mbers of the commission for opportunities to share our views on several important issues as a part of this issue. my name is karen, i serve as az special adviser to the aba commission on immigration and i was formerly chair of that body. i want to be clear on the introduction that i'm not an employee of the aba. i don't work for the aba. my association with the aba is in a voluntary leadership capacity. i'm a lawyer here working in washington, d.c. with the recent influx of families and unaccompanied children from central america and along with the historically high rates of immigration detention in general there's a serious need to evaluate the u.s.'s system of immigration detention and the deleterious effects it has on individuals and families. the commission has my written testimony for the record. what i hope to do this morning is highlight a few things out of the written testimony and then

respond also to some of the questions and issues that have has arisen. the aba is the largest voluntary bar association in the united states and one of the largest voluntary professional organizations in the world. the commission on immigration, and i'll try to be clear which commission i'm speaking of when i use that term. the immigration coordinates aba's efforts to ensure fair treatment and due process rights for all immigrants and refugees in the u.s. that work takes the form of policy advocacy, educational programming and operating pro bony notice bono. immigration detention is particularly important to the aba for two reasons. one impedes the access to counsel. the fact of generally remote

detention locations much less the conditions that pertain in those facilities makes it extremely difficult for people to access pro bono representation. it's particularly hard for pro say se people. imagine being in a detention center, not speak english and coming forward with crabtive effort translated into english for your hearings if you're not able to have a lawyer. prolonged detention often causes detainees to abandon meritorious claims because they're unable to withstand that prolonged detention. that's particularly true for a population like asylum seekers other traumatized people and those with mental health problems. i was part of an aba facility at

lack lackland air force base. we saw an amazing -- there were colorful classrooms, great health care a nice new soccer field. they were coming in the afternoon break when school time ended with a tray full of colorful snow cones. i was struck left with how hard they are trying to serve the needs of the kids but legal services are prurly volunteer, by volunteer organizations coming in. and in children don't have access to counsel to vindicate their claims, all the snow cones in the world can't help them establish their eligibility to stay. so i think that illustrates the access to counsel issues. two commission on immigration projects are particularly relevant for this briefing. one is the detention standards implementation initiative and

the other is the detainee hot line. the commission on immigration was intimately involved in the creation of the detention standards, the three iterations the 2008 -- sorry 2000 nichely and then the 2008 and '11 performance-based detention national starpdz. through the dsii project the commission assembles volunteer delegation that go in and tour the facilities and observe and make reports to i.c.e. on adherence to applicable standards. those reports are -- some are posted on the i.c.e. website. the commission on immigration pursuant to its agreement with i.c.e. cannot share them directly with this commission. but those have been a great source of implementation of the standards and i can say that none of them have received a perfect review. and all of those dsii reports

have revealed one or more lack of adherence to the standards. the detainee hot line is a number that's preprogrammed into the detainee's telephones so they can call directly to the commission on immigration in washington, d.c. we get 300 to 400 calls a month on that line, separate, individual calls. many of them are asking for legal information or help with their cases. others are presenting complaints that have to do with -- although they may not be chashg risesed as violation of the standards, there are condition complaints that implicate potential lack of compliance with standards. part of those visits too, i will say is reviewing detainee handbooks and other materials. what we noticed, and this relates to a problem that was brought up before about the various type of facilities, the detainee handbooks are often used in stated and county jail criminal facility. the handbooks given to detainees don't often comport with the standards and that's the

document the detainees gets that tell them what their rights are. i'm going to try to skip ahead. religious complaints were mentioned. there's a whole list of most common complaints. religious complaints are particularly of persons not of the christian or jewish faith. we encourage enforcement of detention standards as an appropriate reform. the aba opposes all detention -- there was a question about humane alternatives earlier and appearance rates, which i'd be happy to address. i think -- i have some other things i can say in answers to questions but i'll end by saying, i've brought with me reports that are available online that the aba did in 2010 with a number of reforms for adjudication system.

one big system is about what drives detention, who needs to be detained and why. there are recommendations for reform there. and i've also brought a booklet that are the aba civil immigration detention starngsdz. these were adopted by the aba in 2012, august 2012, as ideal standards. they are not the applicable performance standards but one we offered for their consideration. >> thank you. appreciate that. i will call on commissioners. again, i will take chairman's prerogative to ask a few set of questions. first of all, just generally, i am shocked to hear the consistency among different facilities we talked about today, the kind of abuse sexual and otherwise, that's occurring. it does not seem to be an isolated incident. what you described is similar if not identical to what we saw in the complaint from nijs and the aclu, what sister saw and what happens in other facilities

we've gotten reports of. to me that indicates there's a culture of this going on. i know our federal officials are here still even though they're not on the panel. there's a great concern this seems to be a culture of the agencies both maybe not only the federal ones but the contracted ones. willsie, my understanding, is a cca facility. no? not anymore? it was at some point? not ever? okay. it's listed on the website as being one. >> we run another facility in willsie that is not an i.c.e. facility. >> you to turn your mike on. >> the facility we run in willsie is not an i.c.e. facility, it's a state facility contracted with the texas department of criminal justice. >> thank you for clarifying that for me. first of all, i want to thank you for being here. appreciate your company participating voluntarily today. we have the geo group here,

another privately run prison company and they refused to be here. i'm going to consider whether i ask my colleagues to reopen this hearing at some point, so i have to subpoena them to come in but i didn't have to do that to you and i appreciate very much your appreciation today voluntarily. i have a number of questions, however regarding how your company functions and some of the issues that may relate to how your company manages detention facilities. in particular you know, i'm surprised that despite the fact that president obama recently announced in his executive action that we're going to be -- not going to be deporting more folks. in the wake of that there's rfp asking for more federal beds. how does your company determine through its business plan how many beds it's going to seek from federal agencies to handle immigration detainees? how do you determine what you're going to go after in terms of the number of beds? >> chairman, we use a process

that starts actually with the rfp, so we don't determine ahead of time what the need is going to be. we respond to rfps and determine each time an rfp is put out for response whether that is a proposal that we'd like to submit a response to and whether it's appropriate based our on business model and our skill set. when you respond to an rtpfp or enter into a contract with the federal government, do you specify -- does your company require that the detainees be a certain age or certain health? >> no sir. we respond to the rfp and respond in a way that alerts the i.c.e. agency whether or not we can achieve the mission that the

rfp is addressing. so, many times we would look at an opportunity and if, for instance, we can't reach the level of the mission they would like, then we state that in our response. >> so then you don't limit the age or health of any of the detainees that you receive as part of your contracts? >> no. >> does your company benefit from selling prisoners labor time? >> no we do not. >> do you know of other for-profit prison companies that do that? >> no, i do not. >> as we're looking at the various complaints, for example, the ones i handed this morning to ms. mack from the stewart facility involving the religious freedoms issued by american-arab anti-discrimination committee as well as information we obtained from reports such as detention report filed by the aclu of georgia, both of those for

example, implicate some issues regarding the stewart detention facility. and i believe that is the cca facility, is that right? >> that is correct. >> and are you familiar with the the -- any of those issues that i talked about in terms of the religious liberty questions by the arab american community in stewart or any of the issues raised by the aclu of george?ia? >> yes, i am. cca takes the matter of religious freedom very seriously and we believe it's a fundamental right. every time an allegation is brought up, or a complaint regarding a specific detainee and their access to religious services or religious articles, it's taken very seriously. almost in every example it's brought to the level of a corporate level person, such as myself, to ensure that the

matter is looked into and rectified if it is found to be substantiated. i cannot speak to any specific matter except to say that all religions are respected and access to all religious articles, services, celebrations are complied with and staff very much enjoy participating in making sure that those services are provided. in respect to say, the muslim space, we fully comply with all the standards surrounding weekly services like juma and annual events like ramadan services the food service things we have to do to comply with those. those are all fully familiar to our staff in all of our facilities, regardless of the number of muslims that are in those facilities. sdmreerler i gave a copy of

those reports to the office of homeland security and asked them to look into it further and provide us with a comment on each of those matters. i would like to provide you with a copy of those same complaints and ask the same of you and your company if you can respond to those specifically to-to-those issues and allegations therein. dwu that? >> yes. >> final question i have for you and then i'll open it up to my colleagues. in your written statement to us you talk about cca conducting audits of various facilities to ensure there's compliance with various responsibilities you have in terms of providing for the rights, care of the individuals in your custody. unless i read it wrong, i was not able to determine what the results of those audits were. we would like to see those audits and have you produce those to us. would you be willing to do to so? >> i'm unable to commit to that. i can bring it back to our legal department and our partner i.c.e. to determine what we can

hand over or not. >> what's the concern? >> many times there are contractual requirements that require us to funnel those through our government partner. response to any request for information regarding anything that goes on within that facility. >> would you let us know before the 30 days expire of our -- of keeping this record open, whether or not you can do that? >> yes, i will. >> so we can look at other methods by which we can obtain that information. it's extremely relevant to our inquiry here. do you have any personal knowledge of any of those audits? >> yes, mr. chairman i am very proud of the way our company conducts those audits and there are many ways in which we audit our facility on an ongoing basis. first of which is we expect and know for a fact that our individual facilities are providing self monitoring themselves of the conditions going on at the facility.

that's the first level and they do that in onion going basis. secondly we have an internal audit unit surprised of experts that work for the general counsel. they don't work for the operational arm of cca. they do unannounced audits each year to determine compliance with not only the contract but with the various standards each contract covers, such as the pdnds, president pria standards, the aca standards and so on. those are very detailed audits. over 1500 individual indicators are looked at each year when they come through. so, we're very proud of those. those are the things that help us stay in compliance. >> hopefully that pride will -- what was your company's profit last year from immigration detention facilities' business?

>> i'm sorry. i'm an operational person and i don't have access to that data. >> thank you. i'll turn it over to commissioner actenberg. >> thank you mr. chairman. sort of consistent with that series of document production requests i was wondering whether or not you would be willing to share with the commission your zero tolerance policy against all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment thaw made reference to either in your written testimony or in your testimony before us today. you also made reference to the fact that you had an aggressive plan to prevent, detect and respond to allegations of conduct that fall into those categories. and we'd surely like to see that. additionally, so i'll list the documents that i'd love for the commission to be able to review.

then can you tell me whether or not you think they might be forthcoming. your human rights policy and the comprehensive policies that you referred to to protect residents' legal rights your staff training materials whatever elements of that you can make available to us. the documents that demonstrate the compliance with the pbnds. perhaps that might be contained in the audits that you referred to. i'm not sure. but whatever would demonstrate the level of compliance.

you also made -- actually, i think those would be of greatest interest. does it sound like those are things that we might find forthcoming? >> commissioner, i'm happy to say some of the things you talked about are available publicly on our website so our human rights policy and statement is there as well as our policy on pria. so, those elements can be found on our website. in addition to that, my colleagues is copying down what you've requested. some of that is likely to be proprietary information but likely would have to go through our contracting agency, i.c.e. for approval for release and that is -- those are truly

proprietary we might not able to provide those. but we will get back to you and alert you to our intent. >> that would be great. thank you very much. >> commissioner yawkey? >> thank you very much mr. chair. this is also directed at mr. conroy. again, thank you very much for appearing. there are a lot of confess i want to ask you. some of it deals with stuff in the past. but i'd rather -- unstead i think i'm going to focus on the future. cca has not a facility in difficulty, text ydilly for housing immigrant detainees correct? >> correct. >> it's going to be approximately 2400 beds? >> correct.

>> how many people are in there right now, would you say? >> as of a day or two ago, the number was about 385. >> the idea for this is it was built in anticipation of a possible second surge beginning in the spring or summer, is that basically correct? >> cca really doesn't get involved in trying to understand what the precedent is to the use of our beds. we reply to an rfp. in that rfp there is a certain number of beds listed and we go forth with a plan to build those beds and provide the services around the number of beds. >> dilly is about an hour away from -- which major city, laredo? >> san antonio and lower rare dough, north and south. >> it's smack dab in the middle. does cca -- i'm trying to look

prospectively. you can talk about don hutto he's closure. because you chose to be here i want to focus again on the positive and the prospective. when i read in your testimony you talk about you hold regular meeting with stakeholders. i do know that at least there's one news account initially about concerns about the travel time, about some of the conditions at the jail -- the way it appears jail-like to some of these folks coming in here and escaping from these same type of conditions in other countries. i guess my question is to what extent has cca engaged with stakeholders in the dilly and san antonio/laredo area to start talking about dealing with a potential population surge and

how to deal with ak quad translation services, adequate knowledge by staff of how to deal with special language needs, the needs of families some cultural competency i talked about earlier with regard to homeland security. do you have anything in place that engages the very activist community including some folks who are here around you right now in order to best deal with this population? because if i understand it correctly, and i believe i do, these people are not prisoners. they are detainees. they are awaiting adjudication of their cases before -- through the united states immigration and custom service for the purposes of being able to possibly stay in this country but they have not committed

crimes. they're here for whatever reason. so, what -- that being the case i think it's incumbent upon a company, such as you, to try and work with stake holder xhunlts much more so than perhaps you have or been asked to in the past because i think this could be a model -- to the extent i'm against the mandatory bed thing let me put that out there but the extent it's a fact of life, the fact of life is you're getting many people possibly in your facility, tell me what you plan to do or would like to do with regard to the stakeholders in your area to be as good a custodian as it were for these people. >> i think that is a great question and line of questioning, commissioner. these are the very things we've been working on from the very

day we started putting our proposal together for the south texas family residential center. we have worked days nights, weekends, holidays, making sure that our plan and i.c.e.'s plan for that facility meets and exceeds all the various -- not only the standards but the lessons learned. let's talk about the standards. our contract requires compliance with the frs family residential standards. in those standards, you will find all those things you just talked about, whether it's transational services, appropriate menus, all those things have been contemplated. and included in the frs. but in addition to the compliance with the frs, that's kind of hard-coated into the contract. but there are also other things

that we did. we had a session called lessons learned that we sat with our i.c.e. partner and went through the various challenges they have experienced in the past so they're not repeated in the future at fdrsc. so, i think those are two very good examples of what we're trying to do. we want to be successful in the operation of our dilly facility, as does our partner ice. we have taken great care as we plan to open the 400 bed side of the facility and also in our current operation of the first portion of the facility that's open. >> can i ask you then, if you're willing to commit with many of the people who are here? they may testify at the panel behind you. some are on the panel right now. may i ask you to meet with them

them -- because my concern is i have a pretty good detailed knowledge of how the u.s. prison system worked. i worked on the prison project when i was in law school. i've done a lot of work in this area. standards are one thing but there's all minimal standards and aimed at frequently a population control, so to speak, and the idea these people are not to escape, what have you. we're talking about a different population. we're talking about families. we're talking about people who may have the opportunity to live here, work here, seek asylum here. they are a different kettle of fish, and i think they demand a higher standard of care. it's not just that all prisoners don't, but for these folks especially the way that it's --

it's laid out, the way that -- play areas for children all those little things that normally don't go into the mind of someone who's building -- who's done most of their work in building prisons this is a special circumstance. it's a unique test of the ability of both the federal government and of your company to work together to proceed akactively address a lot of the problems we address here today. i think here in this room are people who can help you do that. i would ask for to you meet with them and work with them now and in the future to make sure that going forward you have the kind of facility you can come back to here or to congress and say, this is how we can make it work. >> i have two responses, commissioner. one is relative to our contract we would have to gain i.c.e.'s

approval to meet with these other groups if we are going to discuss operation of i.c.e. detention, so that's the first response. but let me also assure you -- >> why is that? >> it's in the contract, sir. >> contract is minimum standards. >> no. >> why can't you talk about other things, food -- menu, for example? when you say appropriate menu, what you may think is an appropriate menu may have no relationship whatsoever to what these individuals are used to. why is it you have to get permission for -- maybe -- good thing mr. landry has taken off but i guess i don't get that at all. >> after this commissioner i'm going to commissioner harriet. >> i'm not sure why the contract called for that. any time we get a request for information to discuss operations of a facility or

prospective facility, that needs clearance from i.c.e. many people would be surprised -- i'm a 30-year veteran. i've seen many sets of standards. you're right. sometimes they are build kind of on the minimum side. anybody who reads the residential family standards will see that they are developed for this unique population, including snacks for children all sorts of ratios of service providers to children and also alert you to the fact that we've already had a large number of ngos out to the facility, a media out to the facility, and they have all come back with very favorable impressions of the of the services we're providing to this facility.

we've already got very positive feedback from those -- >> in the spirit of a question the chair had asked earlier, may we come down and visit your facility. >> again, that's something you have to speak to i.c.e. about. we have seen plenty of folks come through already. in this early day we're roughly about six weeks into operation of this fail fa sillty. >> thank you. >> commissioner harriet. >> you're the popular guy in this panel and i'm going to continue in that tradition. one question -- i want a more general question. what do you see as the advantages to the american people of contracting with companies like yours, private companies that provide detention facilities? what are the advantages of doing that over going through the more traditional route of using federal facilities? and what if any disadvantages do you see on that? one thing i was thinking about given i have experience working for the federal government here

as commissioner here, which is a part-time job. my regular job is a law professor at a small university. there's a big difference in procedures. small universities can be much more flexible and governments are slow to respond to things do you see your company as more complexible and able to address emergency situations? the sister was talking about how we weren't prepared for the number of detainees that came, the number of people coming to the border. do you feel your corporation is able to deal with issues like that more so than say a federal facility would be that are stuck with very elaborate procedures for purchasing and such? >> thank you, commissioner for that question. i think cca has been in the business of providing detention beds to our i.c.e. partner for

over 30 years. they were our very first customer in houston. and from that day forward we've been in continuous business and partnership with i.c.e. because of our ability to provide very often just in time beds or solutions to very challenging strategies that they have enacted across the country. in my opinion, that's why i.c.e. continues to use our facilities and come to the private sector to meet their needs? >> any other advantages to using your company as opposed to the more traditional route? >> no. but i did want to say -- mr. landy mentioned it in his session and i would like to also mention it there is in my opinion no difference between the standards under which we operate. the standards apply across all

detention facilities. so farceas far as that issue is concerned, we're consistently held to the same standards that would occur in a federal facility. >> are most of your facilityies that deal with i.c.e. detainees or are they dedicated just to that purpose or do you have more mix facilities? what's -- >> the vast majority are dedicated contract facilities, yes. >> okay. we're moving on to commissioner colliden and then commissioner actenberg. >> thank you, chairman. i'm sitting over here trying to be quiet. >> i know it's hard. >> mr. conroy, i just have one question for you. pretty simple. of the 35,000 beds under contract that everybody talks about, how many beds does cca have?

>> at this moment in time we have about 5500 i.c.e. detainees in custody. >> how many beds does your contract call for? >> oftentimes our contract does not call for a certain number of beds. there are a certain number of beds available at the facility. the beauty of our model is that that number can change as the demand changes over time. we have the flexibility to manage those facilities in such a way to meet the demand when it's there and for us to scale back that operation. >> no no, no. i think i -- because of the last question you probably -- how many beds do you get paid for every day? over the year, basically, the 35,000 beds. >> that is not how our contracts are structured, sir. >> okay. how are they structured? >> most contracts are a per diem basis where the number of beds

used is the number of beds charged. >> paid for? >> yes. >> so, we must have some wrong information because we're told we pay for 35,000 beds a day or -- under contracted, that's not necessarily true with your company? >> it's not -- it's not true, with my company, that's correct. >> thank you. i'm sorry if i butcher your name. >> grize. >> sounds french. i found -- i happened to be a member of the aba for a while and i'm interested in your position that people should be represented, is that correct? is that the commission's position? >> the aba's oe foeshl policy is there should be appointed counsel for everyone in removal

proceedings but with the recognition there's no -- financially, it's not viable for the government to have appointed counsel for everyone right now so we have policy that recommends a triaged system where everyone should have ak stoes a legal orientation program. a know your rights presentation. through that a sifting mechanism where people who have identified viable claims for relief would then be referred for legal representation but that all of the particularly vulnerable populations, which include children and the mentally disabled should have appointed counsel. >> so those with what you would consider viable claims or how would that be decided? i guess those people get deported. or at least no representation. >> the legal rights presentation, the legal orientation programs we advocate are informational presentations that would be universally given to all detainees with, after

that an opportunity for individual consultation for people to figure out whether they have any availability of relief. >> have you done a private program -- a pilot program or anything like that, or is that in function now. >> it's the government paying for the formal legal orientation programs and they exist right now, i think in about 25% of i.c.e. facilities. one of our recommendations is those should be universal. the aba itself operates one of our projects in san diego cal. and part of that project is aimed at doing this type of screening triage and referral for pro bono or direct representation by staff of everybody who's found to have a viable claim. it's part of the design of that project to have a study about the efficacy of the legal orientation program as well as the direct --

>> that hasn't been done yet? >> that's not complete, no, sir. >> i noticed in the next paragraph in your statement you mentioned the aba pro bono program. have you 400,000 members about $180 million in dues every year. you said here there's 400,000 foreign nationals in detention every year. i assume if you include families it's less than 400,000 cases. because they would be together if it was a family is that correct? >> probably for some. >> basically it's -- we could say safely 300, 350, somewhere in that area? maybe 300? >> cases, individual cases in removal proceedings? that's about right. >> also mention pro bono representation programs. having been a member of the aba, the aba never called me to do pro bono, it was always through the state. so how many people does the aba pro bono program represent in

removal proceedings? >> well, the aba itself has only two direct representation programs. one is pro bar on the border in har lynn again text, and the other one is ijp i mentioned in san diego. those projects both represent some people through their staff and others through pro bono placement of cases of people who receive legal orientation and then placed for pro bono. separately from that -- >> do you have any idea as to the number? >> the numbers i don't, but we could provide it. >> thank you. >> the commission staff would have it, but i don't know. the other thing i should say about the outreach from the aba is right now in the most recent several months since the border surge, the current aba president william hubbard and former president went to the border did the tours i mentioned and there's -- right now under way there's a very large working group and outreach recruitment training, placement effort the

aba is conducting specifically with a goal to representation of the children. >> what does that mean outreach representation? >> well, i'd need an hour by myself for the whole panel. maybe the highlights. >> after that we're going to commissioner -- >> i'm done. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you commissioner. >> do you want me to answer the question? >> a short version. not the hour version. >> there's about 14 or 15 aba leaders drawn from a variety of entities. particularly family law to address the sijs cases and lit garretts and a number of key sections in the ada. then we've broken down into a number of committees partnering to identify where are the legal service programs around the country serving the children who has capacity to take more volunteers. we've launched two websites with training resources. there's a portal where you can sign up to volunteer to take a

case. i'm doing a training in april in new orleans. training is happening next week in houston. so there's a big effort under way regionally and at the local level to bring in volunteers who are new to this area of law and get them either involved in the family law piece for sij or the immigration piece so that there's a complete kadcodry of attorneys available. >> if you could get us the number. >> correct. >> thank you very much. i have a brief question. could you add to that -- could you describe the likelihood of prevailing if one is represented by counsel as compared to pro

se? >> thank you for the question. there are not statistics directly with radar to the children, but in general there have been a number of studies, detained and nondetained about likelihood of success represented versus nonrepresented. mostly in the asylum context. roughly it's been found six or seven more times likely to achieve some form of relief if you're represented than if you're not represented. and the proportion is even bigger if someone is in detention. the likelihood of success for unrepresented detained persons is somewhere down as low as 15%. so i would personally -- this is not a policy matter but i would extrapolate for children that the percentages would be even greater because the likelihood a pro se child could reach success would be less than that of an adult.

>> one would think. do you know anything about the origins of the decision i presume, of the public policy decision that was made that detainees are not entitled to representation of counsel? do you know anything about the origins of that? >> it's not limited to detainees. it's nobody in removal proceeding detained or otherwise is entitled to appointed counsel. i don't know what public policy reasons are behind that. i know that the basic distinction is they are considered civil not criminal so you don't have the traditional constitutional right to appoint appointed counsel. the position of the aba as the supreme court has said the right to remain in the united states can be akin to all that

makes life worth living and what's procedural due process, although it has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, there's a very great -- a closeness to the criminal system, although they are purely civil proceedings and i believe that's the underpinning no appointed counsel notion. >> well, it seems to me that just my own observation the -- it's the likelihood of prevailing on the merits is so significantly enhanced by representation of counsel, or so significantly diminished if one has no representation, then sort of the arbitrary nature of the system approaches maybe substantive due process is out of out of favor these days but it seems to me that system is approaching rapidly a claim for

substantive due process that i would certainly like to see this commission consider pursuing. thank you very much for that. >> you're welcome. >> was it your -- on the issue of edible food and this whole notion that people are being starved and not properly fed, was it your impression in the investigations that you undertook that this was a pervasive problem? >> i will tell you that -- remember the "frontline," we investigated between 2010 and 2011 and i wanted to be factual in my presentation that's why i based my presentation on that. >> yes. >> i will tell thaw yesterday i was speaking with someone who works with children who are in detention.

not close to the border. and this person said to me that the children said that what they were receiving so we're talking less than a year ago was one frozen burrito a day. still frozen. and a rotten apple. that's what this person said to me just yesterday. the complaints i was hearing in 2010 were food that was spoiled, food that was rotten food that had expired because it's cheaper to buy it that way. the case of -- you know, the case of the maggots in -- the maggots in the food i had heard over and over again. of course, it was confirmed by dr. allen, which she said she saw it. yes, food and hunger comes up immediately. so, that's why as i'm hearing the testimony here i'm going back to what the chair said about, there seems to be some kind of a disconnect. i'm hearing it, too.

i don't understand how we're hearing all of this policy and regulation exists but when you continue to ask the people on the front lines, they're still saying it looks like this. it's called the ice box. it was cold. they're sleeping on a cement floor. so i'm concerned about the disconnect. >> we're going to have to address the disconnect. finally, sister, you mention in your statement, i believe, that you think that families and children are being detained in some effort to deter others from coming across the border. could you talk a little bit more about that impression that you left?

>> i think that, yes, people -- the families are being detained as an effort to send a message back to their homeland so they don't continue coming. i believe -- that's my impression. i would just like to take our position, take a moment to express opposition to detention as an alternative. because catholic charities here in our area together with the u.s. conference of catholic bishops believe this practice to be inhumane. women and children are already traumatized, ins cars rating them as criminals only traumatizes them further. children are subject to emotional and psychological damage from being incarcerated so detention is not a good option. instead of subjecting them to detention, this family should be released -- families to a committee-based.

this model ensures that families are treated to humanely but also helping them to show up to hearings. we stand ready to work with the administration to assist with this model and support these families. these families. >> i have a follow-up question. earlier i asked you about the labor and for-profit prisons. you said you were not in favor of any that did that. an article from march 2014 entitled "the prison industry in the united states, big business or new form of slavery" for the global research center. in particular to the question i asked earlier, it says, "at least 37 states have legalizing the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. the list of such companies contains the cream of u.s. corporate society.

ibm, motorola microsoft at&t wireless, texas instruments, dell compaq 3com intel, northern telecom, twa, nordstrom's, revlon, macy's, target stores and many more. all of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. just between 1980 and 1994 profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive minimum wage for their work but not all. in coll they get $2 an hour well under the minimum. in privately run prisons they receive as little as 137 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, equivalent of $20 a month. however, the highest paying private prison is cca in tennessee where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour and find the pay in the prisons to be obviously generous as a

result. with that in mind, can you answer my question again about the use of prison labor by your company and others to generate a profit and how does that function? >> i'd be glad to. >> did you misunderstand me earlier? >> no. i was answering the question in the context of the briefing being held today which was immigrant detention centers. again, categorically we do not use detainee labor for outside contracts in any one of our immigrant detention facilities. >> so none of these companies here are using immigrant labor, they're using prison labor from other of your facilities? go ahead and answer the question more fully before i assume what you're going to say. >> great. so we do have an inmate work program in some of our tennessee facilities which are state prisons that we operate for the state of tennessee. they are paid at a rate that is

established with our state customer and none of those facilities have immigrants housed therein. >> thank you. i want to ask -- >> i'd just looic iclike to make one clarification to the commissioner's question. it came to mine after i finished my answer but wanted to make sure the record is clear. so there is one facility that i'm aware of that holds i.c.e. detainees where we get a fixed payment per month for a certain number of detainees. and today the number of detainees at that facility is below that number. that will be the elizabeth detention center. >> do you know by what percentage it is below? >> the last time i looked, i believe we were housing about 140 detainees there. i believe the fixed payment includes 285 beds. >> thank you very much for clarifying that.

>> one of our very smallest facilities. >> i'll -- i know you have a number of books that have recommendations. we have to make recommendations to the president and congress on what we've found. you've heard thus far what we've seen you're all involved in the issue. if you could make a recommendation to the president or congress or top recommendations on this topic what would you recommend? >> i would just say again what i just spoke to the commissioner. it is that the alternative to detention, no matter how good the detentions may look or may sound, ultimately they are families or children and there should be an alternative to detention.de detention and they're not criminals. they need the family and attention a child needs. there would be another way, other than that. that would be one of my

recommendations recommendations. the other one would be that immediately when they're detained or when they're being processed and i put it down as one of my recommendations, there needs to be a presence that needs to be present allowed. pastoral care should be there and we have not been able to establish that. i no he that efforts were there initially with the officers and prisons in charge at this first facilities with the openness to do that but we have never been able to do that. and i think my presence there with the children was very impactful and important and it should be allowed to be able to continue that. >> okay sister. >> so that's difficult because i'm in the business of being a journalist and i'm not a policy policymaker policymaker. and while i cover the issue of imgraths --migration -- i mean it's very clear, i'm immigrant, i was born in mexico, i close to become an american citizen. but sometimes because i report

about this there is a sense that somehow i'm taking an advocacy role. i just see this as being an advocate for america. so it's hard for me to make recommendations, but i did come up with three. so first of all, since we have heard that it is very difficult for private corporations to open up their doors to journalists unless they get the approval from i.c.e. in my peerns workexperience working with i.c.e., it was incredibly difficult to get access. my recommendation would be that we as journalists get access. period. we should, if in fact standards are working and everything is working and audits are fine then we should have access. without any problem except from asking to go in. and we should have access to the people who are being detained so that we can correctly understand what is happening. if there is not a problem, then bravo.

i think what the commissioner raised about questions of due process, imthis is a big issue. having, again, been out in the field and seen things, there is no way to mirandize an undocumented immigrant. you don't -- there is no process right now through which immigration agents come to their door and say let me explain to you exactly who i am and what imtake doing, and to tell you by the way that you don't have to open the door and to tell you that i'm looking for this person, this person and this person. than doesn't happen. what i witnessed was immigration agents wearing outfits that said police everywhere. and knocking on doors at 6:00 a.m. and then saying, can we come in so we don't talk outside. and basically coercion to get inside. then ask everyone for their papers. so basic issues of due process. again, for me that's of great

concern. again, i see this simply as who we are as the united states of america. due process is something we believe everyone has. and we believe everyone has access to an attorney. so everyone that i speak to around immigration, i say well they totally believe in a different system. no access, their jaws drop. so due process? right now in our country and how it is being tested should be looked at. finally, just on a broader issue, when i became an citizen it was through immigration naturalization service. it was ins. it was immigration naturalization service. today it is immigration customs enforcement. so as a country again are we a country that is providing a service to our forefathers and the future of our country? or are we a country that says you know what? now we're just about enforcing laws that have been determined

and created now and how those laws are getting decided on is still questioned. so those would be my minor recommendations. thank you for asking. >> thank you. i guess i have a couple. one i've said before. legal orientation programs for everyone. everyone in detention and appointed counsel, particularly for vulnerable populations -- children and mentally ill. second one i would say change the statute on mandatory detention for arriving aliens. this isn't something the administration can do single-handedly. but, look at that requirement as something that's a source of the problem. and i.c.e. isn't put in the position of having to identify priorities and make decisions about detention and bed quotas if you don't start with mandatory detention for arriving aliens, subject only to a parole system. and the third one i would say

follow the aba's recommendation about detention. only under extraordinary circumstances. remember administrative detention is to secure appearances. it is not to punish anyone. and i don't mean to disparage in any way cca any other contractor, or the state and local jails that are being used to help hold people. but the idea that we need a correctional model using corrections companies, corrections facilities guards, wardens, and so forth, for administrative detention of children and families who are asylum seekers who are not flight risks because they are coming here to seek permission to stay? there is a fundamental flaw in the model that should be re-examined. >> thank you. it is about time here for the second panel. i want to thank everyone for your participation. it was very informative. we'll take a break now until 1:00. but you are welcome to stay and

see the afternoon panels. thank you. more now from this event hosted by the u.s. commission on civil rights. next panelists from human rights and civil liberties advocacy groups discuss immigration detention facilities and other civil rights issues. this is just over an hour. >> -- throughout the u.s. our afternoon panel is going to be presenting to us on a number of topics that are going to affect issues that we've been talking about this morning as well. but they're also going to elaborate on some of the work that they are conducting. what i'd like to do is introduce, then swear in the panel. our first panelist is miss marissa bono staff attorney with the mexican-american legal defense and educational fund. our second panelist, karen lucas, associate director forred a video cassieadvocacy at the american

immigration lawyers association. the third panelist, david stacy director of policy for the human rights campaign. i'll ask you all to raise your right hand and swear or affirm for me that the information that you are about to provide to us is both true and accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief. is that correct? yes yes, okay. thank you. >> thank you -- >> make sure your mike is on. >> can you marryhear me now? good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for inviting the mexican-american legal defense and education fund to provide testimony in this briefing today. we are a national civil rights organization that conducts community outreach, policy advocacy and, when necessary, litigation.tecting and promoting civil rights of latino immigrants living in the united states is our priority. as the chair said, my name is

marissa bono and i am a staff attorney with maldf. today i'll focus on allegations of sexual abuse at a facility in texas. first i would like to emphasize that family detention is not the status quo in the united states. it is a relatively new phenomenon that has been fraught with controversy and abuse as you've heard and will hear more about today. last july, again as you've heard, i.c.e. and customs enforcement reacted to an influx of central american immigrants at the southern borders by converting pre-existing federal facilities to new family detention centers for women and children under the age of 17. before that time there was only one family detention center in the u.s. today there are three, including

. when they open their doors texas authorities worked to coordinate pro bono services for women and children who were detained there. and almost immediately we began receiving complaints about conditions and complaints about sexual abuse at that facility. we, in addition to the university of texas school of law immigration clinic and civil rights clinic, the refugee protection program of human rights first, and thea law office sent an administrative complaint to the department of homeland security and i.c.e. on september 20, 2014, summarizing the allegations and the conditions that we had heard about at the facility. the abuse allegations cited in the complaint include the exploitation of vulnerable women

by facility guards and staff such as removal the women from their cells late at night or in early morning hours to engage in sexual conduct in different parts of the facility and then attempting to cover up the conduct after the fact calling the detainees "girlfriends" and requesting sexual favors in exchange for money and promises of assistance with pending immigration cases and, in some kapss cases even shelter when and if the women were released. also fondling, groping and kissing female detainees in front of other detainees including children. the prison rape elimination act makes it illegal for detention guards to ten gauge in any sexual conduct with detainees in their custody. if thu these incidents of sexual abuse harassment and the

hostile unsafe work environment violate federal law and regulation and they also subject the detainees to conditions that are punitive and unconstitutional under the due process clause of the fifth amendment. we received formal responses from i.c.e. and the dhs office of civil rights and civil liberties on october 29th and december 4th of 2014 respectively stating that investigations are ongoing. it is also our understanding that the office of the inspector general was conducting an investigation in october although we don't have the outcome of that investigation and we don't know if that investigation is still pending. regardless, the federal response to these allegations has been woefully deficient under the protocol and regulations. we understand that some victims or witnesses of the abuse have either been deported or released

ond on bond eliminating their ability to engage and participate in the investigation effectively. although at least one of the detained women reported this conduct to facility personnel, to our knowledge no action has been taken to stop or prevent the abuse. instead, it's our understanding that at least three of the employees there who allegedly engaged in the unlawful acts are still employed at the facility, still have their jobs as we sit here today. as recently as december 1st and december 4th, the ward of the texas facility and representative from the geo group, the private correctional company that operates the facility, provided public testimony to the county commissioner's court stafrting ingstating that the allegations were unfounded, that an investigation had been concluded and that the allegations were completely

unfounded, even though on literally precisely those days we received communications from the federal government stating that the investigation was ongoing. these are all serious violations of pria that put women and children at risk. we respectfully request that this commission recommend the proper implementation, supervision and monitoring of the protocol as detailed in our written submitted testimony to this commission. put simply this is exactly why family detention doesn't work. at this facility, the fact that sexual abuse occurred likely occurred and is potentially still occurring shows that either a policy is not in place or that it is not being properly supervised monitored or implemented. in the rush to detain families, the federal government has failed to protect the health and safety of these women and children. but instead of pausing family detention and figuring out what needs to be done differently and better to ensure the safety

of this community, the government has pushed to expand. thank you for your time today and i welcome your questions either now or at a later time. >> thank you. miss lucas. >> thank you. on behalf of the american immigration lawyers association, i want to thank the commission for holding this briefing and for inviting us to speak. we're really grateful for the oversight and the engagement of the commission on the issue of immigration detention and i'm very pleased to hear that you are interested in going to visit some detention facilities. i would encourage you to go to a family detention facility. we have practitioners, volunteer members on the ground and they're happy to meet with you and provide you any information that you need. the administration's recent massive expansion of family

detention requires your immediate attention. the mass detention of asylum seeking ploers inging mothers and their children many still breastfeeding their children's violates the civil rights of hundreds of families who have fed violence from the northern triangle region of central america. by the middle of next year the administration will be detaining nearly 4,000 children and mothers, a 40-fold increase in use of etension for use of detention for families. in july, the country responded to the you are gents need forurgent need for and indeed lack of legal representation at the first family detention facility built after the surge in the summer in new mexico by traveling at their own expense to the middle of

nowhere in new mexico and even working 18 to 20 hours a day seven days a week, volunteers were barely able to meet the demand for legal help. i would just note here that the new detention facility in dilley is going to have far more detainees than the artesia had. the project, the ala immigration council, artesia pro bono project, still continues to represent families detained in artesia and are now being held at cairns and at dilley. i only have time to make a few remarks. i hope that i can channel the passion of our volunteer attorneys, as well as the pain of their clients. first, i just want to focus really briefly on who these detainees are. the vast majority of the

children and mothers who are being held in these family detention facilities are asylum seekers who would qualify for protection under u.s. and international law. that is who they are. we know this because the ala immigration council project has won 14 out of 15 of their asylum heernlgs hearings on behalf of these women. we know this because in the first months of dilley being open on the ngo tour that we took of the facility, 80% of the women who were currently in that facility had already expressed a fear ef returnof returning to their home countries. the reality is that family detention incarcerates with policies specially designed to make release as difficult as possible and to make deportation as quick as possible. the most vulnerable individuals -- children and

asylum seekers. clients report serious obstacles to communicate with their clients. let's be clear. the massive outpouring of pro bono assistance that we saw at artesia and that resulted in so many asylum victories is not

sustainable or easily represent rechlt plicp and cairns is doubling to1,000 beds. there is no way to provide advocate representation for these detainees. without a council, without a judgea judge, isolated and run quickly throughout the system there is no immediate opportunity to seek protection, period. i included in my testimony a list of recommendations that i urge the commission to consider. but the first and foremost and fundamental recommendation is to bring about an end to family detention. thank you. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm director for the human rights campaign, america's

largest civil rights location working on lgbt equality i'm honored to speak today about the state of civil rights at immigration detention facilities. one additional note. i must attend a white house meeting on hate crimes later this afternoon so i apologize for leaving slightly early from here. i will make four key points in my oral testimony. lgbt people are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse in institutional settings. second the united states has obligations under the international treaties. third, trand gender detainees should not be faced with the choice of administrative segregation tore staying in facilities unsafe or ints with their gender identity. lgbt people are particularly vulnerable to abuse when they

enter into institutional settings and constitute a high-risk population. bureau of justice statistics found homosexual and bisexual men report ten times the rate of sexual victimization compared to the straight inmates. in december of 2014, 247.1% of transgender inmates in state and federal priz rns were victims of abuse by an inmate and 17% by state. under the convention against torture the united states has obligation to prevent against all forms of it degrading, inhumane or degrading punishment. in response, congress enacted pria in 2003. the department of homeland security finally promulgated its

own rules in march 2014. unfortunately, the dhs rules failed to adequately protect lgbt persons. two examples provide greater clarity. first, while doj regulations mandate transgender persons have the opportunity to shower separately from others, dhs limited this protection by adding a vague and unexplained qualifier "when operationally feasible." second, although dhs regulations mandate that detention center should not base decisions on housing, for example, solely on identity documents or physical anatomy, the rules merely require that they "consider" the detainees' gender self-identification. in contrast this is less protection than the department of justice. their regulations state a transgender or intersex inmate's own views with respect to his other hr safety shall be given serious consideration. too often, albeit with a laudable goal of protecting transgender detainees from abuse

or violence non-punitive segregation is used. it can cause lasting and emotional physical harm. in september 2013 i.c.e. issued a new director that segregation be used as last resort. however, dhs -- while dhs has taken implementation seriously, many transgender detainees still face that untenable choice. remain silent when they're fearful of their own safety or speak out and risk segregation. in addition to the 2013 directive, i.c.e. has made some progress to the goal of providing detainees with protecting from sexual assault with its 2011 performance based national detention standards. unfortunately, implementation has been slow. in aday the office of civil rights and liberties has identified a system to identify, track and investigate claims of sexual violence and provide avenues for redress including monetary compensation.

however, the problem is not statistics, it is not procedures in place for reporting and tracking sexual assaults but it is the slow pace of policy changes and education that would address these needs of the lgbt detainees detainees. to that end we urge swift progress. first dhs must fully implement detention standards. this means dhs should ensure that all facilities comply with the agency's regulations are including private contracting facilities and that appropriate audits take place at each facility in a timely manner. given the heightened risk rf sexual assault using limited resources to detain transgender individuals should knob be a priority except for cases involving serious public safety concerns. in cases where statute requires mandatory custody dhs should categorize alternative forms of detention such as home confinement and community based

supervision as detention even for those subject to mandatory custody. this would remove non-dangerous lgbt individuals from oftentimes dangerous confinement facilities. for the commission we hope the commission will use this briefing at additional meetings with dhs if necessary to understand challenges confronting dhs as the agency works to increase accountability, attention and implementation. according pli the government accountable office should be specifically asked to investigate reports of sexual assault and violence against lgbt detainees as well as steps being taken to protect lgbt detainees from unique and pervasive harassment. the commission should ask dhs for a report on progress made related to transgender detainees. this includes improved training identifying lgbt detainees in screening, appropriate placement, separate shower

access, and consideration of lgbt status in sexual assault incident reviews. finally the commission should request a written response from dhs on the status of implementing each recommendation from the 2004 gao report on prevention and detection of sexual assault and abuse in dhs confinement facilities. dhs received a copy of the draft report and concurred with all of the recommendations but one noting that two implement through 2015. mr. chairman and members of the commission, thanks again for the opportunity to testify today and we really appreciate the fact that you are looking into this really serious problem and we hope your recommendations will help improve the situation for lgbt detainees and other detainees. >> thank you. i will now open it up to commissioners. >> from stacey, were you here this morning when i asked the question about lgbt and i was given an answer that they have a facility by los angeles?

were you here? >> i was not here this morning, no. >> so, i asked the gentleman whether they asked people when they come into the country when they initially interview them whether they're lgbt. he said no. at lunch we were talking. should they disclose -- should the government disclose that there is a facility for lgbt people in the governmental system? >> to those people or should they ask them whether they -- i mean how should they approach these issues? >> slur. well obviously the privacy of lgbt people is something that's relevant here. merely asking folks about their sexual orientation and gender identity is not problematic from our perspective, whether folks are required to disclose that is a different story. we certainly would have concerns about that. but giving detainees options for

how they are detained is certainly something we would take a look -- want to take a look at. some detainees have greater concerns about their safety and that's why the standards adopted by doj are more detishlsirable and better than standards dhs uses because giving serious considerations to the detainee's own sense of perceived risk. >> so you would have no problem with those questions or disclosure, the government saying any have this facility and leave it up to the detainee. >> i think that's right that we would -- i think obviously we want to take a look at what -- how that's phrased and make sure that people understand that they have privacy concerns and they are not required to disclose. >> the statistics you were using were statistics for state and federal prisons, not detention centers. right? >> they are not adequate or any

data really around i.c.e. detention centers. >> miss bono, how would you change family detention? >> i don't think there is a way -- i don't think there is a workable way to detention women and children. especially with the population that's doubly vulnerable because they're coming from backgrounds where they've already been victims of such horrific violence and exploitation. before the system that's currently in place evolved, women and children who came in to this country and had pending immigration cases were often monitored electronically. and that system worked just fine and very appropriately. as miss lucas said, these women are currently being detained without any consideration as to whether or not they pose a threat to the community and whether or not they pose a flight risk.

>> right. so you would just use electronics. is that correct? >> i think there are much less restrict riff alternatives to family-based detention. >> what else besides electronics? you said other less restrict riff stuff. >> releasing women on bond and to sponsors in the community until their immigration cases are resolved. >> and if the women and children have no family in the states how would they support themselves pending resolution? >> how would they support themselves? i can't speculate how families would support themselves outside of the detention facilities. but i'm certain after meeting with and speaking with these women an children on the ground, that these mothers would much prefer to be in the community and to have their children in public schools and to be outside of a prison-like setting than to

be detained with their kids. >> so they would find a way is what you're saying. >> they all do. >> miss lucas one question. two family facilities, cairns and dilley. if we were to choose one to go to, which do you think would be the best for us to see? >> oh, goodness. well, i think that would depend on the timing. the dilley facility is only in temporary structures right now. and so it's not up to capacity yet and the full structures have not been built and so i would wait on dilley until we see what the full new structures would look like. so if you were going to go tomorrow, i would say cairns. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. miss lucas you indicated that there are widely divergent bond amounts set by the immigration judges at artesia.

you've gone to great lengths giving us examples of specific bond amounts. i know that in the state court system, as well as in the federal system, the court is often governed by guidelines or recommended bond amounts. are you aware of whether there are any such guidelines for bonds set by the immigration judges and if there are not, might that be a way to begin addressing the divergence in bonds? >> that's a great question. i actually don't know if there are guidelines. i can find that out for you. nationally, the immigration judges -- the average bond amount was about $5,200. and i mean even in -- outside of the context of family detention, immigration bonds will greatly

vary. i agree that -- and as far as guidelines, i would say that the best guidance on appropriate bond amounts is the existing case law because there is bia case law on factors to consider for bond. and so matter of battell is a 1970s case that has been the foundation of what is relevant of bond in the immigration context. and that is public safety risk and flight risk. and there's more information. the case law has developed more aspects of both of those things as to what is appropriate to consider and what isn't. so that is where i would like to. >> commissioner? >> miss lucas, and perhaps the other two attorneys as well we

heard in the last panel from the representative of the immigration project of the aba that detainees, i think specific to the family context or it may have been detainees in general -- and you can correct me as to which one it was -- were six or seven times more likely to have their asylum petitions granted if they were represented by counsel. does than sound familiar? >> i'm wondering -- i recognize -- and it has been pointed out a number of times -- that because this is a civil proceeding and not a criminal proceeding albeit a distinction

without some significant difference, in my own view -- but we'll put that aside for a moment -- there is no constitutional right, shall we say, to representation by counsel. however, it seems to me that a number of sins could be avoided are if somehow we were in a position to see to it that at least of families mothers and children were somehow provided consistently with legal representation. and i'm wondering what kinds of

legal theories have been propounded by your organizations, either in a court of law or cases that have been made to public policy makers who have the ability to alter these laws in appropriate ways. i'm wondering what kinds of legal theories you have that might aid us in examining the merit to the claim that legal representation would only have to go to those seeking those subject to criminal prosecution as compared to the civil penalty that's involved in repatriation

if you will. >> i can start. a couple of things i would say on that. first is that immigrants in removal proceedings have a right to have counsel at their own expense. it is not a right to appointed counsel or council paid for by the government, which is the criticaldy dyistinction between the criminal and civil context. and that is why the impediments to meaningful access to counsel and meaningful representation by counsel that we saw at artesia and continue to see at cairns and dilley. because if they do have pro bono representation or in the rare case can afford counsel, they have the right to access to counsel. the other thing i'll say is that from a list perspective, there is nothing in the immigration

nationality act to prevent are the government from funding counsel for immigrants if removal proceedings and there is a smile pilot project that the government does work on now for unaccompanied children, the americorps initiative. but we have advocated for years for a much broader government funded counsel for the most vulnerable populations in immigration proceedings. and honestly in immigration proceedings, period. >> i have a few questions. >> i was hoping for additional comment from the other two attorneys. >> i don't have anything to add other than to emphasize what i suspect you've already heard, at least in part, this morning the similarities between are the judicial system and the immigration context and the judicial system in the criminal

context. so even though we have this civil/criminal distinction, the concerns about the constitutional rights of immigrants are still very much the same. >> earlier than today we heard from folks from the federal government, as well as the private prison companies cca, about all these great policies that are in place and what's being done there to make sure that these facilities are compliant and places that are not going to result in the kind of abuse and violation of rights that we've heard testified to by other people. it seems to me that, as been said earlier, there is a big disconnect there. you all are on the ground on this issue. what's going on here? why do we have one picture that's being painted to us by those that are running the prisons, and quite another picture being painted by individuals who are kept in those prisons?

>> elwell, in texas you always say, you talk the talk but can you walk the walk. and i think it is very nice to have a policy on paper or posted on the wall but it's completely powerless if it is not being properly enforced and i think a lot of the disconnect comes from are the shell game when this is part of a federal program but implementation is occurring through a private contractor and a private contractor that's used to -- that runs its business primarily for criminal correctional facilities and doesn't necessarily have the proper expertise and background for the detention of women and children. and so i suspect training -- proper training for facility employees and proper supervision are a big part of the problem here.

>> either of you have -- >> well, i said there are sort of two issues. one is are the policies that are in place adequate. the pria standards that went into effect in 2014 we feel particularly in regards to transgender detainees are inadequate to meet those needs even if they were being implemented fully. at the same time, there's a question of implementation. i think cultural competency to deal with lgbt detainees is a serious issue. then in particular when you deal with transgender detainees it is an even more serious issue especially when you think about folks who are on the ground actually detaining people and making these decisions. there is certainly bias that creeps in. sometimes not even subtly. but sometimes more subtly. but i think largely there is a real ignorance of how to appropriately handle a transgender detainee. just one example. if you have a male facility and you bring in a transgender woman

into that facility, first of all with be that's not an appropriate placement right there. but people are being placed in that situation. but then to treat that transgender detainee, even if had that inappropriate circumstance and in that place where they probably shouldn't be, you want to treat them with really real serious respect. well, one factor is what clothing are you going to make them wear? all of the clothing that is going to be at that male facility is going to be male clothing. right there you are already not treating that transgender woman with the sort of respect that the policies require that common sense requires and that human decency requires. so i think it is both -- are the policies adequate and then is the cultural competency really even getting anywhere close to the depth and breadth that it needs to be. >> i'll get to you, commissioner. i've just got a few more questions. to each of you, earlier there

was mention the concept of mirandizing the immigrants. because right now if someone is detained, they don't know what rights they have. ideally someone will tell them somewhere along the process. obviously that doesn't often happen. what do you all think about this idea of providing the immigrants that are being detained with knowledge of their rights right at the beginning of that custody? and if so if you think that's a good idea, how would we actually go about accomplishing that from your perspective? ? >> it is critical especially because these women and children are coming from countries that be don't have these same types of constitutional rights. in their minds it is not even a possibility. it doesn't even occur to them that they might have the rights that we have in our government, in our system. and i'm sure miss lucas has some points on this but i would also say to the extent that that's provided, it is very important that it be provided not only in

spanish, but in the indigenous languages, because as miss lucas mentioned, that's a very -- it's been large barrier to these women getting access to what little, few legal services there are there in place. >> miss lucas? >> yes, i would fully agree with that. i think that giving any immigrant in proceedings -- at the border, in detention -- knowledge of their rights is critically important. and there are some good models for this. karen gruzay who testified it earlier talked about the legal orientation program. we fully support that, think it is a great thing. we would also like it to be national. i think, too, there is an obligation on border patrol to do a better job with giving the immigrants who are apprehended

by border patrol an understanding not only. of their rights, but of their obligations and responsibilities, and also to give it in the language that they can understand. part of the problem with expedited removal is that it's fast. and so the first moments and the first contact that immigration enforcement officers have with immigrants is critical. if an individual does not express their fear, know that they have the right to express their fear, know what's going to happen if they do express their fear, if they don't know that as early on in the process as possible, they -- the avenue to asylum is closed for them. so i would advocate for much more information as early as possible. >> would this need to be done by legislation or could it be done, in you ary opinion, by executive

order of the president? >> i do not think it would have to be done legislatively at all. i think this is well within the administration's authority to create new protocols, and also to expand the legal orientation program to get ngos in to border patrol facilities so they can meet with individuals who are being held in the short-term detention facilities and that they can as individuals who are not affiliated with the government have much more honest conversations and productive conversations with the detainees. >> thank you. >> i just want to echo that. i think it is really important to let people know of their rights on the front end. but i think also having third parties that can come in and talk with them about their rights and help this emto understand that. i think it is one thing to inform people and that's a good first step. but i think the additional steps are to make people understand that in the context of lgbt

detainees who are particularly vulnerable or who have experienced sexual assault, an extra elf willlevel of engagement with a third party they can trust is critical in getting good outcomes. >> i want to start off just by stating and maybe it is rather obvious that there is a schizophrenia in the way that the obama administration has dealt with the issue of immigration and that you have -- even in this particular situation, you have them on one hand saying we don't want this bed mandate. we don't want the 34000 bed mandate. yet at the same time they're building the 2,400-bed facility that when it is not at full capacity is going to be under pressure to put more people in them. and probably exceed the 3,400-bed mandate. it is one of those things that kind of drives me crazy about the administration. until this particular instance

when we talk -- i kept making this point earlier in the hearing. that had to do with the fact that these are families that we're talking about. these are not hardened criminals. these are not -- these are people who, for reasons that they need to be able to articulate to whatever legal standard we decide is applicable -- but nevertheless there is something compelling them to leave their native land to come here and seek a better life, whether it was oppression, whether it was fear of gangs, whether it was fear of domestic violence, whenever it is. and it bothers me that we have in many ways criminalized them from the moment that they walk across our border in a way that we did not do when we were "flooded" with refugees from europe or "flooded request the with refugees from asia. they were not put in standard issued prison jump suits for

example, for their duration of the stay whether it was at angel island or ellis island. i think what the chairman said is very important and i think it is important for you to articulate to us that if the administration chooses to at least have this interdiction policy for families they should at least realize that because they are families and there is a different way that we should deal with it that there is a -- it should provide other safeguards for these families that perhaps -- you hate to single out anything but for this one

than do it fairly. . shouldn't be a one-way expedited process where basically someone looks at you for a couple days you come in, you're scared of this person who's in whatever outfit. you're in your orange jumpsuit. you don't know what's happened in the past few weeks or months while you've been waiting, then your fate has decided. it has to be a better and even playing field if we're going to be true to those things that in our country we have always been true to in terms of family immigration to these united states. so we need your help in looking at the law and saying the president has the ability through it the executive order pen -- which he is very fond of right now -- to provide these sets of additional protections

and safeguards for these families coming across our border and if you can do that, that would be very very helpful to us. i guess that was more of a speech than a question. but if you react to it, i would enjoy it. >> well, you know, obviously i agree, our values are expressed in the way that we treat our most vulnerable. we do have laws in place to deal with populations who fear the threat of persecution in their home countries and the government is trying to circumvent those laws with an expedited deportation process and a no-bond policy for these families. so one place to start would be to follow the law and to follow the regulations that are in place, which say that discretion must be applied to determine whether or not these women pose a threat to public safety and whether or not they pose a flight risk. and so one place to start is simply to follow the ina provision that's already in place which says that discretion

must be applied. right now it is being unilaterally withheld. and so that's one very basic place we can start without creating any new guidelines or laws. >> did they issue regulations suspending that for this particular classification of folks who came in? or is this just sort of an unwritten policy that you are seeing applied across the board? >> it's just -- it's not any regulation. it is just a policy that's been created and applied. >> i take it, you folks have probably filed a suit on that, i would assume. >> why, yes. i didn't personally, but yes, there are others who have. the other thing that i'll say -- just a couple of things on that. so the policy of having no bond or an exceptionally high bond in all of the cases is actually written in the dhs affidavits in the packet that they submit to

the immigration judge when they're opposing bond in a bond hearing. so there are places in which it is expressed. it is not a regulation, but it is written down. and the other thing is that i take your point about the disconnect between some of what the administration is doing with executive authority and the policy that seems to be in place for families. >> and just to interrupt you slightly, i mean i understand that the pressure at administration is under in these situations, but i just think that they reacted in such a way, way over to the other side. there's still a way with the wave of the magic pen in the oval office to balance it a little bit more. i mean i'd rather there not be any at all, but i understand the politics of the congress are such that the president's ability to do that is somewhat constrained. but to the extent that he still

has that ability, he can make it a little -- make a fairer fight. >> absolutely he can make it a fairer fight. but also in the new memoranda that came out of came out of executive action in november, there is a section in the enforcement memo on detention policy, and discretion that should be applied with respect to particularly vulnerable populations in detention. and nursing mothers primary caregivers they're all part of existing dhs policy favoring release. all the administration would have to do is act on that even with respect to these families. >> i'm going to move on now to the vice chair followed by commissioner gladden. >> thank you, all. this is open to all. on the issue of the right to counsel of our most vulnerable populations, i was reflecting on the fact that in the civil

context, we have throughout this nation a system set up wherein children less than 18 years of age that are alleged to be abused neglected or dependent, petitions are filed and they are entitled to council. and so i am just wondering if there has been any exploration of that angle. i think an argument could be made that these young people, these families, the children are abused neglected or dependent. what is there to stop state department, social services or even counsel from filing just such a petition, and in most instances, they would be

entitled to counsel. and i was just wondering, has any thought been given. to that way of proceeding or that analogy or -- is there something we can learn? in that context? >> at the beginning of this process, when we were looking at the conditions that made the environments unsafe and potentially dangerous for children. members of our working group did have conversations with the texas department of health and public safety. and the individuals that we spoke with told us that because these women and children were in federal custody it wasn't really a state issue. but from our perspective when you look at the state statutes governing licensing and child care certainly there are some potential or there's an area for potential violations here.

and again that's the problem we have with this shell game. we are talking about a federal custody situation, but these are children who would otherwise be protected by laws that are already in place and i agree it's a substantial and disturbing disconnect. >> and what i would say on that is that there are -- i can't agree more that there are very strong arguments for government funded counsel a right to government funded counsel in the immigration context, no question. either because of the particular vulnerabilities of the individual or because of the dire consequences of the outcome of immigration proceedings. in the criminal context there are, of course, very dire

outcome s outcomes with deportation. we're talking about people who have been fleeing for their lives. do they turn into a situation in which they may be killed or not? that is a very weighty consequence. our supreme court has recognized that in padilla, and so, you know, in the criminal justice context, it's a constitutional obligation for defense counsel to advice their clients about the immigration consequences of their plea or their case. precisely recognizing how dire immigration consequences can be. so we're on the way, and i welcome any support for pushing the administration on government funded counsel. >> we'll go on to commissioner cladney. >> we spoke -- a couple spoke about getting a statement of

rights together to give to these folks. and just before mr. stacy left us, that's what i asked him to do, get us that information. i would ask both of you to please do that, and i would also ask the folks who are on the next panel to do that, and maybe we can combine your submissions and maybe we can get a majority of the commission to recommend that. not being an expert in immigration or detention. >> i do know about detention. not in this concept. but if we could do that. that would be great. if you could write those up and i would assume send them -- i guess we should send them to whom? >> the office of civil rights evaluation here at the commission. >> thank you. >> commissioner harriet? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

miss lucas, i'm curious about the numbers here, and maybe you can help me. you mentioned that some of the detainees. and i'm not sure if you were talking about carnes and dilly in particular, or about similar facilities, but some detainees do have attorneys that they've retained themselves. some have pro bono and some not at all. do you have a sense how common it is to pay for your own attorney. and more importantly how many have pro bono attorneys, how many have no attorneys at all? and of those that have pro bono, how did it get decided which detainees would end up with pro bono attorneys and which would not? is it through things like know your rights seminars that they're able to filter the attorneys to the strongest cases? or are there more informal mechanisms at work here? >> great questions. okay. so i do not know how many of the

family detainees in the family detention system have counsel. that, i mean, i -- ice would need to -- ice wouldn't even know that. i'm not even sure. >> the first step might be a requirement that that information be documented. >> absolutely. >> i'm not aware of a place where i could google or look to find that information out. >> we do know from studies that have been done that i referenced in my written testimony in 2009, 80% of detainees, the currently detain eded, might have counsel. most detainees immigration detainees never get counsel. it's a really serious problem. in terms of how individuals in detention do get counsel, there

are a couple different ways, there's the traditional model for lack of a better word which is through a legal orientation program, that does screen individuals who have -- for potential relief potential avenues of relief and then those cases are referred out to private attorneys who are willing to take on the case pro bono. the artesia model which our organization was involved in, was a completely different model from any other probono legal services model. we went in and said any woman who wants representation will get it. >> and the effort was enormous. and gratifying and unlike anything i've ever seen. that is very unusual.

and we had amazing outcomes for the women and children. but again, all of our hearts break at the thought of how in the world are we going to help the women in the city the size of delhi. >> thank you. >> i have a few more questions. earlier we were talking about -- you mentioned the shell game, right? let's say we're successful, have lawyers that will be either provided to them pro bono or paid. yet we still see possibly this other shell game where clients are moved from facility to facility and they have lawyers can't talk to them. they may be too far away, could you speak to that issue and the impact it has on those folks who are lucky enough to be represented? >> absolutely. i can start my only -- i know

our attorneys see this, outside of the family detention context as well. in the family detention context, i will say that the closure of artesia and the movement of currently detained individuals from artesia to carnes and some to dilly, mostly initial to carnes was completely confusing. our lead attorney only got notice of a hand full of those transfers before they would happen. and we would get notice on a friday night of transfers that might happen saturday morning, might happen monday, not exactly sure. it took our attorneys a long time to find out where their clients were. and when they got to the facility, and were told that they had been released, some of them some of them