>> tonight on c-span2, booktv looks at the u.s. congress. south carolina republican trey gowdy. also syracuse university professor danielle thompson examines why moderates might be less likely to run for congress. and former u.s. trade negotiator ira shapiro arguing that the senate has lost its political center. booktv all this week in prime time on c-span2. >> senate confirmation hearings for brett kavanaugh to be a supreme court justice are expected in september, and senators are like to question judge kavanaugh about roe v. wade, the 1973 decision that struck down many restrictions on abortion. on tuesday at 8 p.m. eastern, c-span's landmark cases presents an in-depth look at roe v. wade.

we'll also hear from supreme court reporter david savage discussing the nomination and the abortion issue. [inaudible conversations] >> now, a recent senate judiciary committee hearing on the separation of children and parents at the u.s./mexico border. officials with immigration and customs enforcement, the health and human services department and the border patrol testified about efforts to reunite separated o families. [inaudible conversations] >> i want to thank our government witnesses for being here today, and everybody is welcome, and i'm glad that we have a lot of interest in this issue and there has been for

several weeks or at least three months, i i guess. originally, this hearing was solely going to be focused on our oversight of the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. however, it quickly became evident that more oversight of the entire family separation and reunification effort was needed. so i expanded the hearing to provide oversight of that specific issue as well as just i.c.e. in april this year, attorney general sessions announced a zero tolerance policy at the southwest border. this policy directed federal prosecutors to enforce our longstanding immigration laws and prosecute all individuals who cross the border against our laws. after all, when the laws on the

books are enforced, it protects not only american citizen, but those seeking shelter and protection here as well. remember the attorney general implemented this policy after the department of homeland security reported a 203% increase in people crossing the border against our laws, and that 203% was between march 2017 and march 2018, and a 37% increase from february this year to march of this year, the largest month-to-month increase since 2011. the attorney general's policy was well-intentioned and simple; enforce our nation's border security, laws so that people

would stop migrating illegally. we must remember that the border security also affects our national security. however, like many well-intentioned policies, these were -- there were unintended consequences as a result of the administration's zero tolerance policy. more than 2500 undocumented immigrant children were00 separated from their parents. asr of last thursday, 1442 of 1those children have been reunited directly with their parents, and an additional 378 have been released to other individuals under appropriate circumstances. however, almost one-third of the children, approximately 711, are still in government custody and are unable to be reunited with their parents.

of that 711, some were ineligible for reunification with their families for legitimate reasons. according to the administration, 120 were ineligible because their parents waived the right to reunify. 67 were not released because of what the bureaucracy called red flags including child abuse and serious felonies that were raised during background checks. of course, some adults were found to have not been related to the children with whom they were traveling over the last five months. federal authorities saw a 314% increase in adults and children arriving at the border fraudulently claiming to be a family unit. and, of course, this is a dangerouss situation, and any policy we have that encourages

the perilous practice i just described, that policy ought to be revised immediately. no child should be used as a pawn subjected to sexual assault, extreme heat or other -- and also criminal behavior by smugglers or traffickers seeking to make a buck on behalf of the most vulnerable. now 431 children, the largest number of the 711 who haven't been reunified, were ineligible because their parents had already been deported. thee administration claims that all of these parents elected to be deported without their children, but public reports -- these public reports indicate that many of them may have not made an informed choice to leave their children behind. some of the reports suggest that

these parents weren't presented information in a language that they could evenn understand. so we ought to be disturbed, and and i'm disturbed, by these allegations, and i hope our witnesses are prepared to give us thorough answers. although the administration has mishandled the family separations, it's also important to remember that this institution, the congress, also deserves its fair share of blame. for years congress has failed to take a single simple step, one simple step that could have prevented the family separations we now decry. and that means repealing the flores very -- v. renal consent decree. in 1997, as a result of years of litigation, the federal government entered into that

settlement known asnt the flores case. when the u.s. government first entered g into that consent decree, it was a much-needed step towards insuring the humane and dignified treatment of unaccompanied, undocumented immigrant children. children often thousands off miles from their parents. the settlement agreement provided that undocumented immigrant children without their parents could only be kept in federal custody for a maximum period of 20 days. it also required the government to treat these children hue -- humanely and insure the type of quality care we would expect for any child whether that that child's documented or otherwise. undocumented or otherwise. that we ought to expect them to receive that fair treatment. no one, democrat or republican,

would disagree with that principle, i would hope. however, in 2014 in addition to flores, a single federal district court in california dramaticically expanded the scope of that consent decree by applying it to undocumented immigrant children who arrive with their parents a more even -- a move that even the previous administration, meaning the obama administration, to opposed at the time that court case was, decision was delivered. under this single interpretation of flores, the federal government faces a stark choice; enforce the law and separate families by releasing only the children after 20 days or keep families together by engaging in the past administration's catch and release policy. as senators cruz, tillis and is

i wrote in an op-ed on sunday, neither of those options is good choices. that's why we believe the best way to insure this crisis never happens again is to repeal flores agreement but only as it relates to the time limitations governing accompanied undocumented immigrant children. some of my colleagues will claim that we would end all protections for minor children and just allow the government to detown families indefinitely. so that's not a true interpretation. in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. no one on our side of the aisle wants to end the humane standards of care required by flores. if anything, given recent news reports, we are more than willing to statutorily enhance those protections. we also want to see families kept in federal custody -- we

don't want to see families kept in federal custody indefinitely. as director d mchenly is going to -- mchenry is going to testify, when families are placed on the docket, their cases are usually resolved in 40 days. in contrast, when families are released into the spear you, they'reic given a notice to appr at a future immigration court hearing with little incentive to attend the. and that's just the first hearing according to the information provided to every single member of this committee during the closed door briefing. cases can take anywhere from 7-10 years to complete. we're still almost 80% of the asylum cases are ultimately denied. it justo doesn't make sense.

but, and i'll say this again, if families and children are going to be kept in federal custody, they must be kept in facilities where they will be treated humanely and with the basic dignity b that all people, to matter what their immigration status is. the federal government is failing miserably in the task that i just described. over the haas few months, multiple news reports have surfaced describing how illegal immigrant children and in the caset of family units their motherss have sufferedden imaginable -- unimaginable physical, mental, emotional and

even sexual abuse while in federal custody. obviously, that's unacceptable, and the american people expect better. we hear from our constituents every weekend we're home. to be clear, this isn't a new issue. some of the abuse dates back to at least 2012, and several of the most horrific incidents occurred in 2015, 2016. now, i don't say that to imply that this is all the obama administration's fault because it season. but clearly, there is a larger systemic issue that needs to be addressed. again no one, no matter what their immigration status, should have to suffer such abuse. i am a consistent advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault,, so i'm troubled by these reports.

that's why senator feinstein and i have sent a letter to the inspectors generals of hh -- or i should say homeland security and also health and human services asking them to open an investigation. we've also asked inspectors general to look into practices, procedures and policies that are in place regarding the custody of illegal immigrant families and children and to make recommendations both of -- to both of us and the agencies regarding potential improvement in these practices. also i hope that our government witnesses are prepared to answer questions regarding these instances -- incidents and describe in detail steps that are being taken to insure no person suffers more indignities

again. and none of us on this committee, including this chairman, is going to accept anything less. we've got a lot to cover today, so i'll now turn it over to ranking member senator feinstein for her opening remarks. but contrary to custom, we're also going to give senator cornyn and durbin opportunities for short statements because they're chairman and ranking member of the immigration subcommittee. senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we're here today because the trump administration has pursued what i believe is a deeply immoral and haphazard policy that fundamentally betrays american values. this administration has elected to engage in the systematic separation of immigrant children from their parents and without any plan to reunite them. we're now month into

thiswe crisis, we still don't kw thee official number of children who have been separated from theirr parents. i hope the administration officials present today finally outline the official, total number of children separated, where they are, what the facilities are and where they are that they're detained in, what the conditions are in those facilities and the location of their parents. the little we have learned has come out of the case in the southern district of california overseen by judge dana sabraw. according to the joint court filing by the department of justice and the american civil libertiesan union from last friday, thehe numbers are 2551 children aged 5-17 taken from their parents at some point. these children were required to

be reunited by last friday, july 26th, and the government did not meet that deadline. rather, only 1442 of those children were reunited with their parents. twenty children the government thought they separated from their parent turned out not to have been unaccompanied from the outset. 431 children remain alone in the united states because their parents have already been deported. shockingly, the government does not even know who or where the parents are for 94 children. this makes clear the government did not track them in the first place. there was no effort to insure government knew which children belonged to which parents and where they were

located. another 67 children were not reunified with their parent because of some red flag in their background. however, we don't know whether this flag add that anything to do -- had anything to do with safety of their child, an abuse or neglect allegation or some other reason that may be irrelevant to separating the child from hisis parent. and these are only the children and families we know about. "the new york times" reported that the trump administration may be pressuring people by, quote, using kids as hostages to get people to give up their asylum claims, end quote. they take the children and then tellnd the parents if they agree to deport onnt their own, you cn see your child at airport. if not, we will hold you for

months. we don't know when you will see your child, end quote. so it's not an exaggeration to say that the policies of president trump and attorney general jeff sessions may essentially orphan hundreds of immigrant children. in j addition, "the washington post" reported over the weekend thatim customs and border protection was so unprepared to grapple with this crisis that president trump created that it called these separated families, quote, at leasted family units -- deleted family units. when the customs and border patrol sent health and human services information about these deleted families, hhs had no way to track the children. in the end, 12,000 case files had to be sorted by hand to

determine which children had been separated and which children arrived in the united states without their parents. even worse are the stories we heard about these separations and the bad conditions in which they were held. my staff visited a facility in california where children did not have sufficient food or water and were forced to sleep on the cold concrete floor without a cot or a blanket. unfortunately, despite the public outcry and the rebuke by the court, the administration has demonstrated it can't be trusted to put the welfare of children above its own hard-lined views on immigration. therefore, we the congress have a moraltutional and obligation to intervene. i've been working with senator

cruz, tillis and senator durbin on a narrow bill that prohibits the separation of children from theirse families, requires an ongoing reporting by the administration -- excuse me -- and publicc reporting about what has occurred. the bill wouldld also provide additional judges, lawyers and resources to insure that these families are treated humanely and not left ignored in facilities without proper sanitary conditions; food, water, kotz and blankets to sleep on. ..

occur on the constitutional rights of the parent and the child to be together. i look forward to the hearing and to the witnesses and working with my colleagues to get legislation enacted quickly. thank you very much. >> senator warner. >> thank you, mr. chairman for holding the hearing to discuss this important matter and one that directly impacts my state perhaps the most of any in the country. and, of course, all of our concern about separation of families. it is ironic to me that last year alone there were 41,500 unaccompanied children who came across the border. we have not heard an outcry from our democratic colleaguess about that, even though the "new york

times" have reported that 1500 of them who had been placed with sponsors are unaccounted for under the current regime, or pre-existing regime i should say. i recently traveled to brownsville to getat an idea of what the facts were on the ground since i think many of our colleagues are relying on what i would characterize as incorrect media reports about circumstances on the ground. at the same time i spoke with a number of federal and local officials who are responsible for implementing government policy including rio grande valley sector chief manny padilla to with my personal expert on this topic. border patrol and all of our professionals at the border have been invaluable in helping me understand exactly what's going on and i look forward to bring additional testimony today. i toured two of these facilities myself that house teenagers as

well as younger children, and i found that these facilities were well-managed with caseworkers, mental health professionalsls ad teachers 24/7 access to fresh food and water, daily education classes for school age children. obviously a stark contrast with s what is been portrayed by some of our friends across the aisle and the media. one thing i've learnt in myth te in the senate is there are few things more complicated than immigration when it comes to public policy. often the rhetoric is so high and the facts are mangled that the fundamental concept of the rule of law and the imperative that the united states government enforce its own immigration laws and you can come into the country and under what circumstances. the seem to go, fall by the wayside.fa the fact that some disagree with those laws and even have gone so

far as call for the abolition of the principal law enforcement agency at the border and in the interior, i.c.e., does alter the fact that these are the laws of the land that our law enforcement officials are enforcing and they have been passed by congress and signed by the president. they reflect the will of the american people. i would say even while many people have been critical of the status quo at the border even as we worked together to try to unify these families the critics offer no plausible and workable alternative solution at all. i'll talk about that in a moment. family separation at the border is not a new issue nor is the adoption of a so-called zero-tolerance policy. i guess zero-tolerance policy means you are enforcing the law that congress has written and that the president has signed. president bush adopted a similar policy. president obama expanded the program to more locations along

the border because they realized that the system of catch and release was an incentive for future illegal immigration into the country. families are separate under the obama administration because that's what the law required in certain circumstances. we have seen more thane 300% increase in adults appearing at the border with smallth children claiming to bere their parents when, in fact, they are not their parents. why would they do that? they figured a way to beat the system, and that's why. so despite our political differences we all agree that the same standard of care and housing that apply to unaccompanied minors should apply the parent and accompanied minders when the cross the border illegally. thankfully we do have a solution. i'm glad to what senator feinstein said about the bill that senator tillis and senator cruz have proposed and i hope

that they continued tola work on that. we could past that legislation today it would allow parents and children to stay in the safe facility why they wait for the court proceedings and then move them to the front of the line for them to present the case before an immigration judge if they are entitled to an immigration benefit, then that would t be awarded at that hearg but as senator grassley has said the vast majority ofnd them are released, told to reappear inn the future and escape into the great american landscape never to be heard from again. so unfortunately when we tried to bring up this bill previously, it was blocked which is effectively a vote for catch and release. the cartels keep winning. this is their business model. they have figured a way to exploit the vulnerability in our immigration laws and their making millions on the backs of migrants as a result.

that's what the status quo offers and ought to be unacceptable to all of us. i look for to hearing from the witnesses today about the progress that's a been made and have the administration is screening individuals make sure we don't put children in official harms way. and i hope maybe, just maybe the efforts to come up with a solution are not deada and that we will bee able to come up with a compassionate solution to the problemis which is to keep families together and enforce the law act and it can be passed by both houses and signed by the president without further delay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator durbin. >> thanks for the opportunity to live an opening statement. thank you for expanding this hearing to address the trump administration family separation policy. this policy shows the extremes this administration will go to to punish families fleeing horrific gang and sexual violence and seeking refuge in the united states.

white house chief of staff john kelly bragged that forcibly separating children from their parents is quote, a tough deterrent, close quote, but the president of the american academy of pediatric physicians called of this policy for what it is, government sanctioned child abuse. incredibly homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen claimed, quote, we do not have a policy of supporting families at the border. but it was on her watch and under her leadership that nearly 2700 children were separated from their parents and more than 700 children still have not been reunited with their families. including more than 400 whose parents were apparently deported and more than 90 whose parents can't be w located at all. theseill become of children and their parents?

who border agents sandy called quote deleted family units. in the namey of these deleted familyd units, 711 lost childre, and common decency, i am today called on the architect of this humanitarian disaster, department of homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen to step down. the family separation policy is more than a bureaucratic lapse in judgment. it is and was a cruel policy inconsistent with the bedrock values of this nation. someone, , someone in thiss administration has to accept responsibility. we canan have border security without bullying. we can be safe without treating toddlers as terrorists. and those who say the blame is on congress, let me remind them. this is a policy which judge

sapro, thank goodness for his leadership on this issue, this is a policy which he characterized as a chaotic circumstance of the governments own making. every time there's a conversation with the other side of the aisle, the first thing they want toci eliminate is the flores standard which for 19 years has guided this nation through administrations of both political parties for the humanitarian treatment of unaccompanied children. it's the first thing that those on the other side ask us to get rid of because the last thing we should get rid of. medical experts tell us that even short-term -- short-term separation and detention could o permanent damage to a child. two weeks ago congress received a letter from two of the department of homeland security own medical consultants. these medical doctors investigated the i.c.e. family detention centers, and here's what they concluded. quote, they pose a high risk of

harm to children and their families. these whistleblowers have told us what they saw in the i.c.e. facilities. the trump administration claims that they're concerned about what they derisively call catch and release. comparing catching children to catching fish. but there are alternatives to detention that areth more secur, more humane, and use far less taxpayer money. it's not too late for this committee to rise up, to step into the situation and to accept our legislative responsibility of oversight. and we can change the situation very dramatically. keep families together act which prohibits expressly prohibit family separation. past senator hirono their day in court for kids act which provides unaccompanied children with legal representation and deportation proceedings how embarrassing is it to our nation

to think that there are court rooms with infant children, toddlers and preteens standing before judges with no knowledge of what is actually happening to them, , their families and their lives? that is not what america is all about. we need also passed the ua treatment of five migrant children act which i've introduced, required i.c.e. to prioritize the detention of those actually pose a threat to national security or public safety. increasing the funding for to detention. we do not need internment camps again and america's history to intern the children and the families indefinitely because we won't act in congress and this administration doesn't act if we did authorize the merit-based hiring of immigration judges and couple it with legal representation of the' minors. i hope today's hearing is the start of a bipartisan effort to confront this administration and end this crisis and it is the

least we can do for these ofeted the families and these lost children. >> for senator feinstein, i want to introduce into the record letters of opposition to family separation from doctor alan and doctor mcpherson. also number two amnestywo international, number three, los angeles unified school district, number four, church world service, number five, the episcopal church, and number six, chris and don abbott for bethany christian services. without objection those will be put in the record. i will now introduce our witnesses and then after i introduced them i will ask you to stand because thisl is an oversight hearing and we will

swear each of the witnesses. 2016, ms. probst was selected deputy chief of u.s. border patrol. she entered on duty with the u.s. border patrol january 8, 95. 2013 she became chief patrol agent and sheila 1200 employees. in 2015 she she became deputy assistant commissioner, the office of professional responsibility. mr. matthew albence was appointed executive associate director for enforcement and removale operations for i.c.e. february 2017. he began his career as a special agent with the former u.s. immigration and naturalization service.

mr. albans leads er oh to remove aliens who present a danger to national security or at risk to public safety, as well as those who enter the united states without documentation or otherwise determined, otherwise undermining the integrity of our immigration laws and our border control efforts. jonathan white, commander is his title, was appointed deputy director of children's programs, office of refugees resettlement january 2017. january 2017. in that capacityin he manages te unaccompanied alien children program, which provides care and custody to over 100,000 young people annually who are apprehended by the department od homeland security without an accompanying parent.

commander white advises the director of o.r. i, the assistant secretary of children and families in the sector hhs regarding unaccompanied children. director james mckenna was named director of the executive office for immigration review january this year. judge mckendry serves as deputy associate attorney general working on a variety of immigration related matters and overseeing multiple component reporting components reporting to the office of associate attorney general. from 14-16 he served as the alj for the office of disability adjudication and review of social security administration. prior to that he worked for i.c.e. office, principal legal

advisor. lastly, ms. higgins, jennifer higgins, is associate director for refugee, asylum and international operations, i director it. she asserted in for over 15 years focusing her career on balancing the united states long-standing humanitarian tradition with its national security mandate. most recently shema has served s chief of staff for the deputy secretary advising dhs leadership on refugee immigration, national student issues while managing daily operations of the office of deputy secretary. so would you folks please stand and, like so. [witnesses were sworn in]

>> alternate set of primitive. so you folks have five minutes inin your entire statement wille put in record. for the benefit of the committee since we have a boat at 12:15 we will try to keep going and rotating chairmanship with either republicans or democrats, whoever is present, sore we can finish it but i also ask that we extended the time for questions from five to seven minutes so that we can move along and not have people go be on the seven minutes. so for you folks with five minutes each would you proceed? >> yes, thank you. chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein and distinguished members ofst the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of u.s. customs and border protection. as america's unified border agency cbp is responsible for america's come for securing america's borders against all threats through deploying a

multilayereds risk-based approh to enhance more security while facilitating the lawful flow of people and goods entering the unitedun states. as the committee is aware, the us department of justice instituted the zero tolerance prosecution initiative onto april 6, 2018. it reinforced what the united states border patrol has known for many years. consequences are most effective when delivered consistently and without delay. on may 5, 2018, u.s. border patrol began to increase prosecution of all amenable adults are violations of eight usc 13 25(a) under this initiative. the law is not ambiguous. any alien that enters or attempt to enter the united states any place other than e designated pt of entry has committed a violation. throughout several decades the u.s. border patrol has implement

various enforcement operations and prosecution initiative as a means to address illegal immigration between the ports om entry.eg while zero tolerance increased the volume of cases referred for prosecution, we have always had a law h enforcement mission anda responsibility to enforce the law. i want to dispel the myth that prosecuting illegalyt border crossings for separate adults and children in custody isil unique to zero tolerance or to this administration. to be clear, we have prosecuted adult work cross the border illegally with their children under prior administrations. as with any other law enforcement agency in this country, a parent whose prosecuted for a violation of law cannot bring their children with them into criminal custody. on june 20, 2018, immediately following the president executive order, cbp suspended eight usc 1325 a prosecution of

prosecution of adults in family units and maintain family unity. following issuance of executive order, cbp reunified over 500 children inex our custody with parents. although parents are no longer being referred for prosecution under zero tolerance, cbp will continue to prioritize the welfare of the children, separation may be required if the adult posing a a danger toe child if they have a serious criminal history or if theyan he a communicable disease. going forward cbp's implementation of the zero tolerance initiative will focus on prosecution of single adult aliens across the border illegally.e before taking a question i like to take a moment to clarify how cbp fits into the process that will be discussing the cbp conducts initial processing of illegal aliens and facilities designed to hold individuals for less than 72 hours. these are not long-term detention facilities like those

operated by our partners and immigration customs enforcement and the department of health and humanan services. as such we work closely with i.c.e. and hhs to transfer individuals to the custody as expeditiously as possible. it is important to note that short-term holding facilities we operate me i can meet this standard of the cbp transport escort detention and search policy and cbp complies with the legal requirements of the florida's settlement agreement. our commitment to consist -- flores -- demonstrated on a daily basis by the integrity, then by his professionalism and compassion that the men women of cbp exhibit towards aliens we encounter. particularly towards the most vulnerable. we dowa not leave our humanity behind when we report for duty. as acting chief of u.s. border patrol i could not be more proud to represent the men and women who dedicate their lives in support of cbp's mission to

honor to work alongside them. ultimately border security is national security. enforcement of immigration law is the foundation of a secure border and a secure nation and i look forward to continuing to work with the committee towards this goal. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and i look forward to your questions. >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein and establishment of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss ices for the commission to protect the homeland and to ensure the integrity of our nation's immigration system through enforcement of her country immigration laws and in particular its role in family reunification efforts. our nation's immigration laws are complex and in many cases outdated and full of loopholes. this makes it difficult for people to understand all that i.c.e. does to protect the people of this great country. nowhere is this more evident than in the a recent instability

zero-tolerance policy and the reality of the immigration crisis. today i would like to discuss the impact of this policy as a tremendous effort as successes on the part of the dedication and women of zero who performed the duties with professionalism, dignity and a compassion despite the mood of false allegations and misinformation that are propagated data by those who did not support the faithful for the immigration laws passed by congress. i.c.e.'s immigration enforcement efforts are led by more than 7700 proud dedicate along for the offices and support personnel of vro. sure the national security of public safety of the united states i.c.e. offers -- in such way that our limited resource will have the greatest impact on public safety and border security. during fiscal 2017 i.c.e. year oh arrested more than 127,000 aliens with criminal convictions or pending criminal charges. in real terms what this means is

year oh removed almost 11,000 more from the communities they're victimizing than it did in way 16. the savings were responsible for the following criminal convictions are pending criminal charges, , more than 76,000 dangerous drug offenses, more than 40,000 assault offenses can more than 11,000 weapons offenses can00 more than 5000 sexual assault offenses, more than 2000 kidnapping offenses, more than 1800 homicide offenses. in fact, in fy 2017 and again in fy 2018 nearly nine out of every ten aliens arrested by ero came to our attention after the arresthe after local state or federal criminal violence violation. on april 6, 2018 the attorney general announced the zero-tolerance policy for violationsy of the code in whih customs and border protection would refer aliens att arrested for illegally entering the country to use attorneys offices

along the southwest border for criminal prosecution. in accordance with the practice employed by federal law enforcement agencies to risk individuals were committing federal crimes, cbp transfer these adults to u.s. marshals service pending prosecution. when this occurred these adults became unavailable to provide care and custody to the children with whom they were traveling. a child without an available parent or legal guarding falls within thee unaccompanied alien child definition provided for in federal law. federal law further requires such be transferred to health and human services within 72 hours. isis role in this process is limited to the safe transportation of uac hhs. on june 26, 2010, the u.s. district court for the for the southern district of california had a class action known as ms. l certify the class consists of parents who have been, are a will be detained in dhs custody whose children were separate from motherboard and detained in custody with some exclusions. the court ordered the

reification of class members with the children had been separated, as a determination of the parent is unfit unless the parent affirmatively knowingly and voluntarily decline reunification. by july 12, 2010, hhs and dhs reunified and the minor under five years old with those eligible parents into custody dhs for the court order. of the 103 children under five, 57 were reunified with the parents of the remaining 46 were in eligible for unification underig court-approved criteriar could that be reunified because the parent was incredible custody or had already been removed. as of the july 2016, july 26, 2018 joint status report filed with u.s. district court southern district of california, 1422 of the 200551 children of the 25,501 children aged five and above whose parents were identified as class members were reunified with parents and i.c.e. custard and none of these families have been removed. the courts order to reunite these families under this time

from theic court i.c.e. to prioritize these reunions over other pressing operational needs including removal of individuals determined to have no lawful right to remain in the united states. the reunification timeframe required an unprecedented level of coordination between hhs and i.c.e. to include the temperate assignment i.c.e. personal to hhs special operations center. the three i.c.e. offices feel as primary reification operated 24/7 to effectuate the reunification of parents with children it is important to note the current laws and court rulings has led not onto only to anything to appear for court hearings and tend to comply with the removal orders but has also incited smugglers to place children in defense of adult strangers so they can pose as msm and be released from immigration custody after crossing the border. amending theseaw laws and judicl rulings would enable dhs to maintain family unity throughout the immigration is. these individuals are ordered

moved by an immigration judge which mostov are, it will allow for execution of these orders as opposedly to add into it already overwhelming fugitive docket of morere than 540,000. specific legislative changes outlined in my testimony. while dhs and i.c.e. are continuing to examine these issues, recent court decision, a permanent fixture in congress is essential. congress must act to update and simple five the part of our immigration laws that are prone to abuse and incentivized illegal immigration while providing i.c.e. with the lawful authority and requisite funding to ensure families can be kept together throughout the course of their proceedings. thank you again and i welcome your questions. [inaudible] >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, members ofer e committee, it's my honor to appear today on behalf of the u.s. department of health and human services. i'm jonathan white, i'm a clinical social worker and i'm a

career officer in u.s. i public health service commissioned corps. i have served in hhs and the three presidents. i'm presently assigned to the office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response and i served as the deputy director of the office of refugee resettlement for the unaccompanied alien children's program as a senior career official over the uac program probably there's a need for clarity on the service services provides everyday to unaccompanied children in its care. the quality of care provided by hhs for children is excellent and the agency takes the reports to the contrary seriously and investigates them up properly. so all children in our over 100 facilities receive medical, dental and mental health care. because most of these facilities are monitored at both the state and federal level, the high sierra care for kids and who are our care is the same for american children in licensed residential care settings across the country.

were provide all the children in our care program that includes education, recreational activities including outdoor crafts,arts and appropriate entertain and physical activity. children receive three meals a day as well as snacks and at all times hhs knows the names and locations of all children who are in orr care. in the last two months hhs has provided nearly 85 members of the house and senate and more than 50 outlets with tours of our funded facilities. after touring our facilities both members and staff have commented on the quality care that we provide. i know there's been some frustration of light over some member of congress ability to access any system at any time. our top priority is is the chin in our care and in an effort to minimize the string resource and disruption to the children we continued the policy that was begun in the last administration to require any visitors to coordinate the visits with us in

advance and we thank this committee for your assistance in the coordination of the main facility visits in the past few weeks. where are these children are concerned the unfortunate reality is this. the children we serve every day in the uac program have in many cases been targeted by gangs. they have been smuggled and even trafficked. smugglers and traffickers often arrange fraudulent claims of parent of a child to allow summoned into the united states more easily. the children we serve are at high risk for victimization in human trafficking in their home country, on the journey here to the u.s. and yes, also here in our country. in practice it has investigated this problem. led by senator portman we helped uncover how in 2014 a number of children were placed in the hands of human traffickers who forced into work every day for 12 12 hours a day. these children were threatened

with death if they did that work so it's important to us, making sure we never repeat mistakes of the past of why our number one priority will always be the safety and well-being of children in our care. we understand and understand the public attention is recently been focused primarily on the issue of separated children. but most of the miners from hhs is responsible cross into this country alone. in 2017 we had 40,810 children refer to our care from dhs. the average length of stay there in our care was 41 days. as of this morning, hhs has 11,316 miners in our care. orr released the majority of children and our care to typicallynd is parents or close relatives. in 2017, 49%lo of the children released to a parent. 41% to a close relative, a sibling, an aunt or uncle or a grandparent. and 10% were released to more

distant relative like a cousin or to a family friend. since the president executive order secretary of hhs has directed hhs to take all reasonable actions to comply with court orders including the tract in case which of our unit reunification of china with eligible class members, that his parentspa from whom they were separated by the department of homeland sigir and to prioritize child safety and well-being when doing so. on june 22 hhs secretary directed office of assistant secretary for preparedness and response to help orr work with dhs and supporting divisions to reunify childrenn and orr care. the key step in that coordinate a plan for unifying chair address parent and child include identifying the parents location, confirming there is the cost of doubt heritage. reviewing the results of criminal background checks in the child's case management records to make sure there are no concerns about thes child

safety and interviewing appeared to confirm the parent wants to be reunified with the child. if those checks established eligibility then we transport the child to the parent for family reunification. this effort required us to stand at 55 member incident management team that i live in washington and field few teams of federalf and contractors totaling more than 200. hhs has now completed the reunification process for this parent in i.c.e. detention who are eligible for reunification within the definition of the court. we know our work is not over. we continue to make all efforts in cooperation with our partners to reunify parent and child wherever possible, and were not possible to identify another relative or appropriate sponsor. we are undertaking this challenge of separated children consistent with the best interest of the child, standard that event ourre mission funds 2002 with hhs inherited the

responsibility. i want to close by thinking the women and men who work in hhs facilities to care for children. their dedication guarantees these children many of whom are fleeing violence, gangs and severe poverty in theires home countries, many of whom have suffered, both at home and on the difficult journey to guarantee that those kids get care, service and safety. thank you for letting me speak today and i am glad to take any questions you might have for us. >> mr. chairman,, ranking member feinstein and others distinguish most of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today regarding the department of justce's role in the current situation related to family reunification spirit this is important since it is subject and welcome this opportunity to address it from the departments perspective. the mission statement is to enforce the law and defend the interests of the united states according to the law to ensure public safetyco against threats foreign and domestic, to provide federal leadership for

controlling crime comet to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all americans. the department's mission is exemplified by playing three roles relevant to the current situation. first the department rigorously enforces the criminal laws passed by congress to the u.s. attorneys offices, in conjunction with u.s. marshal service and the bureau of prisons, that part ofs. the plas a crucial role in enforcing these laws and seeking punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior. the departments role applies no less to immigration crimes that it does to other categories of crimes. section 13 of executive order 13767 13767 directed the attorney general to establish guidelines and allocate resources to ensure the board of prosecutions enforcing immigration laws passed by congress are a high priority of the department. on april 11, 2017, the attorney general issued a memorandum to all federal prosecutors outlining certain immigration related offenses including

improper entry under eight usc 1325 as high priorities. by april 6, 2018, the the attorney general issuedat anothr memorandum entitled zero tolerance for offenses and eight usc 13e. 25(a). this memorandum directed federal prosecutors along the southern border to adopt a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under section 13 25(a) by the department of homeland security. the attorney generals memo remains in force today and illegal or improper entry among immigration crimes remains a prosecution priority of the department. furthermore, the president restated the privatization prif prosecuting illegal entry crimes and executive order 13841 which also reiterated that the current policy was to reduce enforce immigration laws passed by congress. doj doesn't take it which cases are referred for prosecution by the department of homeland security nor does it maintain a

general exemption for criminal prosecution for parents. the department has the operation or logistical role in either the care or the processing of aliens or removal regardless of whether they are adults or children. accordingly and also does not plan operation or logistical role in the reunification process. criminal proceedings are separate from several immigration proceedings and prosecution for illegal entry under the auspices of the zero-tolerance policy itself is not necessary for close and in his ability to make a claim to remain in the united states. consequently, depending on the particular circumstances of an alien following a prosecution or she may make such a claim or alternatively may elect to be removed from or to voluntarily depart the united states. if an adult and is subject to ex-pat removal makes a a claimo remain in the united states, that claim is generally directed to the dhs and the first instance. as the claim progresses they may be reviewed by an immigration judge in the executive office for immigration review which is

the second role-played other department in the current situation. unaccompanied alien children placed in proceedings pursuant to law will also have their cases heard by an immigration judge. this issue family separation reunification efforts the federal courts department justice as a third role as a litigator providing representation to those agencies that do provide care for indians subject to removal. consequently i make of the but in my ability to speak to certain issues today either because they're currently in litigation or because they're more properly directed to another agency.ct nevertheless, the department of justice recognizes the seriousness of the present situation and is appropriate advising both the department of homeland security and hhs as he continued continue to abide by any orders issued by federal course on thesesu matters. the current immigration system faces numerous legal and logistical challenges. added to this challenge is a current situation regarding familyhe separations and reunification spirit nevertheless, the formal ties executive order 1341 indicates,

which is affording congress an opportunity to address family separation, the department of justice dench went to work with cox to answer these challenges and to improve existing law to avoid a recurrence of the present situation. i look for to enhancing your questions today. thank you. >> thank you. chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at the tradition alongside my colleagues from dhs, the departmentmm of justice and the department of health and human services. my name is jennifer higgins and i and the associate director of the refugee, asylum and international operations directorate at u.s. citizenship and immigrationon services. my testimony will focus on the role of uscis and expedite removal process which is the primary framework in which we encounter families arriving at the southwest border. the immigration and nationality act generally requires that

expedite removal of individuals arriving in the united states without proper documentation. in 2014 is expanded expedite removed individuals apprehended with in 100 miles of u.s. land within 14 days of illegal entry. all individuals place an expedited removal proceedings are subject to mandatory detention and prompt return to their countries of origin. however, as a single adult or a family unit indicates, cbp has a fair prosecution, return, the law requires that individuals be referred to uscis for an assessment of their protection concern. it is, referred to as a credible fair screening. credible fear interviews are conducted by specially trained uscis officers. these officers comprised of professional cadre within uscis dedicated full-time to the adjudication and screening ofit protection claims. they have diverse educational

and employment background. for military veterans to peace corps volunteers, former i.c.e. trial attorneys, to former nonprofit immigration attorneys, from prior law enforcement officers to former social workers. despite the diverse backgrounds they are all driven by the mission, to provide this country protection to those who are eligible while remaining fully focused on ensuring the integrity of the mission and protecting our country against those who seek to do us harm. all officers conducting credible fear screen are extensively trained in national security issues, country conditions, interview techniques, credibility determination, fraud detection and u.s. and refugee and asylum law. during the credible to interview these officers question individual about their identity, their fear of persecution and torture if returned to the country of origin and whether there are any circumstances that may make them and eligible for asylum. uscis conducts security checks

including biographic and biometric checks. and coordinates with i.c.e. and other authorities if there's any reason to believe that an individual may have engaged in criminal activity or pose a security threat. under u.s. law and individual establishes a credible fear when he or l she demonstrates that their significant possibility that he or h she could establish eligibility for asylum or a full removal or release under the convention against torture. if the individual establishes a credible fear, uscis places that individual into removal proceedings where he or she can seek asylum or other forms of relief before an immigration judge. therefore a positive determination by uscis does not confer any immigration status. it is a screening process employed to identify individuals who may potentially merit protection. while the decision on eligibility or other forms of relief for such cases rests with

an immigration judge. if uscis determines an individual does not have a credible fear, he or she is subject to removal and less of the individual requests that immigration judge review of the uscis screening determination to our role is limited but it is an important one, two screen in those who qualify, screeningn t those adult and protect the integrity of the process. uscis has more than 100 officers conducting credible fear screening interviews run the country conducting on average 350-400 interviews the today in response to the president executive order we are to put our staff continuously to ten major detention cells in the border region including two family residential centers in texas to carry out credible fear processing. since 2013 our dedicated workforce has completed over 300 85,000 385,000 credible fear cases shortthe extremely timeframe the megabyte ex-pat of

removal process. our offices have demonstrated and continued to demonstrate extraordinaryy commitment to the mission and just immigration law working tirelessly alongside i.c.e. and cbp to keep pace with increasing volumes of credible fear requests while producing high-quality decisions. thank you again for the opportunity to explain uscis role in the expedited removal process. i would be happy to answer your questions. >> i've already said we will have seven minute rounds, and i hope that members will stop at the end of seven minutes but you folks to answer the question if the settlements have run out. i'm going to start with mr. albence. your family residential center is referred to places places scheduled nine bars. this description seems to be in contrast to the law and the standards. what they require. i.c.e. family residential centers, to my understanding,

are structured like communities with familyun residence, recreation, medical and dental offices, cafeterias, commissaries, even a hearing room for judges or lawyers, or judges to give full attention to the claims of residence. recento concerned about reports of abuse, the "new york times" claimed that migrant women were being sexual abuse by guards while in custody. if true, that's unacceptable. as i said in my opening statement. what steps does i.c.e. take to investigate and respond to all allegations of abuse at these centers wax and what steps does i.c.e. take to protect or prevent such abuse and punish offenders? let me also add this question. what steps are being taken i.c.e. to ensure that no undocumented immigrant family

suffer from some forms of physical or mentall abuse while in i.c.e. custody? >> thank you for your question. our family residential centers as with all of our detention facilities undergo a very rigorous inspection process and oversight process. any allegations of abuse or wrongdoing that occurs in any detention facility to include the frc is automatic reported to our jointnt intake center. that is the reporting of allegations that go directly to dhs, also inspector general. also if budget is able to take any of those allegations for investigation and will do so if they feel there's evidence to warrant such an investigation. those that choose not to investigate would be investigated by i.c.e. office of professional responsibility which also has the authority to conduct investigations. in addition, the normal oversightse processes include te

department of homeland security civil rights, crc l we have the office of detention oversight within i.c.e. office of professional responsibility. we are required to be inspected and meet licensing standards. we have detention service monitors that work for i.c.e., the work for management branch that go to the systems on a daily basis. with officers into systems on a daily basis. with regard regard to the frc i think the best way to describe them is even more like a summer camp these individuals of access to 24/7 food and water. they have educational opportunities. they have recreational opportunities both structured as well as unstructured. there's basketball courts, exercise classes, soccer fields that we put in. they have extensive medical, dental and mental health opportunities. in fact, many of these individuals, the first time they've ever seen a dentist is

when it come to our frc. when you leave, daily with seven sets of clothing for each individual that was in that frc. while they are that they have all sorts ofs facts to pro bono legal opportunistic there's a legal orientation program that is in there and there avail themselves of that. dr. mayne nga's network and assistst those on a daily basiso provide the assistance and support once they are released back in the community. i am very comfortable the level of service and protection that is being provided in the frc and i believe the frc, there's video on her website where one can go on and see the conditions of those. >> i think you've given a pretty thorough answer but i like you to commit to have your agency provide a detailed report on what steps are being taken to end any alleged abusive practices and protect undocumented immigrant families. i hope you can say yes to that.

>> yes, sir. >> and i think, i think your description would be what's required by federal law if you haven't described things that are required by federal law or your ownt control policies, gie me an answer on that but i think you kind ofat described that coe have just purpose much of what i described is required under federal law a lot of these are -- i.c.e. actually some of those rigorous detention standards in the countrymo prophetically othr federal and state agencies for our detention facilities. some are rooted in law, some are rooted in policy. >> attorney to help are allowed to confer with resident and residents are allowed to make phone calls about their immigration cases. >> yes, that's correct. >> okay. still contending with you, sir. you mention that many pairs elect to be removeded and leave their children behind. this is a this is a difficult cr me to understand as a parent and

grandparent, but the reality is that many undocumented migrants do leave their children behind. some of my colleagues will say the i.c.e. is coercing these parents interleaving their children behind. a recent political article states that as many as 75% of the parents deported without their children didn't give informed consent for the action. i'd like to better understand how reunification options are explained. so are i.c.e. officers coercing parents to be deported, julie their children behind as political has suggested? >> no. there is long-standing i.c.e. policy which dictates how reunification may occur for an individual that isse being detained and going through an immigration process if the adult is being detained in an adult facility, the child cannot be kept in thety same facility.

there are times during the course of that process in which the adult may be bonded out whether by immigration judge orr another medical reason perhaps where they will have the ability it bonded out to proceed to sponsor their child out of hhs for the normal processes and procedures that hhs has. if the individual is held in custody during the immigration process and at the end of the process ordered removed by a judge, that individual have the opportunity to request their childeq be removed with him to e home country. we work close with consular officials, those with attorneys at the end of us may have to facilitate that but a great many of these individuals do not wish to have theat child returned hoe with them. the reason mostof of these individuals have come in first their children to the united states. many of the individual have spent five, $10,000, the life savings to have these into the united states. they paid smugglers,

transnational criminal organizations, they subjected themselves and their children so high level of risk in the journey north. once that got not child here, many times to another. that issue in the country illegally or other relatives in the country illegally, a lot of times and that would take the child back with him and risk having to make that journey aching. they succeeded by getting their child here and as we've seen with these individuals that were arrested, many of them during the zero-tolerance policy, many are repeat offenders. the event deported priests. that criminal and the united states, were caught, rested and removed. it's easierr for them to leave the child here to go back to the home country and try to reenter this country can illegally as a single adult as opposed to a with a a child. >> senator feinstein and then i will step out a minute. senator hatch will be after senator feinstein. >> thanks very much mr. chairman. i'd like to have a conversation with you, commander. this goes back to the year 2000

when happen to be watching television, and i saw a young chinese girl, maybe 12 years old before an immigration judge in seattle. she was manacled hand and foot. she couldn't understand the judge.e. the tears were pouring down her face. that was in the days when people were coming in in contenders, some died, some survived. she was a survivor. and we did a bill called the unaccompanied alien child protection act of 2000, which took children out of i.c.e. and put them in hhs. the bill also provided for some pro bono and legal help which didn't make it into the final bill which i am now told was a homeland security act of 2002. so senator hirono has picked that up and down that part of

the bill probably better than ii did it, but i'm happy to be her cosponsor. and so there is a long and emotional history. i i was so struck this morning y the fact that there are 11,316 minors in care of hhs today. it's clear that we have a huge problem, and understanding those numbers are down somewhat. how did all of this happen? it appears to me that when borderha patrol agents were separating the families at the border, they did not adequately document the family units. so to your knowledge with the children you have, what kind of documentation do they bring with them when they are arrested

across the border or go through a through a port of entry, wherever it is, that is helpful to you? >> thank you, senator. the mechanism for referring a child into the care of orr by dhs agency typically cbp but in some cases they can also be i.c.e., isn't that have limited access to the i.t. system that is used by the uac program which is called the uac portal. they have the ability to refer into that portal and they can actually in the caseit of cbp ty can make a referral starting their systematic so there isn't, we speeded just say it like it is. don't worry about it. >> this is a novel situation. there have always been some

minor sevenge separated. typically because of serious criminal charges faced by the parent or other concerns. >> let me interrupt you. we had a briefing at senator grassley arrange for some of us and senator durbin i i know was there and i think senator leahy. and wewe were briefed and i thought thegh number was 15%-20% at the highest of the children? >> that is approximately the recent number. it's been about 15-20%. prior to the recent reunification so it's a smaller proportion. >> thank you. continue. so the majority children are not in that category? >> correct. even at the point we launched our reunification effort, 80% of the minors in care are traditional unaccompanied and the children. that is to say, those into the united states without a parent or legal guardian and were apprehended without a parent or legal guardian separate from those who were apprehended with

a parent or legal guardian and separated. >> so how to identify them? how do you connect them with that parent? it seems to be the system is unworkable or we wouldn't be where we are today. >> the systems were notto set up to have referrals include parent information. so in some cases when the referral from cbp was make it noted that the maya were separated and may have had parent information such as the name and alien number. what we've done, this income is we had a data team look at i.c.e., cbp at hhs data and scrub the system against one another in order to identify the matching of parents to trust. >> stop for a minute. the alien number when it comes with the child, how old does the child has to be to have an alien number and how do they carry it

with them? >> so every minute that is referred to us is referred with own any number. the any number is a unique identifier of any person in the immigration law enforcement. >> held aal baby? >> a baby that was referred to as would also have an alien number. >> and when with that in the number be on the baby? >> it would not be on the baby. it would be e in electronic referral of the speedy how does electronic referral connect with a child, but say, eight months old? >> so the referral is made to our 24/7/365 intake gas in orr which identifies the best bed nationwide for that child based on the child's age and needs. .. that information is conveyed back to cbp and typically in the case of most order of branches, it would be ice that would bring that child to that location designated. >> let's go to the 11,316 minors in care today. how many are under the age of

how many are under the age of five? >> i don't have that number with me. i would have to go back.>> can you get the definitive number to us? >> absolutely. >> i have the numbers from the joint filing by aclu and doj. i wanted quick. tell me, children in care with parent waiver reunification hundred and 20 p reunification precluded by plaintiffs, seven. adult red flags on background checks 21. adult red flag from case file review, 46. adult release to the interior, 79 children. adult outside the u.s., 49. these are likely parents

deported and adult location under case file review, 94. is this filing correct? i can give you a copy of it if you want. >> that reflects the numbers of the time of the filing. >> are the correct numbers? >> they were at the time of the file have changed subsequently. they are correct as the date of the file. they are correct. >> i would like to get the changes. thank you very much. >> senator hatch. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the convening this important meeting i think it is really an important hearing. then we can all agree that the last several months have been a challenging time for immigration enforcement.the family separation crisis at the southern border has revealed some significant problems with our immigration laws and the ways they are administered. i think the president to the right thing last month. when he signed an executive

order to put a halt to the separation of parents and children. to enter our country unlawfully. a red a letter to the attorney general the previous day with them asking for family separation to be put to a halt. i will follow-up this week with another letter requesting information about the administrations reunification efforts and barriers that remain wito reuniting children who were separated from their parents. i hope we can all avoid the urge to make this a political football. there are very strong feelings on all sides of this debate as there should be. these are extremely important issues. finding a productive way forward requires cool heads any willingness to compromise. chairman grassley, senator cruz, feinstein, and so forth, the efforts on this.

i hope discussions will continue so that we can find a solution that is fair to families, responsive to humanitarian needs and consistent with our rule of law. let me just make this question for the whole panel. in fact, this is a question for whoever happens to have the information on hand.if you do not have an exact number i will take an estimate. what percentage of individuals who enter our country unlawfully are families with children? >> thank you for the question, senator. right now at approximately 25 percent of the individuals that we apprehend are part of a family unit. another 15 percent of our total apprehensions are unaccompanied children. >> how is that percentage changed in recent years? and if the percentage has increased, what in your view is the cause of the increase? >> the numbers have been

increasing over the last few years.it started in 2014. when we saw a large spike in those areas. we started to see rises in 2010 and unaccompanied and then 2013. the biggest spike was 2014. there are many push and pull factors bthat lead to this iss and i would say that as discussed earlier, the fact that family units and children cannot be detained or do not make it to court within 20 days, is certainly a pull factor leading to the increase in the numbers. >> without new legislation, does the administration have any choice but to resume so-called catch and release policies for individuals caught entering our country unlawfully with children? do they have any other choice? >> if you're talking about the

family units, for detaining children, those individuals cannot be detained for a period longer than 20 days. as the chief mentioned, is virtually impossible to have individuals immigration hearing entire process which may include a view be completed within 20 days. as a result, we have no choice but to release these individuals out into the community and they would then go to the non-detained docket which would be years down the road before they might have a hearing. my understanding is part of the problem here is essential district of california, the consent decree applies to both accompanied and unaccompanied children. anyone can answer lithis but in your view, i would like all of

you, in your view, is it the best reading of the decree? that is, do you think the district of california got it right? ?and if not does the administration have any available avenues for the review? i understand the ninth circuit looked at the question and it was essential district that the government -- if not is there any available avenue by which the government might be able to seek -- admittedly the interpretation of the consent decree is not subject for supreme court review but this is a question of pretty significant nationwide -- anyone that can take that i appreciate it. >> as you know the president executive order in june earlier this year, among other things directed the department of justice to seek modification of the decree. the department did file something the judge rejected and we're still debating and

discussing internally what the next steps are. what options thwe should take. >> we have to move forward on that it seems to me. let me just ask one of the question. we've heard a lot about alternatives to the detention deprograms. and they allegedly, the high success rate the programs have in terms of the percentage of participants who appear for removal proceedings.are there reasons to think that if we expand these programs, the percentage of participants who appear for removal will remain the same? and are there reasons to think that percentage would decreased? and how are participants ip selected for these programs? >> the alternative to detention program has been proven to be a fairly successful program with have individuals appear for appointments with i.c.e. and to appeared herrings. however, the ultimate goal of the immigration enforcement continuum is the execution of the judge's order at the end of

those immigration proceedings. whether they are granted a benefit and then they get a green card or whatever benefit they are entitled to. or as in most cases when the judge orders them to be removed we are actually able to effectually -- it has proven to be unsuccessful in leading to removal. in fiscal year 2017, there was $183 million assigned to the program. it led to 2430 removals. it is over $75,000 for removal. in contrast a removal of an individual held in detention for the usual length of stay is 30 to 40 days cost about $1500. if you have a process which at the end of it, the judge's order means nothing because the individual does not appear after he received the order, or continues to file appeals we are unable to locate him, we have not accomplished anything except to spend entaxpayer mone. >> my time is up.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. it seems stranger and stranger as we hear this. i know the president 's process systematically separates infants and toddlers for families it seems to me to be a betrayal of american values. the administration is republican or democrat. and i think that is why so many in this country stood up and said it has to change. now we are trying to pick up the pieces. 700 children separated from the families. prior to being directed to separate families under the zero tolerance policy, what

instruction did the white house or secretary of homeland security provider agency for how to ensure that every single separated child be reunited with their parents. i ask this because early 2017, the administration began concerning the spirit april 2018, attorney general jeff sessions announced zero tolerance policy. early about one month later the secretary of dhs instructed dhs for 100 percent of the parents for prosecution. what kind of guidance did you have? >> thank you for your question, sir. under zero tolerance, the guidance was just to be clear, 100 percent prosecution for all of adults. it is not focused on anyone demographic. during the timeframe of the 45 days between may 5 and june 20,

we referred approximately or apprehended 42,000 individuals. >> video guidelines you had to follow? had you been given guidelines? from the attorney general's office or homeland security? >> in alignment with the zero tolerance that came out from doj, then our secretary did on may 5, put out a memorandum and we began working with our partners at department of justice to prosecute. >> was there specific guidance of what to do? >> of what to do, i'm sorry sir in relation to? >> separating children. >> is not an area that cbp deals appeared we refer those individuals. we deal with the prosecution as the commander said earlier, we mahave a system of record that input all the information into. do include the alien number of the individual and any family members. we also have juvenile coordinators who work

hand-in-hand. with staff at hhs. and with i.c.e. >> i pulled the stories infants being reported, the judge's -- is almost -- we have -- you pick them up, they are removed from their parents. there has to be some kind of a system to ensure the children can be matched to the parents, doesn't there? >> this is where we are working closest with our partners at hhs in i.c.e. the initiative was a prosecution initiative and focus was on prosecuting all -- >> i was a prosecutor and i know, i have never known of zero-tolerance, any prosecutor ever wanted zero-tolerance. because it does not work. there is not one-size-fits-all. with children, here is an easy

way. here's a really easy way to do it. i mean -- chucky cheese uses things like this to check parents and their children when they are there. there wasn't anything like this, right? >> we provide information on all family members through our system of record, e3 two hhs individuals. we have child labor specific alien registration number given to them. so do the family members. in our system, we do track family members of any. >> why do have separated children they yscannot find the parents?>> i would have to defer to my partners. my focus is on border security and the apprehensions. we have short-term holding facilities. >> anybody want to tell us why?

>> at no time did we not know where any adults that were in i.c.e. custody war. however, once an individual is no longer within i.c.e. custody, we do not track that individual. whether they are here in the united states and released on bond or whether the individual was deported to a foreign country. >> so if you have children then you have children you do not know where the parents are. you can go years, maybe forever. is that correct? commander? >> the system that we are required by law to follow in hhs, is that governed by the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act. until the judge ordered us to reunification is with parents and i.c.e. detention, all those in detention while they swere detained were ineligible, by law, -- we always had a system to find sponsors generally

parents or close family members are all the children in our care. >> to have any children now in custody where we do not know where the parents are? >> there remain a few that we do not know the location of the parents. particularly those where the parents have been removed or voluntarily departed the united states. we have a large number of those. >> let me ask you, i.c.e. has homeland security tip line. they have a call center in my home state. it has been traditionally focused on receiving tips on major crimes like terrorism and human trafficking. which we would all agree with. tips and terrorism, human trafficking. but now, the tip line has changed. you can call, i did. and you have options. number one, report suspected

undocumented immigrants.maybe your neighbor or somebody working down the street. if you go all the way down to number four, report terrorism. go all the way down to number six, report crimes against children.go all the way down to number eight, report gang activity. ordering of priorities?reat >> as you know, senator, i.c.e. is divided into two operational components but homeland security investigations and enforcement removal operations. i oversee ero i can get the information and bring it back to you. >> does not seem like a great

party? number one report your neighbor who might be an illegal immigrant. number eight, report gang activity or number four, terrorism. just on the base of that doesn't seem like priorities are set straight? >> again, i cannot speak to it. i do not think the individuals a number is to be pressed i believe that they get over 100,000 tips per year. i think is a way they can categorize the tips so that they know where to form them out. >> senator cornyn. >> thank you all for being here. i want to start by thanking you for your service to our country. and not only you, but the people you represent. i know you do your best to enforce and administer the light and to do what is passed into law. that is what you're doing today and that's with the people that work with you do. it is not your fault that congress has been unable to come up with a more sensible

system of enforcing our immigration laws. it is our responsibility. not yours. so please, convey that our gratitude to the people that you are here representing. chief provost, the organizations that fismuggle drugs, weapons, trafficking women and children for sex and forced labor. and to smuggle economic migrants in the united states. are those one and the same organization or are they different organizations?>> as you know, senator, there are numerous different transnational criminal organizations. however, what we had seen over the last few years as they have spread out into doing more than just one thing. so we have organizations who hasmuggle drugs and also smuggl illegal aliens across the border. they treat individuals like a

commodity. not like people. and it is of course great concern to us, the dangers of crossing our border i believe you know very well it is a very dangerous border. this year alone we are rescued over 2800 individuals. and tragically, we have lost at least 180. that does not include the individuals that perish on the dangerous route through mexico. >> so the cartels and criminal organizations are commodity agnostic? would that be a fair characterization? >> i would say so. >> right now they are making millions of dollars under the status quo if they can an effectively circumvent our immigration enforcement or if they can exploit vulnerabilities in our law and successfully place illegal immigrants into the united states and reap thousands of dollars for each when they do that.

they are benefiting tremendously economically under the status quo. would you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> what if we just decided to abolish i.c.e.? what would be the impact on our country? in terms of public safety. >> the public safety impact would be huge. in addition to the immigration enforcement that we do which as i mentioned previously removed the rest of 127,000 individuals with criminal convictions and arrest last year. homeland security branch does a significantamount of work all tremendous with regard to drugs, narcotics, child predators, cybercrime . i would also say that you vecannot have strong border security with a void in the interior. if an individual knows that they can come to the country and try and try and try and eventually get past the border patrol, and that there is no

chance of any enforcement being taken against them, then you will never have border security.n what you're saying if you're getting rid of the interior enforcement arm of immigration enforcement is that you're saying you want border security, you want border patrol to make all of these arrests and stop people there but wants to get by border patrol, let them go. you're not against illegal entry your against attempted illegal entry. once the entries made you do not want us to do anything on the inside. >> if i.c.e. was no longer in existence and no longer enforced our laws in the interior of the united states, with the primary victim of that be the minority communities in which many of these people operate? >> these minority communities are the primary victims now. because individuals are involved in all sorts of gang activity and other criminal activity and generally they commit the crimes against those in the same communities in which they reside. >> so miss yield if our primary

goal is family unification, which we all share, why not just keep the child with the adult and enforce the law? >> senators, as was said earlier the issue there is that under the settlement agreement and the determination that was made by the courts in 2015, we can no longer detain individuals longer than 20 days. no child. not just unaccompanied children. but also those accompanied. >> that means that if somebody violates our immigration laws by entering the country illegally, if they bring a child with them, you cannot 2detain them? longer than 20 days. correct? >> that is correct. >> you must release them and rely on their promise to reappear at some future date for a court hearing if they claim some immigration benefit like asylum, correct? >> that is correct. with the agreement has done is basically effectively imposed

traditionally mended a catch and release for individuals to have uac and family units. >> that the status quo? >> that is correct. >> let me ask you about the interaction between drug smugglers and human smuggling. as well know, the opioid crisis is wreaking terrible havoc on americans both prescription drugs and heroin. which is the next drug of choice if you cannot get prescription drugs because it is cheaper and it is more available. the dea said 16,000 americans indied of heroin overdoses in 2017. 90 percent of that heroin comes from mexico. according to the dea. according to some information that i have received, the drug smugglers actually use the fact that border patrol and other law enforcement are tied up

administering and seeing to the needs of these minor children and family units as a way to distract border patrol from smuggling of heroin and other illegal drugs into the united states. is that correct? has that been your experience? >> yes, sir. it is been my personal experience and certainly express our men and women are having to deal with today. >> once again, in addition to the huge fees charged by these cartels, to smuggle people into the united states, in addition to that, they are also profiting by the poison that is being exported from places like mexico into the united states that is killing americans as we speak. correct? >> yes, sir. >> senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on june 26, a judge appointed

by republican president george w. bush ordered the reunification of separated families. he concluded, and i have a quote - here. the practice of separating these families was implement it without any effective system or procedure for tracking the children after they were separated from their parents. enabling communication between the parents and their children after separation reuniting the parents and children. commander white, your expertise as public health. were you consulted, was your agency consulted before the zero tolerance policy was put into effect? so you could address the issues that the judge raised? >> senator, to be clear, my last day at orr was a few weeks prior to the announcement. as of that date, neither i nor to my knowledge, any of the staff reported to me, were advised of the impending

zero-tolerance policy. >> we aware of the fact that the zero-tolerance policy was going to be proposed or implemented?>> i was aware because i had been in discussions for that point more than one year. i've discussions of policies which could result in the separation of children from family units and the referral, however, those only policy discussions and sort of proposals. many proposals discussed in federal executive branch agencies that never become a policy, as of my last day in the role, when i would ask questions about filling separation -- >> the start in april? >> that is my understanding. >> mind to. tuesday for this was implement did you basically were told this isn't the policy. and from what i hear you are not aware of any efforts to consult with public health

professionals about the disposition of these children and the treatment of these children under the policy. >> i couldn't speak to whether there were were were not. i can only say that there were none with me. >> i think the judge observation is sufficient. it is hard to imagine is that? united states america says will start separating kids forcibly from their parents. not going to set up a system of tracking the kids so we can find them. or matching the backup with parents. we just going to separate them. 2700 children were separated. and they were very basic ways you could have kept track of the children and parents. in this age of not only computers but plastic bracelets. they didn't do it. let me ask you a question if i might about the parents. in the situation. last thursday the administration started a court filing parents of 431 separated

children in hhs because they are not in the united states. the parents of more than 90 lost children cannot be located at all. on friday, the federal judge again, quoted the government is at fault for losing several hundred parents in the process. according to secretary nielsen and the department of homeland security, she said quote - all of these adults who left without their kids left based on a decision to leave their children. a similar claim was made in the last briefing. however last week and administration official told as many as 350 of the 431 parents may have been departed the united states without being g given the option to take their kids with them. do you stand by your and secretary nielsen statement and do you have documentation showing that each parent made an informed decision to leave behind their children?

>> as indicated previously, it has been long-standing i.c.e. policy for parents who are being removed from this country that have a child here, to have the child go with them should they choose to do so. it has been followed for many years.as part of the process we cannot remove an individual to their home country without trouble document. if the parent wishes to take the child with them we would also work with the officer to help facilitate the issuance of a travel document. additionally, in order to get a travel document for the adult, there interviewed by the officer paid one of the questions they ask -- >> had to cut to the chase. is there a piece of paper, you are saying apparent abandoned the child. they leave them behind. there clearly must be a piece of paper signed by that parent before our government would let that happen. is there documentation for what you claim? >> right now, the form we are

utilizing for the decision or the injunction is an aclu developed form approved by the court. >> i know that you can get to yes or no. >> we are using a form developed by the acellular approved by the court to document his parents decisions. >> when did that start? >> i do not have an exact date. i want to say the form itself was july 6. do not quit now the day. parts that we had additional forms that we had developed and utilized for that purpose. >> so you could produce for us, documentation showing that these parents, 431 parents abandoned their children voluntarily? >> we can go to each file into the records there. whatever paper records are there as well as the electronic system of records where the officer will make a note that the parent declined reunification as well. >> now the previous case involves a woman that i met personally from congo whose daughter was separated by 2000 miles per choose basically

burdened into giving up her rights to even claim asylum in this country if she ever wanted esto see her daughter again. that was what she faced. and that is why her case continues to this day. let me ask one last thing. there is a john that used to have a job under the obama administration and i.c.e. made an observation i would like to quote. it relates to your testimony mr. albence about the diversion of resources from i.c.e. to this effort of redefining children. here is what he said. the beneficiaries of donald trump policy are drug smugglers, coyotes and gang members. while burning our resources on this family effort. that was last friday at the customs and border patrol with the agents at o'hare as they were sifting through millions of packages coming into the united states trying to stop the flow of narcotics and fentanyl and other things into our country. what is your number one need here? you said more people. my guess is that most americans would say to you and your

agency, stop the drugs from coming in here. stop the fentanyl for goodness sake and stop separating kids from their families and spending your resources and personnel on that effort. wouldn't you agree? >> well, again, i.c.e. has two operational components. homeland security investigations which does fentanyl investigations which does a human trafficking and smuggling investigations is not involved in this effort.i would further note the reason we had to put these additional resources to this effort was the result of a judges order. we had -- >> it was a result of the creation of this policy by this president. zero-tolerance policy was not created by this judge. the separation of 2700 parents from their children is not the judge's decision. it was your agencies decision and the administrations decision. blame other people if you wish but this started with somebody in the white house with the bright idea that turned out to be a disaster. >> i can tell you that i.c.e. has a policy long-standing for the reunification of children

and parents at time of removal. what has changed as a result of the judge's order is that we needed to create a new process to facilitate the reunification now and release the parents in custody who would have otherwise been detained during the removal proceedings. that is what was different. >> senator from south carolina. >> let's see if we can organize our thoughts here. the current state of law in the united states is as following. if you are an unaccompanied minor and apprehended by the u.s. government, you can only be held 20 days. is that correct? >> no, sir. senator. an unaccompanied minor apprehended must be referred by dhs within 72 hours to the office of refugee resettlement and hhs. there is no time limit on how long the minor remains in the care of orr. however they are child welfare p agency, not law enforcement. >> so what happens to the kids

once they are referred? >> they receive services and care no system and each child is provided a clinician and a case manager. >> if they ever go back to the home countries? >> someday return. >> what percentage? >> i don't have the percentage. >> seems to me that is important. his are different between the policy between mexico and canada if you have an unaccompanied minor at the canadian border is at the same as if you pick them up at the mexico border? >> if i may, senator. if we apprehend a juvenile, an unaccompanied juvenile, from either mexico or canada, depending upon the juveniles ability, and if they are old enough and have the ability to make a determination, they can be returned to mexico and or respectively, canada. for any other unaccompanied children, they have to be put into proceedings. >> if you are a parent living in a bad spot, if you could get

your child into the united ystates, chances are they woul stay here? >> yes. to your point, to the prior question to the commander, i do not have the exact number of frenemy which we can get but i believe the last number i so you are looking at about 1.5 to 2 percent of all our ever returned to the country. and generally that is will save aged out and are now adults. >> okay. so if you can get your kid here, you got like a 90 percent chance that they will stay in america. is that pretty much the number? >> unless they get involved in some sort of criminal activity where they come to our attention in general yes. >> give a country that comes here for asylum. we say i'm sorry cannot accept your application. they come in illegally. is it the law of the united states they cannot be held over 20 days? >> yes, a family unit cannot be held longer than 20 days. >> if your family unit, there are two ways. you can live in a bad spot

sender can hear, by themselves chances are they will stay here. if you come as a family you can only be held for 20 days. is that correct? >> i would defer to my colleague in relation to what all i.c.e. has the ability to do but yes it is my understanding. >> the maximum time we will be able to hold his 20 days. >> what percentage of the people that out after 20 days actually show up to their hearings? >> i do not have the number of frenemy. we can get it.it is a small percentage. >> i mean like you know -- why don't we know that? is it less than 10 percent? >> again, i would have to get back to i do not have the number. >> does anybody know? >> we do not track divisions orw distinctions made by -- >> timeout. you bring your family, get caught at the border. 20 days under the current law. you have to be released to

somebody. i mean you get out, right? we cannot hold you. is that the law? >> children who are with their parents can't be held in dhs -- >> what about the parents? do they have to be let out in 20 days? >> the floors decision does not require that. >> what happens to the parents? >> if the parent is going to be held in nice custody, they would have to go to an adult detention facility and the child would have to go over to hhs. >> the parents have to be let out in 20 days?he >> no. ahonly if there with their chil. >> okay. the best thing you can do -- this is bizarre. you come here as a family unit. the adults can be held until the hearing. they are not required to be let out by the decision is that correct? >> that is correct.

>> what would you recommend we do about this? >> give us the authority to hold the family as a family unit during the immigration removal proceedings. and at the conclusion of the proceedings if the individuals are granted immigration to benefit, they are released and go on to pursue the benefit. if there order removed we detained him until time of removal. >> that might deter some people from bringing the children here. do you all agree with that? >> yes, sir. i would say that it would. >> was the main reason we have 11 million illegal immigrants in america? what brings them here? what are they here, what is the main magnet? >> senator, there are numerous push and pull -- >> i said the main reason. >> could not say specifically here. >> i will say something and see if you agree. the main reason people come here to find a job. does that make sense to you all? i mean you all are the experts. >> for the children we see -- >> i'm talking about adults.

does anybody disagree with that the main magnet is economic opportunity in america versus where they come from. if we do not know that how can we solve the problem? anyway -- i think that is the main reason. if you abolished i.c.e. who would be the biggest winner? mr. albence? >> smugglers. >> okay. if you do not have e-verify control who gets a job do you think you can ever fix this? ms. provost for. >> no, sir. >> you can build a wall hundred miles high. people go over, under or around as long as i can get a job here in america. do you agree? >> i would say there is many aspects to border security and many factors pushing and pull that impact it. >> okay. thanks. >> senator whitehouse. >> thank you, chairman. mr. chairman, i think you are

probably in the closed door briefing that we had when i asked the previous panel of witnesses what went wrong. not one was able to answer one thing that was in the climate. two of the witnesses were witnesses in the preceding. people have a chance to think about it longer. as simply as possible in a nutshell what went wrong where? ms. provost. >> we were directed to do 100 percent prosecutions on adults. the majority of adults were prosecuted approximately 85 percent were single adults. >> is a responsive answer to my question? what went wrong? >> sir, is our responsibility

to make the apprehension and turn subjects over to our partners at i.c.e. and or hhs. >> as far as you're concerned nothing went wrong? >> i'm not saying that but i don't -- my. >> if nothing did go wrong -- >> our responsibility is the border security aspect of it. when individuals violate the law. >> mr. albence, what went wrong? >> yes, senator. as he spoke last time as indicated, both i.c.e. and hhs have long-standing policies and procedures. some governed by law in the case of hhs that dictate how reunification is occur. if the individual is not -- >> it is a calamity. what went wrong there. >> i am answering a question, sir. if an individual is in i.c.e. custody there is a way to respond. if an individual is in custody there is a standard practice followed with regard to reunification.-- as indicated

-- >> what went wrong? >> what went wrong as a child was separated from the parents and referred as unaccompanied as when they were really a company. >> what went wrong? >> i would have to defer to my colleagues. they have the operational and f logistical knowledge as to what happened. >> doesn't the doj -- argue looking at what went wrong? >> we don't play in operational logistical role. i would have to defer to d them because they are on the front lines. >> you wash your hands of this one? >> i would not describe it that way. >> how would you describe it? what went wrong?

>> as i noted in my opening statement, our role in the process is a very narrow one.. although it is important. our role is to be able to provide protection, screening to individuals seeking asylum in the country. i would have to defer to my colleagues on the logistics of the policies in place today. >> is the judge following the law in the orders that are being given to solve the reunification problem, mr. mchenry? >> as a matter of litigation ongoing litigation would not be appropriate for me to answer that. >> you can't even tell me if the judge is following the law in his decisions? >> we are abiding by the orders we have advised their clients to abide by the judge's orders. >> okay that is a pretty good answers. you appear there lawful -- as>> do not be appropriate because litigation is ongoing. >> is there anything that would have prevented your organizations from going through a process that the judge has been forced to undertake to prepare for this? you did it afterwards when the judge told you, couldn't you have done it before hand if there'd been an implementation.

>> were able to have their information of large numbers of minors with parents in i.c.e. detention. in fact all of the eligible minors and parents in i.c.e. detention way partnership with i.c.e. because the judge ordered us to not follow the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act, we could not have done that without him ordering us. we would have been prevented by statute. >> was that foreseeable? >> was what foreseeable?>> the consequences of following the act? >> the program exist to provide care to children and reunify them with sponsors in the country.but reunification with those in i.c.e. detention is not consistent with statute until we received the order from the judge. >> ms. provost what was the first date that you and -- the

decision for zero-tolerance? >> personally, i first became aware on april 6. >> mr. albence, when did you first be come aware of the decision? >> i would say on or about that date. >> mr. white, he said march 22 before you left and you did not know at the time. >> no i left on 15 march. i became aware of the announcement of the zero-tolerance policy when it was on television on 6 april. >> i assume that you knew since you are working with the attorney general that this was going to take place before april 6? >> we were consulted or advised it may be a possibility. in case it had any operational impact on us. >> when were you first notified that it was going or that the decision will be taken? >> it would only be a few days before it came out. on or about april 6. >> ms. higgins, when did you first find out about the

attorney general april 6 decision? >> when the decision was announced. but i would note that our director has indicated that he was asked to make a recommendation once the decision was made to prosecute illegal border crossers, how to implement that. >> mr. white, can i ask you, have a few seconds left.how many cases are you aware of, of separated children -- separated pursuant to this policy in which it turned inout that they were fraudulent claims of parentage and there was in fact, no family relation between the child and the person claiming parentage or family relation? what is the number? >> sir, i do not have the number with me but we are aware of a number of those cases. as a reminder, the total number that we have identified is separated minors included both minor separated prior to and subsequent to the announcement of the zero-tolerance policy.

the judge's order did not distinguish between those. we have, but i do not have with me the number of those determined to be fraudulent parents. that did occur and indeed is an endemic risk. that all of these agencies work to prevent. >> may have the actual number when you have a chance? i know you do not have it now but can you please get it to me as a question for the record? >> if you provided to the secretary i am sure we will take it back. >> is that a good enough answer? i am not sure i think i just asked a question at a hearing and i have been told if i go back and put in writing to someone else not at the hearing i might get an answer. i would actually like to have a commitment had to get an answer. i think that is appropriate at a senate hearing. >> i might ask the same question it will be appreciated by the chairman if you'd respond to each person separately. >> so you'll get me the answer, thank you. >> senator tillis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here and the hard work that you do. i am trying to figure out if i

can get all of these numbers because i have heard some numbers from a few to a few thousand. quoted here, i think people can walk away accepting the answer, that best suits the narrative. can you explain to me again, one, the number of children who have not been yet reunified with their parents? >> yes, sir. >> and that i want to talk about the reasons why. >> sure. of the 2551 children in orr care at the time of the judge's decision who were determined to have been separated, with indications of separation. based on our analysis. 1961 excuse me -- 559 remain in

orr care. again, 559 are the number of children who may be reified with parents based on the information you have that have not yet? >> no, sir. it would include both those who have not yet reunified but who may be eligible for r reunification such as the remaining minors who might have parents who had been released into the interior. whether many minors you might have parents who had returned to home country. but it also will include minors who remain in orr care determined not to be eligible to be reunified with their parents. >> because of circumstances related to their parents? >> typically will be based on either that we have not yet or we have reason to doubt they actually were the parents and we are in the process of determining that. it is by objective standards. we can talk about that if you need me to. more often it was due to a

identified safety risk. will be based on the i.c.e. summary that they provided to us of ncic fingerprint background checks. for example, specific parents who excluded we call it red flag, for example those with prior convictions for criminal convictions for child abuse. those of prior criminal convictions for child sexual exploitation. those with prior criminal convictions for crimes such as rape, murder and kidnapping. criminal history by itself, per se, is not necessarily a border reunification peabody criminal history clearly demonstrates a is.l threat to a child, that these would be among the reasons a person would be ineligible based on orr determination. which is that there are doubts as the actual parentage or significant safety of the children based on criminal history of the child making a statement example to their mental health clinician in our care that the parent has abused them. that they'd otherwise been harmed. >> in the same way that in your

responses, maybe was the opening statement. that the orr care that these children are a part of, is up to the same standards we would have for any child or a u.s. citizen in the same sort of standard for having the children be reunified with parents it is based on the care and safety of the child.is it safe to say it is similar? >> we are required under court order to meet standards, it is not as high as the standards required by tbpra. i can give specific examples. for example cothey -- in the ordinary course under that we had to establish parentage, typically by birth certificates that are verified by the

consulate of the home country rather objective verification. that is an example. this white takes longer to read five children with parents in the ordinary process then with a permitted under the timeframe here. >> mr. albence this may be for you or mr. mchenry. we've made progress on etsome language here working with senator feinstein and others on the other side of the aisle to try and figure out a way to get reunification done. mr. mchenry, we have talked about authorizations for judges up to i think an aggregate of 700. ratio of 2.5 attorneys to each judge. the right kind of resources to support clearing the docket. we have talked about making sure that we have standards for family detention that is up to the level of quality we want versus the tent cities are the things people would lead you to believe we would stand up to house families. those are things that we found agreement on. but for some reason we have a different opinion about how we would have to have language

that tailors the application of flores to those that have parents in detention. some would say do not need that language. mr. albence, what would you say to that? that you would not need that clarification to be able to keep the family unit together pending processing through the adjudication process. >> i've not seen exact language will be difficult to comment. i will send a language that allows or requires us to release those parents, prior to the completion of their removal proceedings, is going to merely exacerbate the situation. >> were talking about just the opposite for this depopulation allow the children to be with the parents. that would be over the 20 day detention period. i think somewhere around 40 or 60 days if we prioritize families. it is quite the opposite. we are just trying to get clarity for that segment of the

population. is it really what the department needs to be able to keep the family together? >> again, it is difficult to speak on a particular piece of legislation. i would say but we have seen in our experiences, if there is a way that the family, if there's a time frame 20 days or 40 days, the family is able to delay their process, which requires them to be released prior to determination and culmination of the process, then that will happen. we've seen frivolous appeals on individuals are here for 10 or 12 years. filing frivolous appeal after frivolous appeal because no reason not to because there on the community. >> final question i have. it is probably for all three of you. in my remaining time, the alien identifier sounds like to me we also have a disconnect where some are think we just separate ththese children and you're not trying to do our best in the documentation to keep the family units identified. either electronic or paper records. are we not doing, chief, i think you said you try to link

whoever comes together, or whoever is apprehended together. it sounded like through the process all the way over to hhs that there is identifying information to find that unit of people who were apprehended initially at the border. did i hear that right? >> yes, sir. will we apprehend someone they are given an individual, each was given an alien registration number. within our whsystem of record which is e3, our ages going and also identify family members related to those individuals in both the narrative of what is called the form i to, we go bac and look at the registration and find out who else is associated with them. it includes members beyond just parental. and parental or legal guardian are the only ones that we would

refer or that we would be making a -- how do want to say? separating a family and into him and accompanied peter to come of cousins or uncles, aunts, those types of cases as well. >> it does sound like it goes to the process. it may be slightly more sophisticated than the chuck e. cheese model in terms of trying to identify families and people who were apprehended. anybody disagree with that? >> neither these information systems nor the programs were specifically built to effect reunification of children with parents and i.c.e. custody. this had to be a novel process because this is not how the reit programs were designed. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. senator tillis at the beginning

remarks he talked about normalization with numbers but the word struck me because there's nothing about this to me that seems normal. i have kids in my state that were separated from their parents. i was down at the border. i met with a number of families including a mom who was fleeing an abusive husband in honduras. separated from her 10-year-old son. she said she never thought she would see her son again. but because of the court order and because of the work of people who have been pushing this issue, she did see him again. and in the only way a 10-year-old would do, he said he knew that he would always see his mom again. and he gave her a hug. i was also struck by something i do not think has gotten enough attention. that is the response to this coldhearted policy from the american people. sister norma running the operation down with the

catholic charters, thousands of volunteers, americans from all over that responded to go down there and volunteer. the diapers, food, clothing. everything we have seen. i hope it is not lost. that despite the policy which was an enormous mistake, americans have responded. and not just people in this building.my first question, mr. albence, at the time of last week's second court order deadline, for the administration to reunite families that have been separated, 711 kids ages 5 to 17 had not been united with their parents, including 431 children whose parents were no longer in the us. likely because they were deported. we have one like that in minnesota. i want to address the issues involved in locating parents who have already been deported. to central american countries. other parents may feel they need to relocate in a different part of the country to escape

violence after they have been deported. how is the administration working to replace or address these challenges and these kids simply want to find their parents and go back. we have one like that. ... estion, since this is a subject of the ongoing litigation, i cannot provide any different details until such time as that becomes a part of the record. senator klobuchar: commander white, i'm concerned about what efforts have been made to make sure that sibling groups sit together. having appeared taken a way is >> we need to ensure sibling groups stay together. having a parent forcefully taken away is traumatic, then to lose your sibling is also terrifying. when i travel to texas i spoke with the family who have been reunited, brother and sister from honduras. a sister was taken to florida and brother was detained in texas.

does hhs have a policy in place regarding sibling groups? can you provide that policy to the committee? >> yes, man. it is the policy to keep sibling groups together wherever possible to do so. i don't know the specific case. i'm a little surprised because except for when there's a healthcare issue, it is very rare we would see sibling separated. >> it was a 15-year-old girl. >> that case surprises me. i cannot speak to that. >> they are together in a. >> there is a policy, like all the policy and procedure it's public facing and online. it's consistent with the best interest of the child to keep sibling groups together wherever possible. that's a priority and placement of children. >> thank you. >> ms. higgins, i was briefly troubled by the decision last month to overturn key asylum protections in the matter of a

case that helps victims of domestic violence taking a silent in the u.s. i'm a former prosecutor and this was a major focus and we would often have immigrant victims and perpetrators would deliberately play prey on them. they could say i'm going to report you if you don't have sex with me or if you go forward and go to the police with the fact that i'm beating you up every day. that's why this is so important. after attorney general sessions decided to review the relevant precedent, i sent a letter signed by several of my colleagues urging the administration to preserve these protections. since then, have seen the need for the protections. i mention the case early on about the 10-year-old kid. many have taken risks to escape

their abusers by taken asylum in our country. what can you say about the need to ensure those seeking asylum have the opportunity to make claims #. >> thank you. i would note that our officers adjudicate every case on a case-by-case basis based on the facts. they're required to ensure their abiding by all statutes, regulations and statutes. as far as i understand, there is nothing that prohibits someone seeking asylum. what we are test with doing is making sure they are doing all relevant evidence. >> but what are the implications of the decision to overturn the precedent? >> it's a bit early to tell. i do not know if my colleagues would know. >> to think it will matter difficult for asylum seekers fleeing domestic abuse to get that asylum.

>> that is difficult to say. it is quite possible that individuals who would no longer qualify under ab might qualify under another protected grounds. furthermore, in the credible fair context, an individual could qualify under torture which no nexus is required. >> but the credible fear screening process has changed. >> it is not changed, they still address the individuals in address the facts and make case-by-case decisions. >> so you're saying you don't think it will make a difference that the attorney general reverse this decision. >> it's difficult to project. individuals may qualify under other grounds. >> were you involved in the decision the attorney general made to overturn this precedent?

>> i personally was not involved. i understand dhs was party to the litigation and provided a briefing. i suspect her doj colic may be able to talk more about the. >> the department of homeland security is a with every proceeding. in removal proceedings, cannot speak to who, whether ice consulted or not. that would be up to dhs. >> i will ask it at in writing at the end to try to get to the bottom of it. this policy change was unprecedented. and unnecessary, just like the policy of separating kids. >> senator booker. >> pardon me, senator her rona. >> thank you. your testimonies today have made clear to me that the government

has no plan to reunite the separated children from their parents. commander wright said if the judge had not ordered the reunification it would not be happening because the children that we made orphans were within hhs custody in reunifying the children and parents because the judge it would not have been happening. what were the long-term plans for these children once separated from their parents? >> again, ice has had a long-standing policy that facilitates reunification of a parent and child at the time of removal. that has been our policy would have been the process we would have followed, and had followed prior to this order. >> even without the judges order

you would've proceeded to reunify as appropriate 3000 children who you just separated from their parents? >> if the adult had gone through the immigration court process, at the end in order removed by the immigration judge, the individual would have had the right to take the child with them should they choose to do so. >> that's after process. you separated children from parents before any process began. i understand what they go through the process and all that than if appropriate you would reunify the children. in the first instance that was not contemplated. what i get, what was happening was separation of the children from the parents, they were immediately deemed unaccompanied children and sent to health and human services where they are under the normal process would

have tried to find sponsors or someone to take care of the children and hence 11000 children within the custody. it's very clear that the administration had no plans to reunify these children as required by the court. they also testified that homeland security's family residential centers are like summer camps. i've would like to know fall the panel members are familiar with frc's? >> ma'am, i do not have specifics. i have not been to one of the frc's. >> commander? >> i have never visited a family residential center. >> i have never been to and frc either. >> i what about you.

>> yes, i have been to both dili and cards. >> since these are family residential centers, would you send your children to be centers? >> i certainly think that in general practice people would prefer to be free to move about. i can tell you the centers i saw as described did have schools. >> you would send your child to the centers? >> that's a difficult question to answer. it's difficult to put my self in the position of somebody takes a dangerous journey. >> these are some summer camps. would you send your child to frc's? >> i think were missing the point. these individuals are there

because they had broken the law. >> they have broken the law only esteem so by the president. >> there there for violation of title eight of the u.s. nationality act. it's illegal entry both a criminal and civil violation. they are in those frc's pending the outcome of that process. >> my understanding is that these are no longer civil proceedings for criminal proceedings. >> their criminal when the border patrol prosecuted them. at the conclusion once they came entice custody they would go through other proceedings. >> i'm confused. >> the preceding is the individual being prosecuted for criminal violation of improper entry. >> and that was zero tolerance that everybody would be prosecuted. >> that is correct.

>> i know there are a number of children. the last report of the court this is with the san diego court this month, that time there 711 children who were deemed ineligible for a number of reasons. 120 of the children was because the parents waved reunification. so 431 or because their parents have been deported. didn't the court tell the administration to find these deported parents and unify them with their children? >> there are limits to what i can say because were in court. >> didn't they say wait you better find these that are deported. >> we are working to make contact with all of them. >> how many have you found so

far? >> i do not have with me the number we have contacted yet. although we can provide that. >> that's challenging once you have deported them and we don't know where they were deported to. maybe not a silly deported to the places in the country they came from. square the challenge. with regard to the parents who waived the deportation with their 120 children. there have been allegations that these parents maybe did not know they were waiving their rights. and they were language issues. i want to be assured that these were knowing waivers. is there something you could show us that said they fully understood what was happening to them before they signed the waivers? >> let me clarify. there are two different things.

one is the written waiver process is discussed prior to a parent leaving the united states. that is separate from the hhs process that we do face-to-face interviews with parents to determine if they want reunification. many parents have made this journey to deliver their children here because that is the desperate last act of a parent trying to take a child out of the most dangerous places. honduras has the highest youth murder rate on earth for any country that is not actively at war. so why this might be unfathomable, it's unfathomable until you've walked into their shoes. the reality is that because we knew some did not wish them to be reunify, then we did

face-to-face interviews to ask the parents, do you want your child to come to. most of the parents said yes. the son said no and when they said no we asked them to complete a form which is a way the parent expresses a preference of who they want their child to go to. >> where they knowingly waived because of the circumstances, i understand that. and because of the attorney general's decision that a certain kind of violence in countries will no longer be considered part of the asylum argument and you just said they come from these horrific conditions and that is not deemed inappropriate factor. >> before i recognize senator cruz who will be taking the gavel so i can votes, i have a question for ms. higgins. would you send your child 300 miles with a group of people

that could include gains, drug traffickers, human traffickers over 3000-mile journey to our border. >> i think it's incredibly difficult to put myself in the shoes of those individuals. >> senator cruz. >> thank you mr. chairman into each of the witnesses for being here. these are challenging times for our country. and the work you do particularly with border patrol agents and the agents of ice is difficult. it is important. i will say in particular to the ice officers, i want to personally thank the men and women usurp with. those who risk their lives every day to keep the country safe. the political environments we are in, there are some in washington who have taken to vilifying and attacking ice and

on behalf of texas let me thank you for the work you do everyday keeping a safe. >> on behalf of of the men and women of ice, i think you. >> i express the same to border patrol. your agents or heroes who put their lives on the line on a regular basis. >> reporter: thank you. on behalf of our 19000 men and women, i think you. >> first several months of 2017 we saw a significant decrease in illegal immigration. unfortunately that decrease has evaporated in 2018. why do you believe it was that the numbers went down so dramatically, roughly a 70%

decrease in the first several months? and why have they begun increasing now? >> in my personal opinion, i believe the numbers went down initially when the new administration came into office in discussions about border security became front and center. in regard to the numbers going up and we are currently 22% higher compared to this time last year. at some point, once individual see whether or not we do act and to our hard on immigration, and some point in time they start coming here and they speak to their family members, those are factors, as well as many push

factors from the countries they come from. numerous factors we have discussed whether it's economic or the fact that fort decisions impact that. those factors eventually start creeping back up on us. >> there has been discussion of children coming illegally and also them coming through human traffickers. as men and women know, this is not a problem. we have tragically seen thousands of children coming for a great many years. when kids are brought into this country by human traffickers, what kind of treatment to they get and what kind of abuse are they subject to in the process of coming here illegally.

>> as you know, it is a treacherous trip their making. there are numerous factors that impact, they treat all people like commodities, it's about money not the care and well-being of the individuals. we apprehend larger groups in deplorable conditions as well as tractor-trailer trucks which we know in san antonio just a year and half ago we had the tragedies. these individuals are put at risk day in and day out. status not even mentioning the trip up. there cases of rape, abuse, all types of things that are happening to the illegal aliens making the trip.

>> as you know, there is widespread agreement in congress on both sides of the political i that family should not be separated. the best place for children are with their parents. at the same time, i believe it's imperative we'll force the law and we should not adopt policies that effectively mandate catch and release because that just serves to attract more people illegally and ensure more will be subject to the abuse and horrific treatment that human traffickers subject them to. i have introduced legislation to mandate family stay together at the same time would enforce the law and prevents a return to the policies of catch and release. we are engaged in conversations with democrats to see if there is bipartisan agreement. i am hopeful and and optimistic.

can you share your thoughts about the consequences of catch and release and what it does to levels of illegal immigration? >> going to the point previously, i think you have seen the initial dip after last year when there's concern the laws of this country would be in force. what they learned was that the loopholes that exist which facilitate this process and forces us to release the individuals after apprehension has not change because we need congressional action. >> can you discuss the implications of the dissent decree and how that strains your abilities? >> the biggest issue is when we have a family held together, the

florist decision which was from 1997 and reinterpreted by the judge in 2016, and applied the uac to family detention even though it did not exist then, it requires us to release the individuals within 20 days of taking them into custody. we cannot effectuate the entire immigration her hearing process within that 20 days. as a result we have no choice but to release them into the communities and most times we do not see them again. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. i cannot agree more with your statement that the administration has mishandled family separation in some ways we sit here now in the middle of a humanitarian crisis largely of the trump administration's

creation. it has led to the separation of thousands of children including infants and toddlers from their parents and has intentionally inflicted human suffering. as a father and person of faith i find this unconscionable and the efforts so far to reunite children sadly, inadequate. i am frustrated that despite inquiries that we have not been able to get timely, full, inaccurate information about the process and where we stand. so first, senator langford and i have joined with a dozen colleagues, 14 members, seven republicans and seven democrats to request information that we're sending asking for basic details and regular updates.

what are the facts, how many children, what ages, where they are detained, where they are reunited and on what timeline. i would like to enter this for the record. could each of the five of you simply say yes or no. are you committed to getting timely responses to congress in response to brought him bipartisan request for relevance information about our progress towards resolving the separation. >> yes. i will take this back and we will work on getting that information to you. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> yes. of course. >> thank you. >> likewise we will take it back and see what we can provide. >> there are some disturbing reports in the press that individual seeking asylum have been misinformed or miss led to give up their legal claims to

get their children back. an attorney testified there are dozens of individuals that have been interviewed who felt coerced into relinquishing their rights or appeared unaware that they have done so. some adamant that the paper they sign was one that allowed them to choose to be reunited with their child when in fact it had the opposite effect. could you produce to me and my staff copies of the forms ice has been giving to parents over the past three months? >> the form that was part of this was developed and approved by the court, you can have a copy of that. >> that would be helpful. there are stories on both sides that these are folks that are well-informed's and making a responsible decision to return to their countries of origin.

there some reporting that the opposite is the case. our parents given the opportunity to consult with a lawyer and children waving their legal rights? >> utilizing the form we discussed there is a 48 hour waiting time in which the individual is allowed to contact an attorney. we have signs posted which advise them of that right. it allows individuals who are not members of the class to make that contact. >> are they able to contact their children? >> they do have contact with the children. whether they choose to do so at this time and ask their child their opinion, i cannot speak to that. they have regular contact with their children and our facilities. >> one of my concerns is

reporting suggests that children and parents who are separated, some cases by thousands of miles do not have a chance to communicate before they return to their country of origin leaving the children bewildered as to what has happened. >> first what we do to provide contact to family members to children. second we have the children cope with this. first, every child in our care within 48 hours is given a chance to call family members in the united states or a home country. they are allowed a minimum of two phone calls a week in many get more. parents who are in detention status are harder to call in some cases than people who have a cell phone because they are at liberty. there has been strong collaboration between ice and hhs to do that. our field teams -- part of what

they did is that every age from infancy up until their 18th birthday every child has a health clinician. they have a 12 - 1 client to clinician. part of what we are leveraging and the fact that this is a program designed to support children is we're getting mental health supports to cope with the uncertainties of of those that have been separated. >> senators langford and i joined in a letter urging them to work with this safe

community. i'm concerned that faith-based groups willing and able to provide that they're getting little or no notice to provide support to hundreds of families. they stand ready to help. can you give them more information about when and where families will be released so they can get support services to allow them to make a posttrauma transition. >> the specific pieces ice. the compressed timeframe required by the court required us first to do something we have never done before which is reunification of minors and to do it under a compressed timeframe. we achieve that for the eligible minors. those who work and those on my

team were working 24/7. for 30 days i worked 18 hours a day. we are doing everything we could. the two ngos who worked with ice to provide safe entry into communities for release parents we did what we could to facilitate giving them that timeframe. this was a consequence of the size and speed of this reunification effort. >> the entire process having implemented accrual policy without a cohort place in advance. i respect and appreciate that it seems clear to me that there wasn't sufficient thought given in advance to what would happen in terms of reuniting children and their parents where this policy reverse.

this is the third immigration crisis created by this. the travel ban, ending dockier, and the travel ban policy. i'm looking for updates until this returns to zero. it is my hope that we can move to resolve an underlying framework issues that make immigration a difficult issue for all of us. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm grateful the panelist is here. a lot of folks have a tremendous amount of respect for those. i have concern about the policies we have. the first thing i did after landing was to drive to a port of entry nearby, held dog oh international bridge.

i crossed over into mexico walking in the dark the length of the bridge and across the rio grande into mexico. as soon as i got there the mexican officials started warning me about the danger of going further into the community. i'm a big guy, but they were concerned. that was not my intention to go into the community. i really just came back around to walk back in and see how people who are looking to present themselves for asylum were greeted. i was surprised. instead of being at the point of entry, there are folks stationed right there at the middle of the bridge on the border and i had a conversation with them. they did not recognize me as a senator. so i had a conversation about why they're posted there and they said they were turning away people who are presenting

themselves for asylum. into that community that i was told was dangerous, their job was to prevent asylum-seekers from being on united states soil. they wore me about my safety which surprised me. again, you're turning away children, mothers back into that community who you say is not safe for me. i wondered about that. it was difficult for me to see us turning away people trying to seek asylum to be evaluated in a process that i thought existed and instead being pushed into a dangerous environment. so the these reports of being turned away it's not clear why. is it a space issue? and i've had conversation with folks who talk to me about the issue of having enough space.

i'm wondering, and all of our processes about how we are prioritizing so that it can reflect our values and to keep us safe. my colleagues talk about minority communities. i live in a predominantly african-american community and city. i have had shootings on my streets, i am concerned every day about safety in our country. we should be concerned about the safety of our citizens. but i worry about those who pose no threat that we are not figuring out a way to get resources focused on her values. safety first and making sure we create legal processes. turning people away creates more danger for them and pushes them

into breaking the law and getting chewed up into our system in ways we don't want to. it's a moral question about prioritization. first of all, i am wondering, are you coordinating with customs border patrol to prioritize using beds and resources so there are resources available for legal asylum-seekers instead of using the beds to lock up people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens. >> we have a diverse portfolio beds. we have adult detention centers and family centers. we have officers stationed at the command center to help manage the beds. >> i'm not talking about what you have available but the prioritization in those beds you have a lot of people who don't pose a threat. isis data shows they describe more than half of the population

are opposing zero community safety risk according to the national immigrant justice center. >> a lot of those individuals are subject to mandatory detention. those who are asylum-seekers at the poe unless they are paroled in. >> you're saying that some are asylum-seekers. you are working with others, can't we be doing more to make sure there are more beds available for those asylum-seekers? >> we are continually looking to expand our bed capacity. were generally between 97 and 99% full with our adult beds. we would need funding to do that. >> that is great. that's a policy issue. i worry that ice agents have arrested undocumented immigrants without a criminal record each

month. that's a lot of resources going after people that pose us absolutely no threat. while concerns of my colleagues about people who are posing threats or people who are trying to come here through the legal means and being turned away and come up coming up the system. there has to be a better way to prioritize. what you need congress' help for? if that's the case i'm gung ho to help out with that. but you call your tip line and that reflects your priorities. so the first thing they want you to do is report on your neighbor. not violent people, not terrorists, the very first thi thing, you have to go pretty far down. terrorism is number four. that should be number one frankly. reporting crimes against children is number six. gang activity is number eight.

as a guy who lives in the city with undocumented immigration, your prioritization creates the sphere. now people are afraid to report crimes and prior to his h and seems problematic. ice should be in the business of catching criminals. not encouraging americans to report on their neighbors for civil immigration offenses. it is this prioritization that is disturbing. i've seen this with the drug war in america. we have hundreds of thousands of people locked up in this country for low-level drug crimes. many for doing things that two of the last three presidents admitted to doing. thinks about using those resources to keep people safe. can't you do a better job prioritizing people that are

threatening our country, as opposed to locking up so many people that poses zero threat? can't you re-examine the prioritization of the tip line to help make us safer and not round up people that take resources away from the really dangerous situations. >> i hope you can give a short answer. >> nine out of ten people we arrest has a criminal conviction or charged with a criminal offense. the aggregate number of convicted criminals we haven't arrested has risen. we do prioritize. when we encounter individuals here unlawfully during the course of our actions, we are not going to turn a blind eye. the other largest of individuals we arrest are those who have had their day in court, exhausted

due process center fugitives. or it's somebody who was previously arrested and deported and has returned. and that is a felony. 92% of the people we arrest of fell into those categories. it would be speculation, but we have been working with the tip line to prioritize and categorize the types of calls that come in there. the civil enforcement aspect has been working with that. they are doing that to move those cases for referral walt hsi keeps the other one. >> that does not -- >> if that is true, why does the data show that half the people detained pose no threat whatsoever? it doesn't sound like you are prioritizing for public safety at all. you're creating safety hazards because you're creating fears on immigrant communities.

>> thank you for your patience and being here. thank you for the service of the men and women who diligently seek to enforce our laws. let me ask the panel, who here thinks that zero tolerance has been a success you can raise your hand if you think it has been a success. who thinks the family separation policy has been a success? who can tell me who is responsible, which public official, which member of this administration is responsible for zero-tolerance and family separation? >> can anyone tell me? who is responsible? nobody knows? >> the zero-tolerance

prosecution was issued by the attorney general on april 6, 2018. >> so the official responsible for zero-tolerance is the attorney general of the united states. acting presumably with the approval of the presidents, correct? >> he is the one who issued the memorandum. said extension. >> did any member of the panel say to anyone, maybe this isn't a good idea? >> during the deliberative process over the previous year we raised concerns in the program about any policy which would result in family separation. due to concerns we had about the best interest of the child and if that would be operationally supportive with the bed prior

that we had. >> i'm to translate that into what i would call layman's language. you told the administration that kids would suffer as a result. that pain would be inflicted, correct? >> separation of children from their parents and gives significant risk of harm. >> it's traumatic for any child separated. i say that as a parent of four children. >> there's no question that the separation of children from parents entails significant psychological injury to the child. >> would i be correct in assuming the answer to you was in effect, that is the whole purpose of the policy. to inflict pain so as to deter asylum-seekers from coming here,

correct? >> no, sir. we are advised that was not the policy. >> family separation just happened to result from zero-tolerance without anybody knowing in advance, even though you raise the concern. >> yes we raise concern of the effect on children in the program. >> and what was the answer? >> at no time was there an actual policy announcement, family separation was merely a discussion of future consequences. >> there is awareness that there would be a consequence. you raced it. >> i did reason. >> i'm asking again, what was the answer? >> the answer is that family separation was not a policy.

>> it would be a consequence of the policy. >> it correct. i was advised there was no policy which would result in separation of children from families. >> are you satisfied with the amount of care and counseling being provided to these children? to deal with the trauma and pain of their separation from their parents? >> yes. the children each have a mental health clinician. >> i know they have a mental health clinician. are you satisfied they are receiving sufficient care, or do you believe may be those clinicians are overworked, overburdened, there should be more? >> i believe the children are receiving sufficient care. >> let me ask if anyone here has authority to end the appeal of judge jesus decision that the

forest settlement should be continued. does anyone here have that authority? >> the department of justice has that authority, i personally don't. >> can you commit to me that they will be reconsideration of the department's decision that florez should be sustained? >> as in the katie, we are considering the options in light of the most recent ruling. >> what are the number of children under five who have been unified? >> sir, i do not have that number with me. i'm sorry. >> is at less than the full number of 102 that were

separated? >> some miners were not eligible for unification. >> to know the number? >> i do not know the number. >> of those 431 total, how many

at communication occurs in a routine and regular basis. they help facilitate that can -- that. >> i will finish because my time has expired but i just want to say that there is now total consensus on both sides of the aisle that this zero-tolerance policy and family separation policy and it had been a policy as you indicated, it was clearly foreseeable as a consequence of zero-tolerance. it was part and parcel of the

policy to inflict pain so as to deter asylum-seekers from coming to this country. we have it at the highest level because general kelly himself and other top officials indicated that deterrence was an objective. constitutes kidnapping or child abuse. hope that there is a lesson here. but right now, there seems to be no prospect for reunifying many of the children who are still separated from their parents and i welcome any response either now or in writing depending whether the chairman -- >> do it in writing, senator harris. >> thank you, mr. chairman, it is clear the folks before us now are not the shot callers. they are following orders.

they are carrying out a policy that was not of thei >> they are following orders and carrying out orders. i was hard when senator blumenthal asked the question asking them to raise their hands in defense of this policy, none raise their hand. that being said, i believe we need to call this policy what it is, it is a policy about the united states government committing a human rights violation. i will repeat what i said weeks ago. those who called in created this including secretary nielsen should step down. this has been a policy that has not only wreaked havoc, it has, for probably the entire rest of the lives of those affected, will cause them harm and damage.

that being said, commander white, as of today, what is the current number of parents outside of the country separated from their children and have yet to be reunified? please don't give me the number 431. those number from last thursday. >> we do not have the parents we have the children. i'll talk to you about the number of children who have parents supported. eighty-one of the children have been discharged. 429 children remaining care's parents have departed the united states. >> what is the deadline by which we are, and you are going to reunify those children and parents? is there a deadline in place? >> we are working with the reunification. >> is there a deadline in place? >> we do not have a deadline in

place. three different courts are involved in what we can and must do. >> don't you believe that we should be held accountable to ensuring that all means necessary are put in place to ensure these children are reunified with their parents and there should be a deadline set to make an urgency. >> it is absolutely my heartfelt conviction that we must reunify. >> will you create a deadline for which that should happen? >> the deadlines will be imposed by courts. we will execute them. my deadline for my team is this quickly as humanly possible. >> are you saying you don't have the authority to create a deadline? >> i'm saying that if i could have reunify those children with the parents by yesterday, it would be done.

we are operators and work within the world that is up. >> are you under a consent decree? by the court. >> i will have to defer to doj to characterize our current situation. >> what efforts if any is the government making to provide phone and video content to these parents and children? >> as indicated for the children in our care we work to provide them with unimpeded access with phones to contact their parents. >> is at a policy that they are not to be charged to make these phone calls. you're aware that there is an expense. the page that? >> minors who call, whether they had been separated or otherwise, those are paid for under the

appropriation that congress provide that's part of the care the child. >> what about the calls parents make to their children, pace for those? >> if they're in a facility that has access to our free platform, then they are at no cost to the individuals. if not, the individual will have a minor cost depending on who they're calling. call to family members and emergencies are not charged. >> have you visited the detention facility in california? >> i may have been there once. >> i've been there and met with the parents there. i was told by the people running the facility who are contract workers that the calls are free, however when i sat with the mothers and asked them, found

out there being charged 85 cents per minute. i further found out that when the parents out there and perform labor such as cleaning toilets or doing laundry, they are paid 1 dollar per day. are you familiar with that policy or practice? >> many of the individuals a nice custody are eligible to apply and work in a voluntary work program. many choose to do so to pass the time. >> to think people voluntarily choose to clean toilets to pass their time? >> we have individuals who volunteer. >> to clean toilets? so what you're saying? >> i don't know every task, but it is voluntary. >> are you familiar with the practice at least there to pay

the detention, the detainees, a dollar per day for labor performed in that facility? >> i'm not familiar with that facility. >> how many pregnant women have been detained since january and any facility? >> i would have to give you the number today what is the policy to transferring them to a less restrictive policy. and particularly on the third trimester in practice, the only effective changes that no longer

are pregnant women given the presumption of release. we'll look at it on a case-by-case asis. >> and that was previously the policy that they would be in a less restrictive area. >> the number of pregnant detainees we have is not vastly larger than it has been. >> but the conditions in terms is vastly different in terms of policy change. >> where using the same facilities now that we're using in 2015. >> the presumption. >> and i have heard of two cases recently where women were going into labor while in detention. are you familiar with those? >> i'm not. >> what protocol is being followed for women who are going into labor while at your detention facilities?

are they being accompanied by ice officers to a hospital? is the anticipation that they give birth in a detention facility? do you have any policies in place of them being shackled? do you know of any of that. >> our policy regard to shackling the sinner -- we do not shackle women in active labor. >> what does active labor mean? >> they are in labor. if they're six months pregnant and not in labor then that's not labor. >> so is their policy of them being shackled if they're not in active labor? >> there are times when they are being transported where they would have to be handcuffed for their own safety. if you could follow up on the number of women that are in the third trimester and housed in your detention facilities i would appreciate that.

>> before i say meeting adjourned, thank you all for participating. we hopefully answered a lot of questions. you will probably get questions for answers and writing. some have received them morally are ready. there will be one week for members to submit questions. hopefully you will get the answers back as soon as you can. we thank you for your participation. this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] . .