our jury placed her at that time number five on our list, which i at the time referred to as a result of the chicago penalty. but if i named the other four for you today, you wouldn't know them. nine years later in 2011 another jury, this time at the atlantic council, got it more right when we gave her our highest recognition in new york, alongside the u.n. general assembly, the atlantic council's global citizen award. by then she had been finance minister in france atop the baker mckenzie experience of steering 500 lawyer egos at 60 offices around the world, good preparation for running the imf and its impressive staff of more than 160 nationalities in 182 countries, often in unstable and corrupt settings. in presenting the atlantic council's award to you madam lagarde, world economic founder clause schwab said, "i would

define a leader with four characteristics -- to have a soul, to have a heart, to have brains and to have good nerves." leaders, by and large, don't get to choose the challenges they face. they only get to choose how they address those challenges. and how you've done so in your time at the imf has been remarkable. we look forward to hearing your opening comments today madam lagarde, on the state of the global economy and how we might best address its most pressing challenges. we at the atlantic council often speak of how we together as the atlantic community alongside our like-minded global friends confront a defining moment in history, perhaps as pivotal as 1919, 1945 or 1989 when the decisions of leaders like yourself, and that of the member countries you represent, have outsized importance. so as i turn the podium to you, let me paraphrase clause schwab in thanking you formakering all

the personal sacrifices that public service requires at such challenging times and using his words, salute your soul your brain, your heart, and your nerves. madam lagarde. >> of well thank you so much fred. and i know you're a true friend because you're one of the very few who introduced me without referring to my muscles. because people typically refer to my belonging to the synchronized swimming national team in france. so thank you for that. and don't believe that fred and i always coordinate our colors. but it so happens that we are black and white together. the council, fred, board members and members in the audience, is renowned for its capacity to actually bring together top

international policymakers from both sides of the atlantic, and from further afar. and this is clearly something that is in common between our two organizations. the atlantic council and the international monetary fund. next week we will be hosting the spring meetings of the world bank and the imf and we will be welcoming to washington, d.c. representatives of our 188 member countries. finance ministers, governors of central banks and they will focus their discussion on the state of the global economy. since our last annual meeting in october, there have been a lot of developments on the global scene. i would say that it has first of all, inherited from a big shot in the arm as a result of the decline of oil prices. in addition to that, it has had

the benefit of a strong economic performance by the largest economy in the world the united states of america. and overall we would say that macro economic risks have decreased. so the global recovery continues, but it is moderate and uneven. global recovery continues, but it is moderate and uneven. in too many parts of the world it is not strong enough and in too many parts of the world, people don't just feel it. in addition to that, if macro economic risks have declined, financial and geopolitical risks have increased. it is not that overall growth is bad. 3.4 in 2014? it is not bad. it is actually in line with the

average growth that we have had in the last three decades. so what's not so good about it? what makes it moderate and uneven. well, it is rather that given the lingering impact of the great recession on people it is actually generating hardship for many people around the world, including those countries where more than 50% of the youth population goes unemployed. so growth is not good enough. six months ago i warned about the risk of a new mediocre. new mediocre, low growth for a long time. now today what we must do is avoid that new mediocre becomes the new reality. we can do better, and we must do

better. that great atlanticist, john fitzgerald kennedy, once said, and i quote "there are risks and costs to action, but they are far less than the long-range risks of comfortable inaction. so comfortable inaction is what must be avoided. and that's what i would like to focus on. how to lift growth today by using all available tools and policy space available. how to lift tomorrow's growth and prevent that new mediocre from becoming the new reality. and how do we work together to strengthen the international financial system foster development, and make growth more inclusive and actually

sustainable. let me begin with a quick health check of the global economy. now those who follow the imf know that the world economic outlook will be publish next week so i'm not going to focus on numbers. they become to the world economic outlook. i'm going to talk about the broader trends and policy recommendations. as i indicated earlier growth remains and we forecast it to remain moderate. roughly, roughly the same as last year. advanced economies are doing slightly better than last year. as you'll note, the recovery is firming up in the united states and the united kingdom and the eurozone is doing slightly better, as well and is promising. but if we look at the emerging

and developing economies they're doing slightly worse than last year with lower commodities being the driver. and while they still represent and probably will continue to represent about 70% of global growth this year, there's tremendous diversity within that group. do you remember the talk about the brics? well picture has changed. and if india is a growth bright spot in that group, china is slowing, although its growth is certainly more sustainable. sub-saharan africa continues to perform strongly but russia is experiencing economic difficulties. brazil is stagnateing, at best. and many parts of the middle east are beset by political and economic turmoil. so we should not think of

emerging economies as just one single group. each country faces very specific circumstances, some of them easier, some of them more difficult. so what does it imply in terms of policies? with overall growth moderate the global economy continues to face a number of significant challenges. there is, for instance, what i have called last year the low-low/high-high risk. low uninflation low growth, high unenemployment and that exists for a number of economies. clearly all policy space an levers must be utilized and it begins with demand support. how's that implemented. well, first of all, continued monetary policy accommodation is needed especially in the euro

area and in japan. fiscal policy needs to be calibrated to the strength of the recovery without ever losing sight of debt sustainability. but the effectiveness of those support measures can be significantly improved because they've been at work for some of them, for a little while. they can be improved. for example, unclogging the channels through which monetary easing and fiscal policy work in the euro area. how? well effective insolvancy frame works to deal with the total stock of no less than 900 billion euros of non-performing loans that is blocking credit channels. in japan, the authorities need to sustain momentum of the

second and the third arrows -- one is fiscal consolidation the other is structural reform -- in that country is going to take the full benefit of the first arrow which was indeed monetary easing in order to lift both growth and inflation. third way of being more efficient, by leveraging lower oil prices to reduce energy subsidies, emerging and developing oil importers could save, on average, a full 1% of gdp in 2015 alone and those resources could be put to better use in order to invest in infrastructure, in education, in health. so those are some of the macro economic dimensions. as i've said, macro economic risks are decreased. what has increased on the other hand is the risks posed by the

financial dimension. financial stability is more at risk now than it was six months ago. the new mediocre that i talked about, that new mediocre growth is not a comfortable place with respect to financial stability. financial risks have migrated. for example, they have migrated from banks which are far more regulated and better supervised and heavily tested, to non-banks. they have migrated from advanced economies towards emerging markets. let's go through a few of those risks. for one, there are adverse side effects of the very low or even negative, as we clearly saw, including on the primary market today, very low, if not negative interest rates caused by

otherwise necessary accommodative monetary policies. these foster a higher risk tolerance on the part of investors which can lead to overpricing. and if the low interest environment persists it can create sol create solvancy challenges for life insurers an pension benefit fund. so the purpose of these policies is to actually kick-start growth. but if it was to last longer then it puts some of those business models at risk. or think of another one, the wide movement of exchange rates that we have observed recently. for the past six months, the u.s. dollar has appreciated against a basket of major currencies by 12% in real terms. now some countries with more difficult macro economic conditions and less policy space

have of course benefited from the relative depreciation of their currencies. in others, large amounts of dollar denominated or foreign currency denominated debt. these dramatic swings can be destabilizing and this is particularly the case for corporates in the emerging market economies that are wedged between a strong u.s. dollar on one hand lower commodity prices on the other hand, and with my third hand higher borrowing rates. on the top of which they might not have hedged. and that is a bit of an uncertainty where we have little information. now these risks taken individually -- the ones that i've just mentioned -- could be manageable, but we also have to contend with a structural decline in market liquidity. it is a risk that we had flagged

about six months ago. and this is due primarily to recent changes in the structure of the asset management industry in advanced economies which have created a mismatch between the maturity of assets and of liabilities, which means that liquidity could evaporate quite quickly if everyone rushes to the exit at the same time which could make for a bumpy road when the federal reserve begins to raise short-term rates. so this new configuration of financial risks underscore the importance of strengthening financial policies. at the global level, it means ensuring market liquidity during times of stress improving macro and micro-prudential policies for non-banks in particular and following through on the regulatory reform agenda

particularly the too big to fail institutions. at the country level it mean curtailing excessive risk taking and managing existing vulnerabilities vulnerabilities. and again, while the appropriate menu of measures must be specific, the overall set of policies can help us to lift growth today. so much so for growth today. as i said moderate uneven, but recovery under way. but what about growth tomorrow. and that's a big issue. because growth tomorrow, as we analyze the potential for growth, is also moderate. in both advanced and emerging economies, potential growth is being pared down. and this largely reflects several factors. one is lasting scars from the

financial crisis that the world experienced few years back now. and probably scars that we had underestimated. but also the undercurrents of changing demographics and lower productivity. so to prevent the new mediocre from becoming that new reality, strk turl reforms need to go hand in hand with macro economic and financial policies to raise confidence an generate investment. and frankly, whether you look around, there are too many countries that talk about structure reforms but don't actually do structural reforms at the depth, at the speed where they should be done. and structural reforms really span a wide range of policies. some reforms have immediate effect. most reforms have more medium-term effect and take a

bit longer to bear fruit. i'll give you an example of one -- i wouldn't call it a reform, but it is a set of measures which requires often reforms and a bit of creativity around ppps, for instance. but some reforms are right at the intersection of what can actually have an effect in the short term and will certainly improve productiveity in the medium to long term. our own research shows that boosting efficient infrastructure investment with be a powerful emimpetus for growth both in the short term -- you stimulate activity construction sites starts employing people. and in the long run, you improve infrastructure, you make sure people and goods can actually travel properly. other reforms, such as that affect the labor product and services market are likely to unfold positive result over a

longer-term horizon. yet they are essential to enhance productivity and innovation which, in turn can be powerful antidotes. to the impact of something that we can no the do anything about and that is affecting all of us -- aging. we've done a bit of research not so much on aging. other people can do that a little better than us. but we've done some research on structural reforms and we've tried to flesh out priorities and payoffs in labor force participation and trade. let me take them very quickly one after the other. let's look at productivity growth. reversing that decline in advanced economies requires lowering barriers to entry in product and services market. our research shows, for instance, that improving the

allocation of labor and capital across sectors can significantly increase total factor productivity, tfp, as it's call. another example is the potential benefit from improving access to finance for smaller businesses. you know everybody talks about smes. we have to encourage smes. well, of course. of course. because they generally -- most countries, certainly the advanced economies but also now to a much larger extent in emerging market economies -- they represent most of the employment and they represent the largest number of companies. well unfortunately if we look at europe, for instance they also hold a share of non-performing loans that is 50% higher, on average than larger corporations. so clearly putting the small business sector on firmer footer would yield a big payoff. this is same story in china. where small businesses play

critical role in the economy in terms of output, employment, tax revenue and innovations. and where access to financing is extremely difficult. i discuss that matter with the prime minister of china and it is one of the angles that they want to use in order to stimulate activity by the corporate world. if we look at emerging market economies such as indonesia, and russia they can read productivity by easing investment limits and improving the business climate. countries like brazil, india, south africa, they should certainly focus on reforming the education, labor and product markets. and in low-income countries, as well as in the middle east and central asia, improving governance eradicating corruption, or trying to as well as financial inclusion will help lay the foundation of a thriving private sector.

so that's for the productivity improvement as far as capital and investment is concerned. if we look at labor now. there is an important set of measures that is needed to remove barriers to labor force participation, and that is key to tackle inequality and ensuring a broad-based growth. i'll give you a few for instances. in japan and in the euro area, too many tax disincentives exist. and where a change of tax policies that would be more growth friendly, more labor supportive would be very welcome. and there could be budget neutral neutral. in too many countries legal inequities still exist. and what do they do? they create barriers to greater participation by women in the economy. we've done a very interesting

study, and from all the countries that we've studied 90% -- 90% still had legal inequities in the books that prevent access of women to the labor market. and as we know closing the gender gap -- which is one of the goals of g-20 -- only by 25%! a little 25%. over the next decade could actually result in the creation of 100 million jobs. now that means something for both growth and poverty reduction. and finally, on trade, there are potentially huge global gains to be had from further trade reform and integration. as we know trade has been a major driver of economic progress over the past three decades, and yet again in 2015, and for the fourth year now, trade will be below average

trade in terms of growth. recent efforts have been welcome. the bali agreement which was a subset of the doha long expected non-agreement could actually generate a lot by way of trade facilitation. estimated to actually develop an economic boost of $1 trillion u.s. annually. not only should this bali agreement be implemented, but we need to be more ambitious because trade remains a very major engine of the global economy. to lift growth create jobs and dispel this new mediocre that is lurking on the horizon. of course, it's difficult. those are political reforms, and anything that is structural reform or that requires international consensus is difficult. they involve tough choices,

tradeoffs. and there are winners and losers in the short run. but in the long run, everybody can win. so how do we win. well, our view, my view is that we can only win by working together. and i'm struck by how action to lift growth is becoming increasingly country-specific. you know gone are the days when you could see the advanced economies, the emerging markets, the low-income countries. no. it's it's far more complicated which probably includes something like 128 boxes depending on what criterias you use. yet, all those issues that i have referred to macro economic, financial risks, productivity increases all of that is also very strongly interconnected and multi-layered. so the challenge for

policymakers around the world is to combine the policies needed to boost today's growth with those that will fortify tomorrow's prospects. how can you actually use your short game to make sure that the long game is going to work. and to leverage those national initiatives that are needed to the benefit of the global community. if you think of it, what is good for a country is going to end up being good for the whole community. if countries strengthen their banks -- domestic banks -- it will not only serve them well and their clients, but it will reinforce the global financial system. if countries anticipate and hedge against currency variations and volatility it will not only serve them and their own financial sector, but it will support global financial stability. and if countries implement

climate-friendly policies, it will benefit their population and also contribute to reducing global emissions. so to all those who will say, oh, we have to wait until the others come on board and reach an international treaty or agreement, or something that is intergovernmental -- no. national policies will actually take the global issue further. but we also need a multi-lateral system that can actually leverage these national benefits and help avoid inconsistencies, risk of arbitrage that could actually generate negative spillovers. in a highly interconnected world with new and dynamic centers of political and economic gravity generally east, there is simply no alternative to what i have called new multi-lateralism.

say what is that and what needs to be done to reach that new multi-lateralism platform. well first of all, everybody must find its suitable seat. emerging market and developing countries must have greater weight and voice in global economic institutions to reflect the actual new reality and that of the contribution and responsibilities in the global economy. i have a clear example in mind. the imf, 2010 quote on governance reform. which is intended to precisely meet that objective. listen to that. virtually our entire membership agrees, and we now only await one ratification by the u.s.

congress. it is overdue. so if you meet any of them, tell them them. and we're not going to give up. i'm going to continue asking them to please do it. if only to assert u.s. leadership in a key institution for global financial stability. but, you know we can't wait forever either. so our membership is currently considering interim steps. i'm not saying substitute. interim steps that can take us a bit closer to the ultimate objective. now there are further measures as well to strengthen the resilience of the international financial system, and that would include enhancing cooperation with regional facilities and institutions including the new asian infrastructure investment barpg, bank as i have said three weeks

ago in china. there are many institutions that have bunchened nburgeoned in the last few years in europe in asia and in various places. and we need to work together. weed into to cooperate to coordinate coordinate. second option, increasing the role of the special drawing rights. facilitating integration of dynamic emerging markets into the global economy. of course, firming up the imf resources which again relates to the quota reform that was intended to in 2010. as a result of that the international monetary system would be reinforced and become more stable. so that's for the international monetary system. what about the international development system. well 2015 is really a very special moment for development. and an opportunity to make a tangible difference in the lives of a very large number of

people particularly the poorest. there are three critical issues on the 2015 aagaingenagenda. one is financing for are development which will be discussed in july. the second is the new sustainable development goals that will be discussed at the united nations in september. and the third one is the climate change that will be discussed in paris in december. and they all interlink in many ways. now the imf will be a committed partner in this effort and i intend to discuss with our membership next week how we can contribute through not nice words, not good intentions, but actual deliverables in the three core areas of our business. because we cannot suddenly invent ourselves as the new development experts or the climate gurus. but we have areas of business which are our core businesses where we can certainly

contribute. let's look at financing first. actually we've already made a down payment by recently contributing $390 million to the ebola affected countries including -- which is very unusual for the imf -- $100 million of debt relief. the imf doesn't do that. but on that particular occasion, the board very strongly endorsed that proposal. what we have done as well is that we have set up a catastrophe and containment relief trust. because we realized on the occasion of this drama that affected sierra leone, liberia and guinea that we did not have the adequate instrument and we had to repurpose resources. we will, in addition to that, explore the potential to increase access to imf resources for our poorest members.

second core area policy advice and analysis. we will continue to help our members with essential support for what very often the low-income countries need badly. domestic resource mobilization. capital market development, and where it exists deepening. in addition, we will push further on macro critical issues, some that people have considered a little bit on the side of our core business. but which are becoming core business and matter enormously. i'm here thinking about the role of inequality and excessive inequality. the role of women in the economy and their contribution to the labor market. the energy subsidy reforms where we have extensively now published and given some very practical set of recommendations using a range ever countries that have actually either succeeded or failed.

and carbon taxation. which is a very interesting proposition. and we all know that the time is right to price it right. and if we do that it can help us get it right on climate change. third, and last, core business area is capacity building and technical assistance. and here we are expanding services including through nine regional technical assistance centers and seven regional training centers located in africa, asia and the middle east. and what's more, we have embarked on massive online open courses, moocs, which already have 10,000 active participants and already 4,500 graduates in courses as complicated as for instance debt sustainability analysis. removing energy subsidies. as i said, we can only get it

right if we work together. this applies to all the areas that i have touched on. from stronger growth today to to better growth tomorrow. from the more resilient monetary system to a more row bust international system from the world we live in today to maybe a better world we'll help build. success will require a recommitment to the principals of international corporation that have served us well for the last 70 years and in particularly in moments of crisis. this is urgently needed to boost growth and generate confidence in our common future. wouldn't it be nice if a year from now i might come back, if a year from now instead of rejoicing in the aiib and the

new belt out there we could also celebrate the tpp. the ttip the reform. a strong green fund with good governments. these are the changes we have ahead of us. so i begin this morning with a great one. winston churchhill once said i never worry about action only inaction. we can and we must lift better growth today and tomorrow. thank you. [ applause ]

>> thank you so much for that very important speech and also that not entirely convincing british access and i failed to mention the synchronized swimming. i once read as i was doing my research that you were a french tour guide at prison. there is so much meat in that to follow up on and we have a brief 15 minutes here to follow up. let me try to go through some of it where i think we need to drill down further. first of all, did the greeks repay their loan? >> yes i've got my money back. >> good. you met with the greek finances minister last weekend this week he was in moscow.

i would like to ask you two questions. what do the next steps look like and perhaps you can put that in the overall context of how resilient you believe the euro zone is economically and structurally. you see the prices the quantitative easying and the reduction of the euros value all helping. you also point to forms that haven't been done, et cetera. is there a light at the end of the tunnel or an oncoming train. >> let me take the second part of your question first and i'll touch on the first part as well. you write, i think that the eurozone has the benefit of three shots in the arm, actually. that moment which is actually rare in economy history for excellence especially one that large is really a moment, a window of opportunities when

countries that have not yet conducted the reforms that have started conducting the reforms have to actually get on with it because they have the benefit of low oil prices. very low cost of financing. we see on the second markets negative rates even for reasonably medium bonds. and the ones to kick start the economy. with these three factors if they don't do reforms now it's to despair. i hope thai going to continue the process. some of them have started and others i hope will continue. one thing i would like to add as well is since some three years ago when we were both talking about those issues and the risks on the horizon, the euro area as a monetary zone has strengthened and built a european systemic

fund to protect itself which is endowed with 500 billion euros. it has reinforced its fiscal union. it has built a banking union and of course, it can do more and better but it is a lot stronger than it was three years ago. which takes me to the first part of your question. what is now badly needed? it's not to talk but it's to actually get on with the work and greece authorities together with the representatives of the three institutions as we call them now have to really sit down and go through the work and focus on the objective of what is intended for the better for greece which is restoring the economy, stabilizing it and by so doing re-establishing and reinforcing the sovereignty of

the country. we are in part completely committed including on weekends wherefore to actually help the authorities navigate through the measures that will actually deliver on the objectives of the program while respecting some of the made during the course of the political cycle. it's a difficult path but it's one that has to be worked and which will just improve the situation. >> thank you for that. let's talk a little bit about your new mediocre. you've coined this term. it's a great term. we must prevent the new mediocre from being the new reality you

said. you then talk about the bottom line. the risk to global financial stability is rising. it's not a comfortable place with respect to financial stability. is the new mediocre another term for secular stagnation? is this what you're worried about and is that what we're facing with the world economy facing a low period of growth. what impact will that have on security and stability? how great is your worry about that? >> i think it's distant from the stagnation borrowed by larry summons. i think it's different because my concept of the low mediocre the new mediocre is that we can get out of it. it's not something that is intended or that we risk seeing for long period of time. if the measures that i have identified earlier are taken,

all tools used on the macro economic front, all space made available utilized, any financial stability is strengthened and if structural reforms can be implemented, each specific based on country's characteristics and needs, then we will not be in that new mediocre but it's a risk that is there which is i believe e potential for growth has been effected by the three factors that i mentioned. the scars of the crisis, the aging of population and particularly in the advanced economies but some emerging market economies and the fact that productivity is not where it should be. >> so i think that's a very good differentiation where secular stagnation may be a description of a case that's unchangeable

and new mediocre is a warning you're trying to avoid. >> yes. >> let me get to the issues and let me put together the issues of the asian infrastructure investigatement bank and the 2010 quota and government reform. you describe the establishment of infrastructure as a massive opportunity. that said larry summers, a member of our international advisory board we mentioned him this week, called the u.s. approach to the aaib a failure of strategy and tactics and said quote, this past month may be remembered as the moment the united states lost its roll as the under writer of the global economic system. >> if he was right, i think the best response to that is to ratify the reform of the imf. [ applause ] >> you finished my sentence. usually i just steal your ideas.

this time you finished my sentence. that is really what i was getting at. number one, does the formation of the aaib in some way signal reality? in that context, do talk a little bit more in depth of this reform. is the u.s. undermining this roll? >> you know, i think that the asian infrastructure investment bank was part of a broader project by the chinese authorities to actually development growth and building structure project and stimulate growth and economic activities with many neighbors along the old silk road and down the road. it wasn't a huge structure if i

may say but it was part of thinking along the lines of we need to develop broader and there are countries along the way pointing towards europe that will actually benefit from that and so will our internal manufacturing infrastructure. i think it has been elevated a bit because of the general context in which that bank has been set up as of march 31st. but it's a great nicheinitiative in the sense that its broad spectrum. it reflects the transformation of the global economy with new key players and it embraces a regional approach which could actually be extreme for economies that matter more and more today than they did a few years back. it's both, i think it is part of

something which is broader and it really reflects a new landscape for the global economy. now, what can the united states do to reinforce its natural leadership roll in the global economy as well as in the international monetary scene? this effectively to ratify a reform which is a government. it gives a built more space to the likes of emerging markets and under represented countries. a bit more space at the table. it reduces space of the europeans which has been probably excessive relative to their size in the global economy. you rebalance a bit more

emerging market economies. you double the quotas which doesn't have any implications. the new arrangements have been earmarked and are in the united states budget. some of it has to be put into the form of quota which gives an institution more stability. so doubling the quota which gives more financial resources if and when a crisis occurs. that's pretty much what it is. so the united states does include its veto right in the institution and continues to be the key shareholder and member states of the imf and it takes zero financial risk. so i think it's a no brainer. >> let me ask one more question that you touched on john kerry's sec riretary of state is here next week with us really

launching a campaign around these trade issues and we are particularly highlighting the gee geostrategic political issues. instead of focussing on all the games, look at the other side. what happens is there a down side if it doesn't happen? if we get to the end of the administration and there's no trade motion authority and no ttip no imf reform ratification, what instead of saying everything we would gain, what happens if none of that goes through? which could be an outcome. it is a possible outcome. >> i'll put my corporate hut for a second. i'm a big u.s. corporate and i want to invest. i know there's a massive growing market out there in the east and if there's no facilitation of trade and no better tariff

arrangements and no more alignment of standards around the world, instead of necessarily investing in the united states of america i'm going to look at other investment opportunities and probably invest where there are very serious growing markets. either in terms of purchasing powers or in terms of population. i always think of mr. hienken when he was investing around the world. he was looking where there was a lot of light. he knew that's where people would buy and drink beer. big corporates that's what they do. if there's no facilitation, no lowering of the barriers, you have to be everywhere to expand and invest oout side. to those who are going to reduce employment it's going to be bad for labor, i don't think so. i really don't. >> so let me just take one question. i'm story that we really have

run out of time. i'm looking for. >> it's my fault. i spoke too long. >> >>, it was a brilliant speech. >> hello robert with international investor. madame director u.s. dollars at an all time high we're seeing the growth of indebtedness and much of it held in u.s. dollars. if interest rates rise here, that problem could be exacerbated. are you concerned it could create a crisis with any of the world's currencies? >> i'm sure you listened very carefully to the risks that i tried to identify and that's the one that i have flagged together with the persistently low interest rates which causes another type of risk. clearly, the exchange rate and currency risks and the

volatility that it creates is one of those rising risks also migrating risk as we call it because it is probably going to effect more some of the emerging markets economies and particularly the corporates in those economies that have actually borrowed in u.s. dollars or pegged currencies because it's not just u.s. dollars dollars. that's where we see the potential origin be significant. >> thank you for that. >> and as you rightly said it's by the rise of interest rates like the end of the year. >> so thank you, madame. thank you on behalf of the audience. i ask people to stay in their seats for a couple of minutes. i know you have to get to another meeting outside here.

this was a great terrific conversation. wonderful speech. i am going to hold you to what was on the podium. we'll get you back a year from now. we'll see how we've done and really look forward to having you back. >> i have something. i'm absolutely coming back if we can celebrate the ttp the ttip and the imf reform. [ applause ] >> coming up tomorrow here on cspan3, u.s. ambassador samantha power appears before the house

subcommittee. our live korjconch gets underway at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> were you a fan of cspan's first lady's series? looking inside the personal life of every first lady in american history based on original interviews with more than 50 historians and biographers learn details of all 45 fistrst ladies. the book, first ladies presidential historians on the lives of 45 iconic american women provides lively stories of these fascinating women who provide the scrutiny of the white house sometimes at great cost while supporting their families and husbands. it's entertaining and inspiring read and is now available as a hard cover or an e-book through your favorite bookstore or online book seller.

next, immigration and customs enforcement director sarah saldona. this house judiciary committee is an hour and 25 minutes. >> good morning. the judiciary committee will come to order. without objection the chair has declared to have recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing to immigration and customs enforcement. i'll begin by recognizing myself as an opening statement. as the obama administration shin apprehensions have decreased 40% since this time last year. criminal aliens declined 32%

compared to this time last year. the average daily population of aliens in detention facilities has declined to 26,000 beds. this has occurred despite a mandate in law that requires ice to man take a 34,000 average daily population in detention facilities. the number of unlawful or where will aliens ice has removed from the interior of the country has fallen by more than half. many factors contributed to the sharp decline under this administration including the collapse of issuance because of the policy issued on december 21, 2014, that limits the ability to issue retainers. the failure to attend the failure authority. the new enforcement priorities announced by secretary johnson

on november 20, 2014 and the secure communities program on this same date. detainers are a key tool used by ice. they are notices issued by ice and other units that ask local state and federal law enforcement agencyies not to release aliens held at their facilities in order to give ice an opportunity to take them into its custody and put them in removal proceedings. due to the detainer debok l, they must wake up at early hours in the morning and put their lives at risk and go out in the community to convict aliens that have been released on the streets. director you yourself are part of the confusion. you testify before congress one day stating containers must be made mandatory and the next day restrakted your testimony. when aliens released on to the

streets go on to commit additional crimes yet could have been placed in ice custody, this administration is responsible. from january 1, 201 to september 30, 2014, over 10,000 retainers were not honored. the rate was 29%. innocent citizens and law enforcement officers could be injured, ma'amed or murdered due to a detainer not being issued or honor because of the this administration's policies. the administration is responsible and will be held accountable. when president obama announced the changes with a wave of his pen and cell phone on november 20, 2014, he indicated that he would allow millions of unlawful and criminal aliens to invade immigration inforcement. he did this with the issuance of the so-called immigrations and custom enforcement priorities

for the apprehension and removal of aliens. under the new enforcement priorities, broad categories of unlawful and criminal aliens will be beyond the reach of the law even if they don't qualify for the president's unconstitutional legalization programs. this means that millions of removalable aliens remain in the u.s. without any risk of removal. simultaneously president obama effectively announced the end of secure communities despite the fact the president claims he took action against criminal aliens he is scrapping a tool that identifies criminal aliens booked in jails across the united states so that federal law enforcement officials can prioritize their removal, secure communities created in 2008 was a simple and highly successful program to identify aliens in jail. it protected american saids and

immigrants alike. as ice said on numerous occasions secure communities simply uses an already existing federal information sharing partnership between ice and the federal burreau of investigation that helps identify criminal aliens so ice can take enforcement action. as of august 2014 the administration indicated over 375,000 convicted aliens were removed as a result of secure communities. we learned in addition to releasing 36,000 convicted criminal aliens in fiscal year 2013, ice released 30,558 criminal aliens in fiscal year 2014 pursuant to its so-called priorities. the agency released thousands of criminal aliens convicted of offenses involving dangerous drugs, assault and domestic violence. stolen vehicles robbery, sexual

offenses kidnapping volunteer manslaughter and homicide. 27% of the aliens released were so-called level ones according to the administration the worst of the worst. ice's first duty and highest obligation is public safety. the actions of this administration demonstrate the lack of desire to force the law even against unlawful aliens convicted of serious crimes. i can only hope as the new director of ice you'll reconsider these policies and return ice to an agency that put public safety and the enforcement of our immigration laws as its number one concern. it's now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of immigration and border subcommittee, the woman from california for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today's hearing is our first opportunity as a committee to

speak with the honorable sarah saldona. the job the director took on at the end of last year is a difficult one. i think we can all agree on that point. i look forward to how she approaches the challenge. one of responsibilities she carries out at eyes is implement implementingimplement implementingimplement implementing a reinforcement issued in november by secretary johnson. these grew out after a directive issue last march by president obama when he asked secretary johnson to do an inventory of the department's current practices to see how he conducts enforcement more humanely. i believe the memoranda con represents the sec secretary's

best efforts. these did not take place overnight and were developed to take care of a problem we observed other many years. ice officials regularly conducted raids targeting people living and working in the done there without authorizization and pose no threat to national security. half of the people imported by ice had never been convicted of a crime or had been convicted of immigration or traffic offenses. many helping to grow economy or put food on the table while supporting their own american spouses or children. now, the bush administration began to shift away from that unfocussed style and enforcement in the final years and this administration has sought to continue the trend because earlier efforts fell short secretary johnson's november memo policies for the

apprehension detention and removal of undocumented immigrants hones in more carefully on the department's top three civil immigration enforcement priorities. not only for persons who fallout side the priorities but for persons who appear to be priorities but who have compelling circumstances when making enforcement decisions the memb row directs immigration officials to consider individual circumstances such as the length of time the person has lived in the united states, military service, number of years that have passed since an offense leading to a conviction. family or community ties and other compelling humane tarn factors such as poor health, age, pregnancy or young children. the memoranda makes clear the situation should be based on the

circumstances. given the limited resources it makes sense to focus on persons who pose a threat to national security or public safety before we turn our attention to people who lived in the country for years. so i hope we will hear today about what the agency is doing to ensure that the totality of the circumstances is considered in each case. i'm concerned about reports that i continue to receive about inforcement actions being taken against people who appear to go candidates for discretion. the well publicized case of the pastor from iowa is one such case. all though his 17 year old conviction for driving while intoxicated undoubtedly counts as a significant misdemeanor and un undoubtedly places him in the category, the extended length of time since that offense is for the children his marnl to a

beneficiary in his years of service in congregation appeared to make him an ideal candidate yet he was deported last month. the memoranda also explains detention resources should not be used for persons known to be suffering from serious or mental illness, disabled, pregnant or elderly or whose detention is not in the public interest. when i talk about these issues, i'm always reminded of francis koe who testified before the subcommittee four months before he died from cancer that went untreated for 11 months while he was in custody. i was reminded of him again when i read an article about a detain

detainnydetain detainee. i also believe it is difficult to scare the language and the memb roo memo. eight, nine, ten months even after they have established incredible or reasonable fear of persecution. in resent months we received reports about the detention of a child with brain cancer a mother with ovarian cancer, a mother with a congenital brain disorder and a 15 day old baby held with its postpartum mother. family detention facilities has not been a good one. when the corrections corporation of america received a contract to convert a medium security prison, the results were awful. after litigation, congressional oversite and sustained outrage

families were moved out of the facility. i'm concerned we are today making the same mistake we made then and on a larger scale. finally, i think secretary johnson announced the communities. the program was based on misrepresentation, the federal, state and local officialsg me became unpopular when it became clear it was being used to apprehend and remove noncriminals and that process begins with regaining the trust of immigrant communities. i believe the dhs memoranda issues in november put us on the right track and i look towardforward

to working with the director. mr. chairman i would like to ask unanimous consent to put two things in the record one a letter from we belong together and also the appropriations language that does not specify 30 40,000 people in detention. it says the department should maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds. that's not people but beds. i think we need to make clear what the statute requires. i would ask to put both of those in the record. >> the time has expired. with that objection the request will be grabtnted and i would like to place in the record criminal convictions broken down ice released in 2014. a break down associated with the 20457 releases in 2014 and the

enforcement and remofl opval operations for march march 29th-april 4, 2015. the chair now is pleased to recognize the chairman of the immigration and border security subcommittee subcommittee, the general from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as we approach this, we are wise to keep in mind the primary duty of government, at least in my judgment, security and protection of the american people immigration and customs enforcement is to keep from fulfilling that duty. we entrust him with the enforcement of the immigration laws. in fact, on the website it reads enforcement enforces federal laws boarding control and custom trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety given the commission and trusted to ice we take the

oversite of the agent seriously and the work has an immense impact on the people we work for. internally, ice has been played and tied for dead last and the best places to work. one would have to ask himself or herself even and excepted the challenges, why is morale that low? could it possibly be that women and men who signed up to enforce the law are now being asked not to? we also know there's a deep deficit of trust among our fellow americans with regarded immigration system. for years they have been promised on immigration system that works in the secure of order and those promises have not been kept by the party. decisions by administrations from both parties to selectively enforce our immigration laws have had a negative effect on the system such as the case any time one selectively enforces the law and you would think that

we would have learned that lesson by now and apparently we would not. last year president obama declared almost 5 million undocumented aliens receive action under some definition of discretion. more over, using it as a license to rewrite the law, he also conferred benefits on these same people. so mr. chairman, i want people to just understand this. the decision to avoid the application of consequences through discretion is very different from the affirmative decision to conifer benefits on the same class or group. those are two different concepts. one, it can easily be argued on a case by case basis and the other conferring of benefits is a political calculation without much grounding, if at all in the

wall. mr. chairman folks may like the president's policy, they may wish the policy were the law but one person does not make law in a republic. we should take heed those who benefit from the nonapplication of the law today will be crying out for the full application of the law tomorrow. such as the nature of the law once it is eroded you do not restore it without great consequence. in fact, the president himself agreed with that and said i quote, the notion that i could just suspend deportation through executive orders is not the case. he told us time and time again he also reminded us he was not a king. his position may have changed but the constitution has not. discretion is real and valid but it is not a synonym for anarchy. as u.s. district court judge andrew wrote in his resent

opinion, dhs does have the discretion in the manner in which it if youfulfills congress. it actively moves the fork down. in effect, the administration has asked ice officer toss stop enforcing entire cot goirs of our immigration law. not only that, but under the current administrations new enforcement priorities millions are not even eligible from the am nisty simply remain in the u.s. and violation of the law without fear of enforcement and mr. chairman you have touched upon the detainer issue and i'll look forward into going into that in more question. i welcome the new director who's a former u.s. attorney and i told anyone whose had that title but i am interested in hearing because of her unique background, i want to hear her address the limitations on the

discretion. i would like to hear the new director explain why the president said it could be applied in all categories of the law. i am eager to hear her address in the numberer of aliens and what is being done on the front end to reduce the chances of that happening. i am interested in hearing in particularity what she's going to do to restore morale and pride. the folks i talked to would pick another agency or even another line of work that i would yield back. >> thanks. now please recognize the ranking committee from michigan for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman. i want to add my welcome to director sarah saldona and her

first appearance before the house judiciary committee. we're advised with great experience. you've also worked at the equal employment opportunities commission. the department of labor. what a background. i'm confident that you will be an exceptional leader, the largest investigative agency within the department of homeland security. now, this presents enormous

challenges but also opportunities and we're looking to hear from you on that account. now, the director comes to the agency at a time of renewed focus. last march president obama directed the secretary of homeland security jay johnson to review our immigration enforcement policies to ensure we are carrying them out in the most humane way possible. in november the secretary announced a series after common sense reforms. to not only ensure that our laws are enforced in a humane way but also that limited resources are focussed on enhancing the safety. secretary johnson issued a

memorandum identifying three categories of forces as department wide priorities for enforcement. the top priority include people who pose a threat to national security border security and public safety. notably, these priorities mean the agency will focus resources on deporting fe lonlons before raiding kitchens and fields. focussing limited agency resources on deporting criminals rather than families is simply good sub lickpublic policy. the memo explains enforcement should be done in a sensible manner that takes into consideration the totality of the circumstances in deciding

whether to exercise the discretion in a given case, immigration officials should consider factors such as the circumstances surrounding the conviction, the length of time that is passed since an offense was committed and the deep ties a person may have in this country. this is a humane approach that ensures enforcement efforts are focussed on the worst offenders in our society and not on individuals with strong community ties and compelling circumstances. i support this approach. the director comes to the agency at a time of some uncertainty. they have been preliminary holted. deferred action by parents and

unlawful permanent residents and expanse pangs expansions to childhood arrivals. the court was cleared its decision had no effect on the memorandum that set enforcement priorities and provided guide answer answer guy dense. it's important for ice to communicate clearly they intend to use the discretion in a sensible manner and as directed by the secretary. as always, actions ultimately speak louder than words and finally, as i've noted before, the administrations use of discretion does not on solve the congress of its responsible to

pass the immigration reform. top to bottom reform of our broken immigration system can only be accomplished through bold legislative action. it's time for us the congress to start doing its job. i thank the chairman. >> thank you, mr. conniers. we welcome our distinguished witness today and if you will rise i'll swear you in. do you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. let the witness reflect the witness responded in the affirmative. miss sarah r.saldona is tapped with overseeing the enforcement of more than 400 federal statutes and combatting the

illegal missouri illegal movement of people and trade. prior to becoming the director of ice she served as the attorney for the northern district of texas. before joining the department of justice she worked in private practice and at the equal employment opportunity and housing and development under the department of labor. she graduated from texas ami. before you begin your testimony, i want to take a moment to thank you and your staff for the good work that has been done in helping us prepare for this hearing. the homeland security investigations, the inforcement, and removal operations and individuals in ice's front office who communicated with the committee ahead of the hearing and provided responsive information to some of our substantial request, this type

of communication and coordination is new in our experience with your agency in resent years and i hope that it continues and i thank you very much for your efforts when i met with you a few weeks ago you committed to working closely with the congress and you have fulfilled that in answering our request for preparation for the hearing. your written statement will be entered into the record and i ask you sum rides your testimony within the five minutes or less. when the light switches from green to yellow you have one minute to conclude your testimony. director saldona, welcome. >> thank you, so much. you are right. this is my first appearance before this committee and also with respect to my prior service as the united states attorney for the northern district texas duty that i have undertook and

am very proud of. in that period of time i was the united states attorney i had the great privilege of working with both homeland security investigation, hsi agents, a couple of whom are here today and with the enforcement and removal operation folks with respect to removals and the need for federal intervention in connection with some of those. during that time i personally observed the dedication, commitment hard work of the women and men and customs inforcement all through the ranks. deportation officers, international support staffs, attorneys, all of them working hard to keep our homelands safe. as was mentioned earlier ice

does have over 400 laws. in my work as the united states attorney, somebody stopped counting at 3,000. that united states attorneys enforced a difficult challenge to have so many statutes but we're up to that. refer to that as an opportunity representative conniers, i believe you did. i consider it a privilege. i appreciate the importance of this mission. i ensure you i know as you do that having a productive and collaborative relationship with you and the committees of congress is essential for us to work together to meet the responsibilities the american republic expects. my goals are enhance cyber security and focus removals on the highest priority individuals who threaten our communities to improve morale within the workforce as representative

pointed out. for today's hearings let me provide an overview of what ice does. a little bit of a highlight with respect to our accomplishments and challenges. in e.r.o., there are two parts to ice principally besides the lawyers. we've got enforcement removal and homeland security investigations. in e.r.o. we have law enforcement officers who go about the business removing apprehending and the greatest risk to the american public. in carrying out this responsible they have a wide array of important responsibilities including operating isis detention facilities or making arrangements for transportation across the world in removing individuals from the united states and training travel documents from other countries with all kinds of requirements connected to them.

e.r.i. works closely to sister agencies custom border protection and citizenship and immigration services all within homeland. h.s.i., on the other hand, focuses on criminal international, criminal investigations. anything dealing with illegal movement of people and things in and out and within the country for that matter. while e.r.o. enforces legalization, we focus on the aspects. that's the area where i dealt mostly as united states attorney. a couple of words on our successes and this isn't the end of the story this is the beginning of it. i look forward to reporting better results in the future. removed nearly 316,000 individuals unlawfully present in the united states in 2014. more than 102,000 were apprehended in the interior of the united states and perhaps more importantly 85% of those

were immigrants previously convicted of a criminal offense. this demonstrates renewed focus on the worst criminals convicted fe lons gang members and other threats to our national security. that number 85% of immigrants convicted of a criminal offense is at an 18% increase over prior years, 2011 in particular. h.s.i. the investigative arm arrested more than 32,000 criminals and seized more than 1.3 million pounds of narcotics, 35,000 weapons and 772 million clars dollars in currency. the challenges you know about last summer and the influx of overwhelming and unexpected influx of families and unaccompanied children. certainly, ice. ice in fact had to sign about

800 persons out to the rio grand valley prices and obviously that takes time away from the work you do day-to-day. secondly, the dramatic increase in the number of jurisdictions you all referred to earlier with respect to our detainers, last calender year almost 12,000 detainer request from ice were not honored by state and local jurisdictions. one of my priorities is to reverse that trend. to that end we're implementing the priority inforcement program p.e.p. as its known. let me say, chairman, i terribly regret if i have added to the refusion with respect to detainers detainers. i believe, i want to be sure everyone understands i am committed to priority inforcement program that the secretary has directed us to

inforce. finally, of course, is the change in the demographics of the community. people coming from south america takes more resources more time more people. greater challenges rather than to mexico or canada. my first months as director have been full not only in becoming familiar with the challenges and agencies but plans to address all the challenges. like so many of you, i left my family, freebds and great state of texas in which i lived all my life to come to the district of columbia to participate with you all in an effort to bring some rationality to this very important mission of ice. that is the only reason i'm here. it's not for the glory and the big bucks. i will tell you i need your help to accomplish that goal and move

this agency forward in that regard. i ask for your help in doing so. i welcome your questions. >> thank you, director. i'll start and start with some briefs and quotes, one by the president and one by you i find disturbs. you just illuded to one a moment ago. first the president recently at a town hall stated regarding the new d.h.s. enforcement priorities that the bottom line is that if somebody is working for ice and there's a policy and they don't follow the policy, they're going to be consequences to it and the he aal apologized it to the u.s. military. ice officers are required to enforce the laws that congress enacts. do you agree with that? >> absolutely. >> please explain to the committee the type of consequences ice officers may face if they do not execute the new policies which in instances

contradict those laws. don't you think an ice officer hearing threats from the president would be scared to enforce the law? >> i give them more credit than that, mr. chairman. i will tell you that with respect to enforcement of any policy to the department of immigration customs or reinforcement new or old certainly as you do with your staff we expect compliance with that policy. >> if they detain somebody who doesn't meet those priorities but is in violation of the law are they going to be punished for doing that? >> the word is not punished sir, it's enforcing the law. >> contradictory to the president's policies says don't enforce the law in regard of certain people. >> it's not my view. the executive action. >> you said it. not me. >> that is not my view of the president's policies. they're directed in a very rational way.

i mentioned earlier. >> right. the point is the law incompasses for more legal activity. i want to know what happens to an ice agent may have been working for the tajt agency for years and followed the law and upheld the law and obtained somebody whose not. what's going to happen to that ice agent under those circumstance sns. >> let me tell you, sir. you mentioned something to the full extent of the law and the constitution does require us to feel executed. part of that in our view and the experience in the united states attorney, i mentioned 3,000 laws when i started counting i could not enforce those laws but i could actually make priorities within my office and did. >> you're not answering my question. let me go on to one that involves a statement made by

you. you testified before the committee on march 19th expressing your support for mandatory detainers. the very next day you retracted that statement made under oath and called mandatory detainers highly counter productive. in 2014 local jurisdictions declined approximately 12,000 detainers. so far in 2015 there have been approximately 3,000 detainer denials. there are now more than 200 jurisdictions that refuse to honor ice detainers effectively releasing criminal aliens on our streets. while you flip flop before congress and the american people, ice officers go out into the community and conduct at large operations in order to op relend released criminal aliens. it makes their job much much harder, right instead of just going to the jail and getting the detained alien and putting him through the deportation process, they'll go out and find

them and apprehend them under dangerous circumstances. it puts their lives at risk, threatens public safety and threatens issues a transfer would have occurred. this is a problem. and your solution, the administration's solution is a failure. isn't the clear answer to this problem a requirement for everyone to honor isis detainer authority? and authority that keeps our communities and our law enforcement officers safe. >> that authority is being challenged in court sir. there's lawsuits across the country on that very issue. >> why hasn't your agency and the department of justice and department of homeland security defended those lawsuits? why haven't you taken position to say yes the detainers need

to be honored? >> i will tell that you i have the same concern you do sir. public safety of our officers is paramount in my estimate. i went on crosscheck back in february wearing a bullet-proof vest there to watch the operation in practice where we're actually trying to reach out and find criminal undocumented immigrants. i am very concerned about the risks they face. but i will tell you that i believe that the program if, we give it a chance i do regret that confusion i caused with respect to my statement. the only reason for the statement the following day was because i had been asked whether it would help law enforcement and let me tell you sir, i do my reaction was focused on that. what helps law enforcement? >> right. >> but i am committed to pep. i'm committed to asking communities to assist us. i'm committed to persuade them

that the best thing for the safety of their own communities is to cooperate with the united states and the effort to enforce the immigration laws in accordance with the president's priorities. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, you make me feel more comfortable now that we've read and listened to your performance here before the house judiciary committee. three things i wanted to bring to your attention and get your comments on. one is the idea that the memorandum was not affected by the court's ruling and that ice intends to fully implement the

secretary's memorandum. could you comment on that? >> i believe what you're referring to congressman is the fact that there is a ruling that stops, calls to a halt expanded doca and the new doca program. all the agencies to myth in, c th inmy knowledge are complying with that ruling. it will make its way through the appellate courts. it did affect november 20th enunciation of our priorities by the secretary and n. which we clearly implemented to our people. they have put out in the field substantial training on this, sir. every officer uses one the cards that clearly outlines the priorities. they carry it with them. i quite frankly, i carry it myself. and i try to make sure that each

of these priorities both with respect to the first -- the first one is outlined in the front. the second and third on the back. again, trying to make it an effort to clarify for law enforcement where our priorities should be. >> what steps is i.c.e. continuing to ensure that persons that are not a priority for removal are not targeted for enforcement actions or are not inadvertently swept up in enforcement actions? >> one of the steps is training. we just completed it in january. it was the initiation kickoff of the executive actions. it includes the priorities. i have net with everyone of the

field office directors in the entire country by video. i have directed them if they have any questions they are to raise it up the chain and ultimately to me who bears the ultimate responsibility with respect to the appropriate enforcement. that was the kind of spectrum. i also met with our lawyers. there are about 900 of them across the country who work with the immigration courts in order to ensure in their review of the priorities and people that have been targeted for enforcement that we're complying with the priorities. >> very good. let me ask this question about some reports that have come to our attention about mothers and children and family detention. there is a memo draflted by the

secretary explaining field officers and directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are suffering from serious and physical and mental illness n light of this memo, how if you know does i.c.e. justify detaining mothers and children with such serious physical or mental illnesses? >> i think you're also aware representative, of the injunction that was imposed by the washington, d.c. court with respect to the detention of families and not to use deterence as a factor. every one of those families, just like others, is afforded the opportunities provided by law with respect to seeking asylum, seeking some relief from the united states with respect to their presence here. i will say, i've met with the secretary many times discussing

this very same subject. i just met on thursday of last week with religious leaders from all sectors of the religious community who express very serious concerns about detention of families and children. we're doing our best. i know the secretary considered it. i know that we have released with respect to that injunction quite a few of these families. some of them continue because they cannot meet a detention bond. but it's something that has been well considered by the secretary and for now we're going to hold with respect to particularly new entrance, sir, which is part of the priorities. >> madam director i thank you for your candid responses. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. smith for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. director, a recent public opinion poll apparently shows that the american people

repudiate president obama's policies. this was a national survey a few days ago that found that 62% of the american people believe the administration is not doing enough to deport illegal immigrants. this is up ten points if a year ago. i think this is the american people's response to the president's executive amnesty orders. contrary to what the american people want, it appears that deportations are down again this year. i think there were only 100,000 from the interior. you said a while ago that about 85% or those that have been convicted of crimes. but that means that only about one out of 300 other illegal immigrants are going to be removed from our country. in my opinion, that is not enforcing immigration laws. in fact, it's ignoring immigration laws. furthermore, the administration

as you also mentioned, released about 30000 convicted illegal immigrants and allowed them to be returned to our communities. one quarter of these 30000 criminal aliens had been convicted of level one crimes such as murder rape, and sexual abuse of a minor. of those 30,000, only 8% were the latest cases. thousands could have been deported. why did you -- why did the administration intentionally endanger the lives of innocent americans by releasing thousands of criminal aliens into our neighborhoods? >> representative, i -- this is an area of great concern for me when i first started in january. >> if it's of great concern why did you do it? >> i would like to explain. >> sure. >> why we are moving forward as we are. we do not have a policy.

our decisions, whether they're detention decisions, bond decisions, release decisions are governed by several things. and often involve the courts. as you know and i think the chairman noted, about half in 2014 of the releases were a result of this and required us to release people out of the system. >> my statement was and you haven't contradicted it the administration is intentionally releasing thousands of individuals. these are convicted individuals of serious crimes back into our neighborhoods and our communities. it actually increased over the last year from the year before. why are you doing this to the american people? you know recidivism rate is high. you know the individuals are going to be convicted by the crime. why are you doing this to the american people? >> if i may answer sir. if i may complete my answer. what i am saying is let's make sure we're comparing apples to

apples. we're talking about 55% of those having been i.c.e. discretionary decisions which are the heart of your concern. >> i'm going to concede several thousand in that category. that still leaves thousands of people that should be deported in my opinion that are not being deported that are endangering innocent americans. again, why are you doing this? >> because the congress lays out due process, sir for every person that is detained. >> are you disagreeing? you are saying can you not deport these individuals? thousands of these individuals? >> i can not deport any individual without an order from the court. even an immigration court or federal court. >> if you saw that order, you would deport thousands with these individuals and they're not trying to do it. again, why not? >> we only make decisions with respect. you know the criminal justice system releases murders rapists, sexual assaulters every day when the federal judge decides. this person does not present a flight risk.

it is a danger to the community. >> director you're not giving the american people a good answer. i hope you come back with a better answer in the future. let me go to the next subject which is communities. you said in your testimony that one of the reasons that the administration terminated this is because local jurisdictions refuse to comply with it. now this is interesting. you don't feel that local jurisdictions want to comply with federal laws. they don't need to or you're going to not force them to do so. but have you ever challenged any of thee local jurisdictions to comply with the current federal law? let me read that you federal law real quickly. it says federal, state or local government may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity receiving from immigration service information

regardless of citizenship. >> representative smith i'm having difficulty hearing you. >> just take my word. current law says that local communities should be able to work together with local -- from local and federal officials to remove individuals. and you yourself said one reason you're not enforcing the law is because local communities fail to comply with it. why aren't you trying to enforce it? in what ways have you tried to force local communities to follow federal law? >> again that, is a subject of litigation you yourself just said should cooperate. >> what is the administration done to try to enforce current law in regard to this? >> we have met the secretary -- >> you haven't filed any lawsuit against any entity? >> i haven't filed any lawsuits. >> that's my point. why didn't you try to force them to comply with federal law? >> excuse me i'm sorry, representative. there are plenty of lawsuits out there still in the middle of litigation. i'm not going to get in the middle of those. >> i'm not asking you. to the administration has not done anything to try to enforce the current secure communities

law. you have any evidence of that? >> that comes as a surprise to me. i personally have been engaged in meeting with representatives. >> the administration has done the opposite. >> may i answer the question please? i really do want the american people to understand that i'm not sitting on my hands. i actually have gotten out to meet with the major city police chiefs, the major county sheriffs the california sheriffs in town a couple months ago and other jurisdictions to personally advise them of what the parameters of law, what we're trying to do to work with them. >> you said in your own testimony -- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> you said you weren't going to enforce the law. i'm so sorry that american people aren't getting good answers today. >> the chair recognizes the gentle woman from california. >> mr. chairman i just like to say it's disappointing that the witness, director was not going to give them an opportunity to answer the questions and i don't want to use all my time on mr.

smith's questions. but i will say that so far as i know, you can say yes or no, the fingerprints have taken into county detention facilities is still being received by the federal government and i.c.e. >> that has not changed. >> what has changed is the litigation and i'll use the state of california as an example. the state of california passed a law called the trust act that says that counties are not to deliver people who have not commit nod offense or a minor traffic offense of that sort. why is that? i mean in my own county, the board of supervisors decided that they will turn over individuals or hold if they're indemnified. why? because they can't lawfully hold somebody without probable cries that a crime has been committed. so what you've done is try and

fix that and -- >> and i've offered to you during our meeting -- i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. >> i have cough drops here. >> i do too. and i've offered during our meeting come and visit with your local officials and -- >> the point is you're being asked to violate court orders and you can't do that. that's correct? >> i'm here to enforce the law. >> that's correct. i want to talk about family detention. i know that you mentioned at the meeting that you had. but i am concerned. our policy that adopted in november basically says that we should prioritize felons not families. however, we have now increasing numbers of families not felons being held in detention centers. and i'm concerned about the contractor that is in charge of much of this.

i understand that there were women who were either on a hunger strike or a religious fast. i don't know how you want to -- at the karns county residential center. we observed and discusses the women that were put in medical isolation. some of these women have been held for six, seven eight months with their children. and in a declaration the dean explains the interviewed several families at the karns detention center and found that "detention has had serious and long lasting impacts on the health and well-being of the families i interviewed at karns."

so i'm just concerned. i want -- we don't have a pediatrician on site at karns nor at the facility in berks pennsylvania. we have over 100 children being de detained. we have evidence of adverse impacts on the well-being of the children that are being held in jail. i want to know what process we're going to use to review that. obviously, the court in d.c. issued an injunction which i know that you're complying with. but the problem is that the bonds have been set so high. if you're you know, basically an asylee from central america being held in prison for six, seven, eight months with your children, you don't have $10,000 to get out. so are we taking a look at alternatives to detention for people whose cases whose credible fear findings have

already been made? >> we certainly have looking at alternatives for detention. as you may well know, we have quite a few families on the program. it's essentially release but with some increased supervision. and we have enjoyed some success with that program. i will say that every decision congresswoman that we -- that our officers make and they use their best judgement. they're trained, they're snd to try to determine what the appropriate bond is once they say okay it should be reviewed. >> the community and, you know, we'll get to the bottom of it. i'd like to use remainder of my time to let you answer, mr. smith's question about who you're releasing. there's a decision and the other circumstances that require you to release.

the congress not this particular congress the congress laid forth due process for any individual whether they've come into our country illegally or not with respect to their claims for relief. the considerations -- the statute and the regulations themselves contemplate -- contemplate the release of the criminals because it says as one of the factors to consider in determining is the person's criminal history. how long ago was it? what was the severity of it? how extensive is it? those kinds of considerations. so even the congress has contemplated that some people were released and it's certainly part of it. >> so you're saying -- >> the agenda willwoman's time has expired. >> if i may have 30 seconds additional. >> without objection. >> if the judge orders an individual release that you comply with that order? >> i do. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you madam director for being here this morning. i.c.e. released 36,000 criminal aliens in 2013 and nearly 31,000 in 2014. manufacture us many of us are really shocked and consider this to be quite an appalling policy. you mentioned in your testimony that one of the new policies addressing this problem is a senior manager review of discretionary release for individuals convicted of crimes of violence. how is this an improvement? instead of allowing people in the field to make decisions you have a bureaucrat at headquarters and let's face it, they're oftentimes the folks in the field are already micromanaged by folks at the headquarters on decisions that agents oftentimes have to make in the field when they're facing

a situation which it's hard to know back at headquarters what they're actually dealing out there in real i.c.e. situations. and then ultimately approval the release of a violent criminal alien. shouldn't the policy response to i.c.e. releasing criminal violent aliens not to be to release violent criminal aliens? >> i have mentioned the due process requirements i talked about earlier. sir, the policy that i initiated is a response to this committee and every member of congress, i believe, to the release of criminal aliens. i myself have a concern. are we making the proper decisions? are we -- do we have a process in place to review those decisions? that's exactly what i announced back last month in march. that is, you will have a local supervisor, including the field office director the top person in the field reviewing the decision. you will also have a group -- a small group of very well seasoned managers who will

review decisions. i want to be sure that process is followed to ensure that we're not putting -- we're not as institutionally putting dangerous criminals on the street. so that's why i've asked for this additional review to satisfy myself and you all. >> to the extent possible i would encourage you to allow the experienced men and women that are actually on the street dealing with these life and death decisions sometimes to make those decisions if at all possible. let me move on to another area. while i appreciate the use of new technologies are potentially useful law enforcement tools, i do have some concerns with the department of homeland security's recent announcement that it's offering up a contract for companies to monitor people's license plates. in particular i'm concerned that government programs which track citizens' movements, capture images and collect data of oftentimes innocent americans raises serious privacy concerns.

dhs and your agency canceled similar plans for access to a national license plate tracking system. your agency's more recent request comes at a time when your agency failed to enforce current laws that has resulted in an 18% decrease in criminal alien removals and release of over 36,000 criminals as we've already discussed to some degree. why are we to believe that your agency will properly use this new license plate data and it can nolg when your agency has a track record of not enforceing u.s. immigration laws and the collection of a person's location on public and collected over time is sensitive information and should be treated as such. what assurances can you give that the personal information for most part innocent people because that's who will usually be attract us is people that have done nothing wrong and that

are citizens? how can we ensure their rights are protected and civil liberties maintained? >> i can speak for the public and myself, sir, given recent revelations. that is the very reason i wasn't here at the time. the decision was made to withdraw the bid. but it's my understanding that that's the very reason it is gone. it is given greater study. the information is hand ld properly. that privacy concerns be paramount. but i will tell you as again as an assistant united states attorney prosecuting cases with agents fbi, homeland security education agents from all federal agencies that the more information you have with respect to a person who is actually in the middle of an investigation, not the innocence, but in the middle of an investigation it is helpful to the investigation to have that. there are privacy concerns of

individuals and information we gathered. >> the fact that it's actually not being enforced by this administration. and we certainly hope that the administration will reconsider the way it's been enforcing the law. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas miss jackson lee for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, to the ranking member and thank you very much particularly for your service. this should be an outstanding and i'm very proud of you. glad to see you sitting before us and know that you bring a sense of knowledge and passion to this position. let me first of all indicate my precious for i.c.e. i worked with them over the years, if i might say, and find them to be commendable and to be

concerned about the security of this nation. i think that very important. you will find as you come to congress that there are the first amendment rights of members allow them to have different perspectives and views and also representing their constituents. and that is what this house represents, this committee represents, a democracy represents. but we also have an order of three branches of government and the responsibilities of the president and your responsibility and compliance with the guidelines of the administration. and so my first question to you is do you accept the concept of prosecutoral discretion? the mike please. >> i do. and i have for the last several years as an assistant united states attorney and the u.s. attorney. it's vital. i do know that there were aspects of the proposed executive action which my former

department, the department of justice opined about and carefully studied with respect to the entire scope of the request. and they made recommendations regarding parts of it that were not appropriate which were honored. >> were they ultimately -- >> and parts that were. so as i said earlier i could not, as united states attorney enforce every law in the books. it makes total sense. it is rational. to say we need to focus our resources. >> thank you. but my time short. i have to go on. with that premise then, i think it sure be very clear that the president court proceedings deal with the president's executive actions. is that your understanding? >> the ones in south texas have to do with doca. >> that's correct. and so they do not deal with the overall order or action regarding the use of prosecutoral discretion that ice can utilize?

>> that's true. i made that very clear. >> i think that's a very important point. i ask that you make that point over and over again. as i understand i'd like to read into the record under the humane enforcement policy deals with suspected terrorists, nag national security threats. two, persons convicted of three or four misdid he meanors other than traffic offenses predicate or immigration status. i'm reading quickly. priority three is persons issued a final order of removal after january 1st 2014. does that comply with the information you have? >> absolutely. >> let me ask these two questions. first of all i had a gentleman by the name of mr. alvarado he was detained in october 2014 to remove to honduras to february 2015. he lived in houston. he had lived here since 2005. he had a return in 2005 from honduras but came back.

he had no deportation to my understanding. he was driven by his wife and the car pulled over, put into customer dichlt married to a legal permanent rez denlt. he has a u.s. citizen child, stepchild, but he was deported. i think there is a disconnect between here and washington and the appropriate procedures that i.c.e. officers need to use. tell me what you're doing to make sure they are fully educated. the second question is can you tell me what you're doing to ensure that detention centers one i know and the san antonio area in texas are hospitable. there are families and children. let me start with the latter. the person that deals with the facility and they have not made the changes yet. i intend to. i observed for myself and that is the only way i satisfy for myself the things as they should

be. that are requirements and safety measures and humane treatment of folks that satisfy there. with respect to fully educating -- >> and miss alvarado's case. >> i can not kmenlts on a specific case. i continue to meet personally either by btc or personally with field office directors to make sure that these priorities are enforced equally and properly. on our website, we have a complaint process that if somebody has even a detainee has some concern that they've got a process to go through even up to -- i don't encourage this every day, but with respect to concerns that cannot be satisfied, they start locally and work themselves up. >> they can adhere to the fact that executive discretion does exist and they can raise this with the i.c.e. officers with their clients? >> yes, that's correct. i meet with the chief council, too, to make that clear. >> i yield back.

>> thank you. i thank the gentleman from mr. forbes. >> thank you for being here. as my colleague said, we hold you and n. high esteem for your expertise for serving in the u.s. attorney's office. and this committee works a lot on policy in trying to get policy correct. if i have an individual speeding on highways, should they be charged differently if they lived in the country longer than someone else or if they go to school here or if they have a job or if they are pregnant or if they have a serious health problem? >> should they be treated differently? no. that officers has discretion to give a ticket or not give a ticket. >> but should they be apprehended and charged the same.

>> do they have the discretion based upon whether or not someone is pregnant to give them a ticket or not? should they not give a ticket? >> no one should be treated differently in that. >> no one should be treated differently. and is in a a basic theory of law? >> yes. >> then tell me why that is different when you would suggest that you have prosecutorial discretion and i could enter a blanket order or regulation that would say anyone who was in the country longer or went to school here or had a job or were pregnant or had a serious health problem would be treated differently if they were speeding on a highway? i think you would object to that. let's get to another point. we have had testimony before this committee that as in some of our violent criminal gangs as many as 8 a%5% of the members are

here illegally. you would agree if someone was here illegally in this country and a member of a violent criminal gang that they should be apprehended and deported? >> yes, sir, and that's actually part of the law. >> so you would agree with that? so then with all the individuals the criminal aliens released in 2013 and 2014 can you tell me how many of those were members of violent criminal gangors members of criminal gangs at all? >> i can't off the top of my head. >> do you have that record? do you have that information? >> i am not sure, sir. i will -- >> but you're just telling me as the director of i.c.e. it is a priority to get violent criminal gang members out of the country. that is a top priority. yet you're telling me you don't know whether we have records of how many we released or did not release? >> there may be a way to do it manually, sir. >> that's not what i'm asking. you're coming in here today telling us that one of the top priorities you have is getting

criminal gang members out of the country. >> that's correct. >> but, yet you can't even tell this committee that you have the data to tell how many of them you released. >> i can't give that you number. i suspect manually one can make that search and give you -- >> but you don't know. >> off the top of my head i can't tell what you the number, is sir. >> madam director, i'm not asking for the number, do you have any way of even telling the individuals which you released in 2013, 2014 or releasing currently are members of criminal gangs? >> i believe so. but it may require a manual search. and a little time to come up with that number. >> do you -- but right now, you can't testify before this committee that is the director of i.c.e. you know whether you have a process of determining the criminal gang members that are being released by i.c.e. back into the streets of the united states of america? >> i believe that is the case except i would -- i believe it would require a manual search. we don't necessarily have the search. >> if you have the manual

search how would you search? >> the files. the files wouldn't necessarily be -- >> if i may fin sh my answer. >> the files -- we refer to them as an a file. it has all the immigration information of a particular undocumented. >> but you're looking back at a criminal record that may not show that they were convicted under a -- being a criminal gang member. do you have anything where you're asking the criminal aliens before being released if they were members of the criminal gang? >> we don't just rely on the answer of a particular undocumented immigrant. >> do you ask? >> we may ask and we will rely on our investigative resources to find that out sir. it's not just accepting the word of a person. >> can you tell this committee that you're at least asking? >> again i can't tell you in every case. >> madam director, my time has run up. it bothers me tremendously when as the director of i.c.e. you come in here and tell us one of your number one priorities, you

basically don't have a clue whether can you do it, you are doing it or how many you're releasing. and that's something that frightens all of us. and with that -- >> i believe i answered otherwise, sir. >> the record will show differently. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman. recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson for five minutes. >> thank you. ma'am, the karns county residential center is actually a privately run for profit detention center. is that correct? >> i believe so. >> and so it's actually the karns county detention center not the karns county residential center which sounds a whole lot nicer. but the karns county detention center has been accused of being a place where countless women have been raped by male guards. are you aware of those reports? >> i am aware of the allegations. i'm aware -- >> and also, as a residential center families are held in detention. and when i say families, i

basically mean women and their minor children. that's who's house that karns detention center, correct? >> yes. i'd like to provide you, sir -- >> i'll let you come back in just a second. they put in a medical isolation room, the child or her children are assigned to that room with her. isn't that a fact? >> are you talking about particular case? i'm not aware of that. >> generally. when a woman is assigned to a medical isolation room, her child would be assigned to that room? as per the reports that i'll put into the record at this point. the mothers and children allegedly locked in a dark room for protesting detention conditions and also that's a think progress article. and also for the record i'd like to tender a "new york times" magazine article entitled "a federal judge and a hunger

strike take on the government's immigration detention facility." >> without objection. >> and you're aware of those reports of hunger strike and the woman with the 11-year-old child who was placed into a medical isolation unit? >> in the assertion and "the new york times" article that there is barb wires at our family facilities which is not the case. >> in the medical isolation units, those units are the unit that this woman who had the 11-year-old child that was assigned to the room with her is a cell with a bed bolted to the wall and an open shower and an open toilet in that room. and it's basically a detention jail cell. isn't that correct? >> i'm not aware of that. >> you're not aware of that? >> i am not aware of that. >> would it trouble you to know that women and children because the mother participated in what's called a fast others called it a hunger strike, but

she participated in it and was assigned as a punitive measure to that medical isolation unit. would it trouble you? >> that something you also read out of "the new york times" article, sir? >> i received the information from republicans and democrats who actually took a visit within the last two weeks to that facility and spoke with the woman and the 11-year-old son. >> congressman, if that's a fact that disturbs me greatly. i'm happy to visit with you regarding a certain instance. i cannot go into the specific facts of individual cases. >> ma'am you have taken an oath. i'd like to ask you pursuant to that oath that would you supply me with the quarterly reports compiled by the detention monitoring council subcommittee per 7.5 subsection 7 of the