were not in o.r.r. care. >> okay. >> those who tragic losses of life were in border control custody. as you mentioned, it is a tragedy. we do everything. my men and women do everything within their abilities -- >> what policy -- i'm sorry, i'm running out of time. what policies have changed since the two children died to now? to prevent that from happening? >> we do a 100% medical screening on all juveniles that come into our custody. >> you weren't doing that before? >> that is correct. that is the main thing. obviously, we provide -- we have always provided medical care, emergent medical care. whether through krcontractors, emts, other support across the southwest border, every juvenile, under the age pof 18, is medically screened upon apprehension. >> thank you. thank you very much, madam chairwoman, my time has run out. >> thank you. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for your time. i want to follow on the comments of my colleague. i would agree with her there is a mess at the border. it's more than a mess, in my view. some would say it's a crisis. some would even say it's emergency. i would call it an emergency. i know we have several types of emergencies. what we're hearing today, the humanitarian emergency we have at the border is real. we must do all that we can do stop the humanitarian emergency at the border. we have an emergency human trafficking emergency at the border. we have a sex trafficking emergency at the border. we have a drug trafficking emergency at the border. so in all these ways, i want to thank, especially chief provost, your men and women in, on the border patrol, working every day, to address this emergency that we have at the border. and as you said earlier, this is having a significant impact on your ability to recruit and retain officers to help address this crisis. would you say that the events that you spoke of, the assaults, the treatment of your officers in the interior of the country, can you expand a little bit more on the ability of your agency to recruit to make sure that we address this emergency? >> so, sir, i'm with i.c.e. and so i deal with the interior, as we discussed before. and as far as it relates to the problems in recruiting, there is a challenge in getting individuals who have law enforcement, military background, to be interested or willing on the occasion to support, in particular, the interior enforcement mission of i.c.e. and sadly, it's because of a lot of negativity. the fact that we are compared to gestapo, the ku klux klan, unfairly. every one of my officers, as i have done in the last 20-plus years in this capacity, under several administrations, we take an oath to uphold the laws and those are the laws that are passed by congress. so with a combination of laws and policies and executive orders from administration to administration, i would argue that the enforcement of the immigration laws at the federal level is by far one of the most challenging. >> we have a bill up on the floor this week dealing with the instant background checks for firearm purchases. one of the factors, one of the reasons for denial, is illegal status. if you're in the country illegally. would it help you all to enforce our immigration laws if you all received notification as to which individuals are actually trying to buy firearms in this country illegally because they're in the country illegally? >> without question, yes. the more information that we have on an individual, negative or positive, allows us to make those case-by-case determinations. >> thank you. i offered that amendment at rules last night. unfortunately, it was not allowed in order. chief provost, i know that border patrol agents conduct hundreds of rescues of people who are illegally crossing. can you give us some examples of the good work that u.s. border patrol does in that area and give us an idea of the number of rescues your agency conducts in a given time period? >> yes, sir. i can tell you that last year in fiscal year '18, we rescued over 4,300 people. my agents have rescued over a thousand people already this year. just last week, i had agents in if eagle pass jump into the river and extract a 12-year-old boy who was not breathing. they performed cpr and revived him. those are the things that don't get told. those are the stories that don't get out. all the amazing work that my men and women do day in and day out that make me so proud to be here representing them. >> we are grateful to you. thank you, all. and i yield back. >> thank you. i will recognize myself for five minutes. first of all, i want to enter without objection an article from vox over this weekend entitled "hundreds of families are still being separated at the border." as i've been listened -- listening here, i've been struck a couple times by the denial of humanity of many of these family and children. when the issue is framed as an invasion aaliens and we refer to children as uacs, it's easy to pre tend they're not human or worthy of compassion. when you say that the cause of migration is legal loopholes or bad judicial decisions, rather than the dire conditions of violence and poverty, in these people's home countries, it's people's home countries that's literally driving them from home, i think it's easier to slam the door against these kids and these families. this hearing is a recognition and an insistence on that humanity, a recognition that just following orders is no more an excuse today than it was back in germany. i've also been struck that the introductory testimony of the witnesses focused on efforts to reunify families after the border separations, the family separations were exposed and after a federal court ordered it. but in our oversight capacity, we want to know how this un-american policy got put in place in the first place. and to prevent it from happening again. you know, there's been a claim that families are only being separated when there's just cause. during my visit to el paso three weeks ago, we met with a family that had been separated when there was no criminal conviction, no health issue, no allegation that the mom was unfit. so my question, i guess, for the chief is what written guidance do customs and border patrol agents have at this point in time for when to decide to do family separation? >> we have the guidance i mentioned earlier that's been sent out to the field in relation to criminal prosecutions, a danger to the child, a medical condition that would cause separation, if the parent had to be hospitalized, for example. >> okay. i was a little unclear. you talked about different times when there were different policies. is there a current written policy? >> since june 20th in the executive order, that's the guidance that's been placed out to the field when it comes to family separations. >> is that one document? >> i can't say for certain, but we can provide the document. >> if you could provide that document, i'd appreciate it. how about before the executive order? was there written guidance at that time? >> same type of guidance, following the laws set through tvpra, all of those laws impacted how we have worked. those cases, prosecution was one of those. so the criminal activity. it's been the same guidance when it comes to reasons we would have separated prior to zero tolerance. >> okay. so the only change in the policy was during the zero tolerance period. >> it wasn't a change because it was still for a criminal prosecution, which would impact the separation. >> but that's when criminal prosecution was because you were going to criminally prosecute parents at that point. >> we had criminally prosecuted parents previously as well. the numbers increased during that time frame. >> there was a decision made to prioritize prosecution of parents. >> no, the decision was not made to prioritize prosecution of parents. the decision was made to prioritize prosecutions. as i stated earlier, during that time frame from may 5th through june 20th when parents were included, only about 10% of our prosecutions were family members, while 40% of our apprehensions were family units. i would not say it was a prioritization. >> okay. >> it was part of the group. >> okay. so does customs and border patrol ever review family separations? >> we work with our office of chief counsel. or dhs' office of inspector general does investigations into those allegations. >> okay. one more quick question for mr. lloyd. there was a discussion about the concerns that have been raised by commander white concerning family separations and the mental health impact it could have. did you ever consult with any mental health professionals or get any advice from them on how to implement family separation? >> the advice that commander white would have imparted to us would be done in consultation with mental health experts whom we have on staff. i would just add there's nothing surprising about the determination that there could be mental health consequences of separation from a parent for any period of time. it's something we took under advisement. once we started seeing changes in our referrals at the end of the summer -- >> okay. i see my time is expired. if you could provide us with the credentials and any written communications regarding your consultations about mental health, we'd appreciate it. at this point, i would recognize miss garcia, the gentlewoman from texas. >> thank you, madam chair. i'm so deeply troubled by a lot of what's been said today. it's almost hard to even begin because this is just such a -- in my view, so inhumane and unconscionable that i sometimes can't even deal with it. i would first start by thanking you, commander white, for at least at some point objecting to the separation and bringing to light at least to those who might listen that this could have lasting effects. i wanted to ask all the other members of the panel, did you all ever object at any point in this process to your superiors or someone that might listen that this was harmful and not a good idea? i'll start with you, director. >> again, we don't usually typically comment on internal discussions, but this is a prosecution policy. it's vetted, discussed internally. >> i'm just talking -- didn't you ever just think, this really goes against humanity? we should not be doing this. i'm not asking you to share a discussion with the attorney general or anyone else. you as a human being, did it ever strike you to just say, wait a minute, guys, i know i'm a lawyer, but -- i'm a lawyer and a former judge too. sometimes i saw some things i didn't like and would speak up. you never did that? >> we understand the concerns and the sensitivities, but again -- >> sir, i've asked you a question. if you would please answer yes or no. >> did i? no. >> thank you. mr. lloyd? >> the -- >> it's real simple, sir. did you ever just say, this really goes against humanity, we should not be doing this to children? >> i did not say anything along those lines. >> did you ever think of your own child and what would happen if your child was taken from you? >> i saw my role as managing the program that gives the children involved the best care they possibly could. >> all right, thank you. >> i did not voice in that exact term, no. however, i don't want it to be lost on anyone that we in law enforcement -- you know, many of my officers are parents as well. of course, it's a difficult -- >> oh, i can tell you i had visited many facilities. i visited one in the valley when the issue first came to light. i visited cpv, all these facilities. i can tell you that some of your officers don't feel good about it and shared that with me. i'm just wondering if you are just as human as them and ever said anything to anyone. >> as i said, i did not raise it to my superiors, but again, neither i nor my officers in ero, i don't think it's fair to say it doesn't bother those -- >> i'm losing time here. chief? >> as you stated, this is a difficult situation, as it is for any law enforcement professional. my men and women as well. as law enforcement professionals, it is our job to enforce the law. >> it's a job and you just move on. thank you. >> no. >> now i'm going to ask mr. lloyd a question. i wanted to follow up to my colleague's question about the southwest key facility in her district, which borders mine and impacts my district. so i thought your answer was sort of disingenuous. did you tell her it wasn't up to you to license that facility? what exactly did you mean? >> i would preface this by saying i'm not sure which exact facility you're referencing. >> it's one that wants to open. she doesn't want to open. i don't know anybody that wants it open. >> so you're talking about one that is to open, and i'm no longer involved in the day-to-day operations. >> no, i realize that. i sent you a letter earlier this month, on february 14th, asking some questions about this. >> and you can expect a reply to that. but the reference you questioned about was our residential facilities are first licensed by the state before we open them. >> did you fund them? unless they know you're going to give them money to open them, they don't go to the state to get a license. >> our residential facilities must be licensed before they can open. >> that's right. but they wouldn't bother opening, they wouldn't bother trying to operate unless they knew you had a contract or were going to give them the money. so you drive all this. >> again, i can't speak to -- i'm not even sure which facility you're speaking to. >> i'm talking about any facility, sir. >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. >> we fund the facility, and we get it licensed by the state. then it operates. >> it all works together. >> yes. >> thank you. the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. >> thank you, and thank you all for being here. i know it's been a long day. we appreciate your patience. i have just a couple questions for director mchenry first. as the director in charge of overseeing the doj's mission to review and adjudicate immigration cases, do you believe the unprecedented surge in family units crossing the southern border has imposed false fear standards? >> it's clear that the increased number of credible fear cases is contributing to the increased backlog, particularly in the past couple years. >> i have found it a bit absurd since i got to congress to look into all this and think as a result of the agreement we expect our immigration court system to interview an alien, usually for credible fear, and subsequently have a hearing before a u.s. immigration judge and adjudicate their case within 20 days. as a practicing attorney, that's not a feasible timetable. just last year alone, i know you've reported 99,035 people applied for asylum over 74,000 were found to meet the idea of credible fear. after appearing for a judge, only 16% of those cases were confirmed to be legitimate. we got this current backlog of over 800,000 cases. it's an untenable situation. so we've introduced legislation to try to fix some of these loopholes and address some of these frivolous claims. but do you think it's possible that under the current lax credible fear standard that can act as a catalyst for southern border crossings, and how exactly does it endanger families in the process? that's what we're trying to get to the nut of to try to fix. >> i'd defer a little to my colleagues from the department of homeland security. first, because they actually implement the credible fear process. second, because they're more versed in terms of what factors would lead to increased border crossings. from our perspective, it certainly caused an increase in the number of cases that we've seen, especially in the last two years. based on the numbers we see, out of about every 100 credible fear claims, only about eight to ten will ultimately end up getting asylum. the rest go through the system. they take time. they take up resources. it's definitely an area of concern. but again, on the operational side, i'd defer to department of homeland security. >> i want to get to them. one more question for you before i move on. the eoir statistics show the fast majority of central americans are ultimately found not eligible for asylum. some have said those individuals could be eligible for some other form of protection, like under the withholding of removal or protection under the u.n. convention against torture. those aren't reflected in the asylum statistics, however, as i understand it. so do you know what percentage of central americans found not eligible for asylum are, in fact, granted for withholding? >> i don't have the percentages with me. i don't have all of central american. for the northern triangle, the raw numbers for those who began as a credible fear claim, it's less than 160 that are granted withholding and less than 320 are granted at least in the last fiscal year. so the numbers are relatively small. >> i appreciate that. and on this issue of the credible fear problems with implementation, what would dhs say about that, homeland security? anybody want to weigh in? >> from cbp's side of this, i can tell you that everyone who makes a credible fear claim is referred, whether prosecuted, not prosecuted. we have seen an increase, a dramatic increase in the last few years of credible fear claims from individuals that are crossing the border, but that ultimately lies with our partners at uscis when it comes to the determinations and the initial determination. we provide that information, we ask questions of everyone to make a determination of whether or not they have a fear of returning to their country. that is logged in our system of record, and then that information is provided forward through i.c.e. and on to cis. >> do you know why that spike occurred a few years ago? it was under the obama administration. our theory is there was some directive that came down from on high that we should be easier on that determination, but what do you think? >> well, i can't speak to specifically what is in cis' lane as it relates to what constitutes the framework for credible fear. another observation i can share is the rate in which individuals who come to our custody who have been processed as expedited removals, that's the time of encounter with our colleagues in border patrol. agents ask, do you have a fear to return to your country? many of them say, no, they do not. however, once these individuals have been transferred to my custody as they are mandatory detention, it happens on a regular basis, and it's happening on an increasing basis that these individuals then change their claim and say now they have a fear to return to their country. that then cancels out the expedited removal. then my officers have to put the individual into the credible fear process. >> i'm out of time. i wish i could explore that further, but thank you. i yield back. >> okay. thank you. we recognize the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, madam vice chair. thank you to the witnesses for appearing before the committee this afternoon. as the son of african immigrants, this issue hits close to home for me. over 35 years ago, my parents came to america as refugees from a war-torn country in east africa. i can only begin to understand the plight that many of these families fleeing their home countries must feel. also, as a new father, you know, my wife and i have a 6-month-old daughter, our first child. i cannot imagine to be forced to be separated from her. the thought that even one family separation could have been prevented outrages me, and it is this that i want to ask you about today. the department of homeland security inspector general report, which i believe the witnesses have with them at the table there, released in september 2018 found that cbp may have been able to avoid reuniting some families. several parents separated from their children, prosecuted under the zero tolerance policy, were quickly returned to cbp custody where their children may have been waiting for them. however, instead of readmitting them and reunited parents with their children, they chose to have adults transferred to i.c.e. custody. according to a senior official who was involved with this decision, cbp made this change in order to avoid doing the additional paperwork required to readmit the adults. so i want to give the chief a chance to talk about this. obviously in my view, it's absolutely astounding to hear that even a single case of family separation could have been avoided let alone many. so first, chief, are you familiar with this particular finding in the ig's report? >> i believe i'm following what you're mentioning to in the report, yes. >> and i guess, can you explain to the committee why some cbp officials thought excessive paperwork would be a sufficient reason to keep families separated, maybe even permanently? >> i am not aware of anything to do with paperwork. i can tell you that from my perspective and anything that i have had access to on information, that we reunited 500-some individuals that were in our custody when the executive order came down versus continuing with the process that we had. i don't know if that caused part of the -- >> i understand that, with respect to after the executive order was issued. what i'm referencing is this particular -- and i'll quote directly from the inspector general's report. cbp made this change in order to avoid doing the additional paperwork required to readmit the adults. so i want to give you a chance to respond to this ig's finding. it's a very concerning finding that paperwork would have been the driving factor behind not reuniting these parents with their children. >> i am not aware of that and have never had that experience. we've worked with hhs to reunite. as i said, anybody within our custody we reunited immediately. and everybody else we worked directly with hhs and our partners at i.c.e. to try to reunite -- or to try to provide the information they needed to help do the reunifications. >> i guess what i will say is we'll follow up by letter. i think it's important to get to the bottom of precisely why apparently there were some folks within the agency that chose to not do that by virtue of this reasoning around the paperwork. we will follow up. the last question i have is for mr. lloyd. mr. lloyd, i want to give you an opportunity. i believe it came up before, so i apologize if i'm re-referencing something you've already discussed. i want to make sure we have a chance to clear the record. there's a politico article october 23rd, 2018. the article references, and i'll quote from it, three individuals with knowledge of the operation, reference to the separation of children from their parents, said mr. lloyd made, quote, decisions that complicated reunifications. for instance, lloyd directed his staff to stop keeping a spreadsheet tracking separated families. is that true? >> no, it's not. >> it is not true? >> it's not true. >> all right. thank you. and with that, i will yield back to the vice chair. >> thank you. recognizing the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i want to thank the witnesses. it's been a long hearing. there's still more to go. this is a very, very important hear, an issue the american people are paying close attention to, the shock that we could have as a government separated children from their families. the questions i have will start out with when exactly does policy begin. so my first question is to mr. mchenry. you refer in your written testimony that on april 11th, 2017, a full year before the zero tolerance policy for first-time entry misdemeanor acknowledged on april 11th. then attorney general sessions directed all u.s. attorneys offices along the southwest border to work with dhs to develop new guidelines for prosecuting 1325 cases. general sessions directed that the new guidelines be submitted to the deputy attorney general by april 24th, 2017. did the u.s. attorney's office submit those guidelines as directed? >> it's my understanding that the u.s. attorney's office complied with the directive in 2017. >> can you provide those memos as well as any other related documents, such as agreements between the u.s. attorney's office and customs and border patrol to this committee? >> i'll take that request back and discuss it with our office of legislative affairs. >> okay. we can follow up through this committee in a more formal way to get that important information to me and particularly the people of arizona. on the april 2017 memo also directed the u.s. attorney's office to designate a border security coordinator to work with dhs to oversee the prosecution of these offenses, including misdemeanors and record and routinely report prosecution statistics. is that correct? >> yes, that's what the memo directed. >> can you provide the committee with that information? >> we can take that request back as well. the executive office for u.s. attorneys does typically provide statistics on a yearly basis. >> i think we probably need to ask for that in a more formal way. they may show the first chapter of this administration's family separation policy and it's important we see them particularly as it relates to timeline. i'm deeply troubled by some of the horror stories i've heard about how children were literally ripped away from the arms of their parents. stories from parents in which border patrol agents told them that their children were being taken for a bath or out to play and never seeing their children again. widely reported, obviously, in the media. these stories raise important questions. my next questions will be for chief provost. during and prior to zero tolerance, what specific training were given to cbp agents on how to physically separate a child from their parent? i'm not talking about who to separate. i'm talking about the actual physical separation of parent and child. >> starting at the academy, the agents are trains how to deal with family units. then beyond that time frame, every year we follow the law and have training on tvpra, the prison rape elimination act, and flores, which addresses care as well as the treatment of those in our custody. >> are those policies written down? >> yes. >> okay. are there written policies specifically about advising agents on the actual physical separation of parent and child? >> not that i'm aware of, but i can tell you that any allegations, and i'm not aware of what you stated earlier, but any allegations of such are taken very seriously by cbp and the department of -- and dhs office of inspector general either investigates. >> you indicated that these policies are not in written form but were still provided -- >> the policies are in written form. >> that the policies provided to those agents as to how to physically separate, are you aware of whether or not those policies were created in consultation with child welfare experts? >> if i may be clear, we are talking acts. we're talking prison rape elimination act, the trafficking victims, these are laws. so i can't speak to the consultation in relation to those. >> how about trauma experts? you've heard testimony here today, questions from members of this committee about how traumatic this event would be in the child's life, to be taken away from parents, even for a short period of time, how that could have a lifelong impact on that child. in preparation for your agents to engage in that activity, was there consultation with trauma experts on how to best implement this policy? >> not that i'm aware of. >> the gentleman's time is expired. you may answer. >> my agents are compassionate law enforcement professionals that are trained to deal like any other law enforcement professional with what is a very difficult situation. if that were to occur, an allegation were made, or we were aware of it, it would be investigated. >> thank you. >> mr. jeffers is recognized. >> i thank you, madam chair, and thank the witnesses for their presence here today. the trump administration's family separation policy and the practice of ripping children out of the hands of their parents was un-american, unacceptable, and unconscionable. it's not clear to me how any administration can come up with such a treacherous policy, but it appears based on much of the information that has been provided that this was a deliberate attempt to deter people who were fleeing incredible conditions of violence and disenfranchisement in the central american and northern triangle countries of honduras, guatemala, and el salvador. the homeland security secretary has denied any family separation was being done to deter migrants. is that correct, commander white? >> i don't work for the department of homeland security. i've only seen those statements in the media. others would have to answer that. >> okay. now, she indicated she would find that notion offensive. does anyone on the panel find the notion offensive that the trump administration was engaging in family separation policy to deter? >> if i may, sir. the prosecution of the zero tolerance policy was an initiative. the focus was on, first and foremost, criminal aliens and then single adults and then those who had -- i think it went serious criminal aliens, meaning felonies, then misdemeanor convictions, then prior removals, single adults, before any family unit whatsoever. it was not a family separation policy. it was a prosecution initiative for violating the law. >> by criminal aliens, you mean human beings, is that correct? >> yes, sir. illegal alien is a term in law, but immigrants, yes. >> okay. undocumented immigrants. in march of 2017, john kelly, the dhs secretary at the time, said he was considering separating immigrant children from their parents to deter immigration. is that right? >> i cannot speak to what he said. i am unaware of that. >> he reiterated the goal of the zero tolerance policy in may of 2018 when he was chief of staff was, quote, a big name of the game being deterrence, close quote. is that correct? >> i'm not aware, and i cannot speak for the -- the attorney general. i work for dhs. >> okay. in june of 2018 when asked if the zero tolerance policy would be a deterrent, then-attorney general jeff sessions said, yes, hopefully people will get the message, close quote. does anyone disagree with that statement on the panel? apparently not. commander white, does that strike you as deterrence, the objective of family separation that was taking place at the border? >> i apologize. i can't speak to what the intention was. the effect on children is my area of concern, and that effect was negative. >> now, with respect to the acting assistant secretary for children and families, steven wagner mentioned that the new zero tolerance policy will result in a deterrent effect. is that correct? >> i'm aware he made that statement. >> and you believe that was the policy of the administration? >> i did not participate in the discussions around the formulation of the final zero tolerance policy. the earlier discussions, which occurred in february and march of 2017, did discuss this as a deterrence intervention. >> and you believe the zero tolerance policy is a policy consistent with the values of the american people, or is it an unconscionable effort to try to deter individuals who are fleeing violent conditions in central america from trying to apply under law a refugee status? >> as i previously testified, neither i nor any career staff person would have recommended or supported any policy which would have the effect of separating children from their parents, as that would be inconsistent with the best interests of the child. >> okay. i thank each and every one of you for your testimony. i would just ask that you continue to make yourselves available as we try to come to some understanding as to how such a policy could ever have been implemented in the great united states of america. i yield back. >> i recognize my colleague from pennsylvania. >> thank you, madam chair. i, too, come at this as a mother and as a grandmother. i will not disguise in any way my belief that what has happened with the zero tolerance policy and the family separation that took place before that and after that is inhumane and un-american. i make no apologies for that, but i am happy that we are doing important work of identifying what the heck happened and what we can do repair the damage if it is at all possible and ultimately that we not let this ever, ever, ever happen again. i thank you, commander white, for voicing your concerns for the children, for voicing your concerns about the policy. i wish others had as well. i want to examine the office of refugee resettlement. so mr. lloyd, i'm going to read to you from the website what we do. this is what you did. the office of refugee resettlement provides new populations with the opportunity to achieve their full potential in the united states. our programs provide people in need with critical resources to assist them in becoming integrated members of the american society. would you agree that's the mission of o.r.r.? >> i do agree, yes. >> tell me, when were you brought on at o.r.r.? >> my first official day was march 24th, 2017. >> and your final day? >> december 1st, 2018. >> okay. so march 17 to december of '18. roughly the entire period of time when we are now aware that children were being separated. how many children were in your custody at any one time? >> that fluctuated during my tenure. i think at the low point it was between 5,000 and 6,000. the high point it was over 15,000. >> and describe for us your expertise in working with children and displaced populations. >> i came to the office of refugee resettlement after having spent time with the knights of columbus among displaced populations in iraq, and not physically, but also in syria, to investigate the harms and the crimes that they had experienced at the hands of isis and to advocate on behalf of their interests and rights. i also have some experience as a teacher, which i think spoke to the unaccompanied alien children program. >> and you told us that you did hear from commander white, his concerns. i don't think you have any degree in trauma to children or any medical degree, is that direct? >> that's correct. i do not. >> it's too bad you didn't avail yourself of the greater expertise of commander white. >> that's not true. i did listen closely to my adviser, including child welfare experts. >> and did not speak up against the policy or speak up about the problems for the children. something you did take an initiative on, isn't it true that you tracked the menstrual cycles of young girls, young women in your custody? >> that's not an accurate characterization of what occurred. i'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. >> i believe in a deposition you actually admitted to that. so you're now saying you did not track the menstrual cycles or did not have your staff track the menstrual cycles? >> the best -- >> it's a yes or no. did you track -- did you create any kind of tracking mechanism -- >> i don't have a yes or no answer for that question, but the best guess as to what you're referring to is a list that included pregnant women, and it would have mentioned their last menstrual period, which is a way of tracking the amount of time they've been pregnant. >> so you are now denying that you tracked the menstrual cycles of young women in your custody. you're denying that. >> i'm denying i tracked menstrual cycles of women in my custody. >> we'll be able to compare your deposition. >> okay. >> isn't it true you personally vieted pregnant minors to pressure them to continue their pregnancies. >> no, that's not true. >> that is not true? >> no. >> okay. isn't it true you instructed your staff to prevent minors seeking abortion from meeting with attorneys? >> can you -- i'm sorry. can you repeat the question. >> certainly. isn't it true you instructed your staff to prevent minors seeking abortions from meeting with attorneys, lawyers, to get advice? >> okay. so there's one instance where we said that there was a -- in one instance we said for a brief period of time it wouldn't be appropriate to meet with an attorney at that point. >> and you would determine whether or not it was appropriate? and you have the expertise, medical and otherwise, to determine that? >> ma'am, all the children in our care receive legal screening and access to an attorney. i never blocked access to attorney for anybody. >> when a minor is pregnant, any blocking of legal advice might be critical to that person. >> i did not -- >> i have very little time left. i want to use the language that we have been talking about. >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. the witness may answer the final question there. >> i didn't hear the end of the question. >> my question is this. when you took the initiative to track menstrual cycles -- >> i did not do that. >> -- which your deposition reveals and to try to guide young women or block them from getting legal advice, did you also take the initiative, and is this initiative under way to assess the mental health of the children in your custody? did you take that initiative? >> we do assess the mental health of every child in our custody within 24 hours of them coming into our custody. they receive both group and individualized mental health care. >> hopefully my colleagues will ask the ongoing, the 24-hour first impression is one thing. but we're talking about the trauma created from separation. >> okay. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you to the panel. thank you for your service. thank you for being here. i'm from the safe, secure, and vibrant u.s./mexico border of el paso, texas, where unfortunately we have the dubious distinction of being the testing ground for the trump administration's family separation policy. chief provost, i have a couple questions for you as follow-ups to what some of my colleagues asked you. you acknowledged earlier that you do not know how many children were separated beginning with the time that the policy was implemented in el paso in july 2017 and when the policy was officially announced on april 6th, 2018. is that correct? >> i don't have that number with me. it is a number that i can get. >> okay. so then you do know how many children exactly were separated during that testing period? >> once again, it wasn't a family separation testing period. >> i understand. >> it was a prosecution initiative like many others we have done. but we can pull that information. >> okay. so if we could have that, i'd appreciate that. in el paso, we call it the child separation policy because that is exactly what happened. i know it's far more academic to call it by its governmental name, but those of white house have actually sat with the families who have been separated and reunited, we have seen the trauma first hand. it's painful, and we should call it for what it is. so what is the plan? do you know how many of those families during that testing period, how many of them have been reunited? >> i do not. that is something that once again anybody that we separate for whatever reason -- and there are still reasons that we have to separate children from parents. that information we provide to hhs going forward. i don't deal with the reunifications. >> who on the panel deals with the reunifications? >> that would be me, ma'am. >> and can you tell me how many of those children have been reunited, those who were separated during the testing period. >> if the child was still in o.r.r.'s care on the 26th of june 2018, regardless of when they were separated, whether they were separated during the declared period of zero tolerance or before, those are minor whose parents are in the class, and we can say which were unified and which were not. what neither i nor anyone in hhs knows is which of the children who had already been discharged from our care before the 26th of june, which of them were separated and which weren't. although, if someone were to give us such a list, we could certainly tell you to whom we discharged every single one of those children. >> who can get you that list? >> we don't have it in hhs. i would assume only dhs could provide such a list. >> so we need to make sure -- will you request that list from dhs? wouldn't it be incumbent on us to make sure that every single child was separated that could be accounted for, isn't that our obligation? >> that's a matter the judge is deciding right now. >> i'm talking about the folks before -- i'm talking about the children and the families separated -- >> unless there's a court order, we are not going to go into the homes of families to take a child from their other parent or their aunt to -- >> all right. thank you. i reclaim my time. earlier this this hearing, mr. raskin recognized the work of the texas civil rights project. because of their work, we know family separation continues to this day, several months of an executive order should have stopped it. madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that a report by the texas civil rights project entitled "the real national emergency: zero tolerance and the continuing horrors of family separation at the border" be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> chief provost, you stated earlier children are currently being separated from their parents when the parent has a criminal conviction. does that include illegal re-entry? >> it is not for standard entry. if they have a felony charge, it can include illegal re-entry. >> so they're being separated today because of illegal re-entry? >> that's a felony. if they have a conviction for it from previous where they have a felony conviction, they would be a felon. so then in that case. >> shocking. >> not for the re-entry. it's if they have a felony conviction. >> madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that a news report entitled "trump administration targeting migrant families, speeding up deportation of children" be inserted into the record. >> without objection. and the gentlewoman's time is expired. >> may i ask a final question, just related to this article? the article details memos, one of which -- >> i'm sorry. we can't. i recognize the gentlewoman from florida. >> thank you, madam chair, and for everyone appearing here today. i understand the difficulty of being on the spot, but this is incredibly important. i represent the sixth congressional district which is home to the largest detention facility in the country. i'm a proud immigrant. i came here when i was 14 with my mother. it was a difficult experience to leave my home country, but this country welcomed me. i was never separated from my family. through their love and support and this incredible country, i am now a sitting member of congress. so when i went to this facility last week, i saw many kids that reminded me of myself. i am also a mother. i have kids also of similar ages. so they reminded me of my own children. and it was a very troubling experience. i went in with an open mind, and i left with many, many questions and many concerns. it's highly regimented. the kids start at 6:30 a.m. and don't go to bed until 10:30 p.m. there's high fencing all over the facility. it definitely feels like a prison. we were instructed not to really speak to the children, but i went ahead and spoke to them anyway. there are kids housed in an area, 144 kids in bunk beds with numbers next to the bunk bed. i believe we are committing a crime against humanity. this is not the country that i came to. it is an america i do not recognize. and this is not to accuse any of you personally, but you have to understand the severity of the situation. so i want to start with mr. lloyd. do you know how many children right now are being housed at the homestead detention facility? >> i'll preface my comments by saying the notion that o.r.r. is committing a crime against humanity by running a temporary shelter is absurd, and it's one that i take personally on behalf of -- >> mr. lloyd -- >> -- the individuals caring for them. >> it is obvious you do not think that this is a crime against humanity. it is obvious to me. you don't have to tell me that. i asked a question. you should know how many children right now are being housed. >> i do not have that information. >> you are overseeing that detention facility. >> i'm not. i'm not the director of office of refugee resettlement. >> who oversees the homestead detention facility? >> it's under the purview of acting director jonathan hayes and the assistant secretary for children and families. oh, gosh. elaine johnson, sorry. >> so can anyone on the panel answer to me -- because right now the center is being run by a for-profit, private company. they are making about $750 per child. so it is no surprise that there's no rush to getting any of these children reunited with a family member or a sponsor. and last i heard was they were increasing the capacity. my question here, and maybe i would love to know if anyone in the panel can answer this, is why was the decision made to use a for-profit company to oversee a detention center for the children being separated from their families? >> i will address that for you, ma'am. first of all, the homestead facility is not a detention center. it is an influx shelter. we operate influx shelters. we did in the last administration and this one. i'm very proud of the work we've done at influx shelters. let me explain, just so we're clear. we do it because congress does not appropriate enough funds for us to have all the permanent beds we need for the high point of the fluctuation. and the fluctuations are extraordinary. but homestead fully meets our national standards. but let's talk about this question, why did the contractor who presently has the contract for the operation of homestead receive it? because we did a fair and open competitive process in which both for-profit and not-for-profit entities competed. they have the winning proposal, which was selected by the contracting officer who's not scott lloyd or any person in o.r.r. >> i know that means they don't have to be licensed by the state. what's the average? since it's a temporary influx center, what is the average length of stay for a child that is being held at the detention center? >> we'll have to get back to you on the current average for homestead. however, typically the standard for placement in an influx facility would be that we would anticipate the child would be in our care 60 or fewer days. >> okay. because i understand that there are children being held there for over nine months. and do you know how many -- >> the gentlewoman's time is expired. you can answer. >> we can get back to you with information on the average time and care of children in that facility. that facility, however, does meet the needs of children. we have used it successfully in two different administrations. >> the gentlewoman from georgia is recognized. >> thank you so much. miss asher, we've heard a lot today about the dhs failed to document family separations, likely in violation of the federal records act. when your agency was tasked with implementing the president's child separation policy, did you receive instruction not to create and maintain records connecting these children with their parents or other accompanying adults? if so, who provided those instructions, and what were they? if not, what instructions were you given regarding creating or maintaining such records? >> we did not receive such instructions. what we did do was already in a tried practice is we had to do manual checks of the various systems that were involved. we essentially had three different agencies involved in tracking either child or parent. those systems are siloed from one another. we had to do manual cross-checks through a working group to ensure we could continue to track the parents i had in my custody with their children, who were in hhs custody. >> okay. thank you. i yield my time to my colleague. >> thank, congresswoman. i want to follow up on a line of questioning from our distinguished caucus chairman, mr. jeffries. commander white, i think you answered a question he had posed. i appreciated your answer essentially around whether -- and i understand you can't speak to the comments made by former secretary kelly, but that you would find a policy of separating children, babies from their parents based in whole or in part on trying to create a deterrent effect. you would find that offensive. is that correct? >> i want to be very specific. deterrence of migration is a law enforcement matter. that's not our concern in hhs. i will be very specific. i would be opposed to any process of separation for any cause other than the best interest of the child. it is within the power of congress to set those limits, and you have not. >> understood. i think that reconfirms -- so the question, i think, is probably more appropriately directed towards the chief provost and director asher. do you agree with commander white that ultimately you would not -- you find a policy offensive to the extent that it would separate children from their parents for the purposes of creating a deterrent effect? the question would go to chief provost. >> i can tell you that once again, this was a prosecution initiative focused on single adults, first and foremost. as a law enforcement professional, any time we have to deal with families is very, very difficult for us to deal with. that being said, when adults violate the law, and i don't make the laws. you know that. it's my job to enforce the laws that are on the books. and it is a violation of law, to enter this country illegally. i want these groups of individuals to go present themselves at a port of entry, legally, not with themselves, their children, not put themselves, their children into the hands of smugglers who will harm them. the trip is dangerous. we don't want them putting themselves -- >> and i don't want to interrupt, i wanted to give you the time to answer, i don't want to interrupt your answer but i think what i'm hearing is the answer is no, you would not find that policy offensive to the extent that it was designed in whole or in part to provide a deterrent to other folks to ultimately come to the country. that's what i'm getting at. >> i see the policy as being designed to deliver a consequence for violating the law. >> which is essentially what i am, so just so we're clear, you would not find it offensive to implement a policy to separate children from their parents to the extent that that policy is motivated to create, in whole or in part, a deterrent effect, right? >> i'm trying to answer you to the best of my ability. the policy was a prosecution initiative focused on violations of law. not focused on family separation. it was focused on violation of law. and delivery of consequences for violation of law. i'm a law enforcement professional. >> thank you to the witnesses for coming that and with that yield i yield the rest of my time to the distinguished congresswoman from texas, mrs. escobar. >> thank you so much. chief provost, while you call it a prosecution initiative, it was clear that it was intended as a deterrent, and i entered earlier into the record an article that i identifies ten memos that were written by the administration and by staff in the administration, one of those memos made it into the hands of snore merckly, and the memos, senator merckly and the memos outlined the best way to deter tolerance, and have any of you seen the ten memos and did you participate in the writing of or the influencing of those mem os yes or no? >> i'm not sure on the memos so it is hard without seeing the memos. >> last question. was anyone at dhs held accountable for the botched roll-out of this policy, the thousands and thousands of children who have been traumatized, and the fact that there are still families that have yet to be reunited? was anyone held accountable? yes or no? >> no, i'm not aware. >> i yield my time. >> the lady's time has expired. the gentleman from california, mr. karer. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i want to thank you and our ranking member for holding this most important hearing. my apologies for being late, i was chairing a committee on homeland and very important, and other issues that are critical and important to our national security. walking from here there to here, i thought to myself, homeland security, a lot of you are under that umbrella, protection of the homeland against terrorists, and i'm trying to figure out how family separation works into this whole picture of protection against terrorists. ma'am, ms. provost, you say this is a law enforcement issue. but i have to tell you, as a dad, i have four kids and i remember about 20 years ago, my 3-year-old got lost on me at disneyland for about an hour and a half. and that was the most horrible hour and a half of my life. could not find him among thousands and thousands of people. very hard on me. and so thinking again, of a policy, a family separation, law enforcement, deterrence, whatever you want to call it, and then sitting on homeland security, i like to go out and talk to members of your groups, the rank and file, and i have to tell you, a lot of your rank and file are not happy, they're demoralized. this is no way to run an operation. this is no way to protect the homeland. family separations. when the news broke out on this, i got active on this. on june 8, i travelled to our southern boarder to see the facilities firsthand. june 19, i sent a letter to the chen chairman of the homeland security subcommittee and oversight asking for a hearing on how dhs had produced such a horrific policy, and then june 20, i sent a letter to secretary nielsen, and dhs inspector kelly, asking for answers. june 22, i had a letter, 123 members joined me, in demanding that an immediate investigation of dhs and hss, which eventually led to an hss, oha report that was released in january. june 27, i asked then house homeland second chairman to hold a hearing on the issue and july 25 in a private meeting i against asked secretary nielsen for answers. i haven't gotten any answers. i just want to know what is going on because you know what? these are very critical issues for our country and like one of my colleagues said, family separations is not us. yes, i get. it you got to enforce a law. but separating kids from their families, is not the way to do it. and i know you know that. and god knows who concocted up this idea. but it's really hurt us as a country. so i'm going to ask you the questions that i have here, letters that i've sent to ya'll, and i haven't gotten answers, i'm going to ask them again right now which is a question for ms. provost, ms. asher, and commander white, do dhs and hhs keep separate records or is there one system to track parents and their children? >> there are separate systems, that was part of the issue that we have talked about. we have worked diligently to get those systems working closer together. there's a system -- >> not there yet. >> there is a system with dhs and hhs. >> not there yet. >> that is something that we're working on to continue to improve. >> i know i.t. is a very painful area but when do you think you will have this? >> so if i may add to that, that is the constant challenge that when you have multi-agencies involved in an issue, and understanding that those systems do not talk to one another, if this is something that is going do not talk to one another, if this is something that is going to be a more concrete expectation i would ask on behalf of my colleagues that we do have funding. >> is this a reliability issue, the just a human issue. i think this should be a concrete goal. >> it is a concrete goal with current systems we have in place, inc. hours, and modifications we can almost banded -- it is a critical issue we manage the best of our ability with existing systems we have. until we get a system that is a cross through the corporate, we will continue to do the best -- >> what you need to get that done? >> we need it modernization, so systems can talk to one another across various agencies. >> mr. chairman, i am out of time, but i would like to submit for the record the letters that i asked these questions of these departments, and hopefully and if you can i would like you to answer the remainder of my questions. >> without objection, the documents will be sent to the record. the jenner friend from california, mr. lou. >> thank you mr. chairman. chief probus, thank you for your public service. according to border patrol, or apprehension is declined 75% from 2000 to 2018. we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your own agencies data on that, right? >> our numbers have declined, i cannot say the exact percent, but they have declined from 2000 until 2008. >> also according to customs member for control, one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle was talking about the flow of illegal drugs. 90% of heroin came through legal ports of entry. 87% of methamphetamine came from legal ports of entry. 80% of fentanyl came through legal ports of entry, and 88% of cocaine, came through legal ports of entry you have no reason to doubt the u.s. customs and border patrol will add on that, either question mark >> that has to be put into perspective, and that is where the seizures are. as i stated in my opening statement, we had a humanitarian crisis at the border, and a border security crisis. my agents are being diverted away, and the demographic is different, too, which i stated in my opening statement. you cannot compare just number of apprehensions, you can also cannot compare to caesar's, because it is the unknown. that is accused me up at night, what is crossing through our borders, it is not a controlled environment. >> you are certainly entitled to your opinion, i am just relating facts from the old agency. now, i would like to go on and ask ms. asher, you are with i.c.e., correct? >> yes. >> this is juliet, a 17 month old baby. she was ripped away from her parents. it took two months, two months to reunite her with her mother. and, an article company the story that says that i.c.e. demanded a $4000 credit card payment, so that the mom could have juliet back. so, my question is, why did i ask for $4000 in that case? >> i have to absolutely dispute that allegation. we in no way have any sort of financial transactions, that use credit cards in exchange to have a service, in reuniting a parent with a child >> why did it take two months to do that? >> without the specifics of that particular case you mentioned, i am not able to give you a response, the first i've heard of this. >> okay. so, i just know that this is a article in the san francisco chronicle. we will send that article to your agency, and would like a written response. now, i would like to follow up on the pilot program, that was run. first thing i would like to do is request that the department, the dhs department, make available to the committee to admit a reacted diversion -- of the materials regarding the el paso pilot program, is that something we all could get? >> the el paso program was a prosecution and initiative, like many others we had done before. i am more than happy to provide you information on that. >> thank you. so, according to the gao, border patrol also conducted a report on this pilot program. could you also turn over that report to the committee as well? >> i would have to look into what report. i will be glad to turn over any information we have. >> thank you. do you consider the pilot program a success? >> sir, once again, this is a prosecution initiative. we have done prosecution initiatives for years through multiple administrations. we did operation streamline, we do prosecution initiatives in the field. our feed field leadership worked with the u.s. attorneys in the specific locations. there are certain numbers of prosecutions that are allowed. this is a similar program, we have done numerous one of the years. >> from the program, according to the 2018 gao report, 1800 individuals the process resulting in 281 individual separated from their families. why did either border patrol, or the other agencies in the trump administration, that figure out there was no computer field? >> there is a computer field, as we have stated before. our systems did nothing to one another. we have always had the information available. we audited in april 2018, and ability to search and pull that info easier. >> thank you. if i can just conclude real quick, this pilot program that happened in el paso, the child trump administration should have figured out from there, that they were not able to track individuals very well who are separated. the fact that they did not do that, and then when it launched, this family separation policy nationwide, was not just and moral and unjust, it was just simply mask incompetence. the folks there that should be ashamed of themselves. >> gentleman yields back. as our last member to have questions. this concludes today's hearing. thank you to the witnesses attending. without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional questions for the witnesses, or additional materials for the record, the hearing is adjourned. the 30th anniversary of the exxon valdez oil spill. remembering president george hw bush, and the inventor of the world wide web, all this weekend, on american history tv. saturday, starting at 12:30 p.m. eastern, three programs marking the 30th anniversary of the exxon valdez oil spill, the second largest in the u.s. >> the captain of the ship called the postcard immediately. he said we are leaking some oil. he said on the radio, that he was going to try and rock the boat, and get off the reef and proceed. which was just a terrifying possibility. the ship was so badly damaged, there is a good chance it might have stopped or capsized. and sunday on 8 pm eastern, former secretary of state james baker remembers his longtime friend, president george hw bush. >> i was privileged to serve as a secretary of state for four years. i was extraordinarily fortunate to serve a wonderful friend, and a beautiful human being, as we all know. but, to serve as secretary of state for a president, who understood that he had to defend me, and protect me, even when i was wrong. it up, the 30th anniversary of the world wide web. a conversation with his inventor. >> imagine we have a big problem, and the pieces of the puzzle are in different people's brains. but, they are connected on the internet. can the web be a place, so the goal for the web, it should be a place where whoever has an idea, very easily put it into the web. as i wander around the space looking at other people's ideas, i can pick them up, and i can tape them together. so that people can be able to say no, you're thinking of that, i've been thinking this. >> watch american history tv, this weekend, on c-span three. this coming monday, washington journal will spend the entire program highlighting members of the 116th congress freshman class, the most racially and epically diverse in history. the show will feature original interviews, key moments from recent hearings and events, as well as a breakdown of the story freshman class. plus, we will take your phone calls. washington journal is like every morning at seven eastern on c-span. and when congress returns next week from the reserves, plans to veto >>'s border evacuation. the house approved the resolution, and the short of the two thirds majority needed to override the veto. you can watch the debate, live in the house, on c-span. in the senate next week, lawmakers will work on a traditional nomination for the appeals court district, covering the western u.s. later, federal disaster aid, and a vote to start debate on a resolution concerning the green new deal. follow live senate coverage on c-span two. ohio republican governor mike dewine delivered his first address to lawmakers at the state house in columbus earlier this month. during his remarks, the u.s. senator talked about the need to invest in the state infrastructure, as well as adding more treatment and recovery programs to combat the state's drug crisis.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Honduras , Louisiana , Eagle Pass , Texas , United Kingdom , Washington , Florida , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , California , San Antonio , Guatemala , Germany , Mexico , Arizona , Iraq , Episcopal Church , Acton , Columbus School , Kansas , Phoenix , Ohio , Spain , Americans , Spanish , Mexican , British , American , Marian Mendoza , Klux Klan , America James Mchenry , Jerry Nadler , Jonathan Hayes , Dhs John , Elaine Johnson , Robert Caro , Mary Ann Mendoza , El Paso , John Kelly , Scott Lloyd , Natalie Asher ,