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 directive title review of the

use of segregation for i.c.e. detainees issued on september 4th 2013 as well as a list of all facilities designated for heightened review under section 7.5 subsection 5 of that directive? and also all surveys audits, reviews, memos or other reports by i.c.e., opr, i.c.e. odo, i.c.e., odpp, d.h.s. oig or rcl regarding one the use of segregation in ice facilities and the use of medical isolation cells in i.c.e. facilities? and also the full contents of the segregation review management system, the data base created by i.c.e. to monitor use of segregation following implementation of the directive? would you be willing to supply my office with those copies?

and i'll send you a written request. >> thank you very much. i stopped writing. i couldn't quite keep up. and included in that ig report i want to mention you to -- >> you will me with those? >> to the extent that they exist, i couldn't keep up with the entire list. but if you provide it in writing, i will run them down. included in that sir, is what i want to mention with you is the ig report on the karns sexual allegations that made an investigation and decided there was not sufficient evidence to support those allegations. but i'll include that. >> the gentleman's time expired. the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you, director for your testimony. i appreciate the chairman's remarks about cooperating with the committee prior to this hearing. i understand that you're in a difficult position in this job. i would note the irony that one side is angry when you enforce the law. the other side is angry when you don't enforce the law.

and so i have happen to be on the side of the latter. and i'm curious about if a few things here. i noticed in your written testimony that you have participated in high level discussions with mexican government officials discussing opportunities to more rapidly repatriate mexican nationals and then it goes on to the interesting part. i also met with government officials from hohn dur yas, guatemala and el salvador where each pledge to dour our part to stem the tide of the citizensst countries. i think we understand this which the what that all means. i'm curious on what you learned because we have passed legislation here in the house. i think a couple of times that would require those kind of negotiations to establish i think i'll use the term an expedited return for those unaccompanied alien juveniles to the noncontiguous countries that i mentioned are in your testimony. did you see a level of cooperation there that do you think it is possible to negotiate those terms of return for the juveniles?

>> actually, i think i mentioned in my written statement that we have actually in gooduatemala and honduras initiatives in which we have representatives of those countries here in order to expedite removal. >> is there anything in statute that prohibits us from doing that right now if we can reach that agreement? we don't have to wait for congress to tell you do we? >> i'm not waiting on it. we're discussing this, as i said. that's one of the things we did early on. >> whose decision is it then? can he issue a directive that we complete the negotiations and begin to return the aliens to their home countries? >> we're actually doing that now. we're negotiating. we're talking wooshgs we're working hard with them. >> does he have the authority toish u such an order? >> legal authority, sir i just haven't studied that question. >> okay. then are you aware of an agreement between guatemala and

mexico to provide for expedited transit for guatemalans on their way to illegally enter the united states and to grant in mexico that 72 hour transit permit? >> i believe there were discussions when i met with those countries in february to that effect. yes. >> and i recall a press release from a press conference held between the president of mexico and the president of guatemala who announced this agreement. i recall the president of mexico saying they hope to be able to complete such agreements also with el salvador and hohn dor as. has that come to your attention? >> it has yes. >> then i would ask then how do we consider them to be cooperative countries if they're cooperating with each other to expedite the removal of their own citizens across through mexico and illegally enter the united states. central americans from coming benefits the united states greatly. >> i agree with that.

>> but they're pier mittsermits for them to have trans it into mcallen texas. i call that contravening. are they talking out of both sides of their mouths or is there something i'm missing through the translation in the agreement? >> i can't say that. >> what i saw in honduras were sincere efforts to get the people back. first lady of gooduatemala looked at me closely and said please until we do, take care of our children. i took that to heart. because i think it was a sincere comment. that's what we try to do. >> we are taking care of their children. we're flying them from places like guatemala city into the united states now completing the human trafficking. i find it eye ronnic that just a year and a half ago as december of 2013 when judge wrote an opinion that there was a coyote who had smuggled a 10-year-old girl into the united states. they were interdikted. they prosecuted the coyotes for

human trafficking and ice delivered the 10-year-old girl to her birth mother in virginia and to quote from the opinion of the judge thus completing the crime of human trafficking by i.c.e. now we're doing it hundreds and thousands of times and buying plane tickets to do that. that's a bit breath taking to me. and i think it's got to be very difficult to take an oath to the oldest constitution and support the rule of law when you're watching above you and being subverted in the fashion that it is. >> sir, we also have a humane approach to the law in the united states. unlike many countries. that's why i'm so proud to be a member of this country. and as part of that we -- if there's a situation, i'm not particularly familiar with this one that you're talking about where a family is reunited and doesn't present a risk to public safety or a risk of flight then i agree with that approach. >> our policy reunited states them in their home country. thank you, i yield back. >> the gentleman from puerto

rico is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> good morning, director. welcome to the committee. understandably -- >> i like the way you say that. >> pardon me? >> i like how you say that. >> understandably a lot of the questions so far in this hearing have involved i.c.e.'s mission to enforce our immigration laws. i want to discuss i.c.e.'s equally important mission to disrupt and dismantle drug trafg trafficking organizations. i know they work in partnership with other dhs component agencies like ccp and the coast guard, doj agents like the fbi and dea and state and local law enforcement. you are an important player in a whole of government effort to combat drug trafficking and the violence associated with it. in january 2012 i met with your

predecessor. puerto rico just experienced the most violent year in the u.s. territories history. in 2011, there were 1,136 homicides in puerto rico. that is the equivalent of over three murders a day every day. it was roughly the same number of homicides as texas which has a population seven times greater than puerto rico's. as my colleagues can attest, having heard me question senior officials after senior official who have appeared as witnesses before this committee, i have been on a campaign since 2009 to persuade federal law enforcement agencies to increase the level of attention and resources that they dedicate to puerto rico so that these resources are commensurate with the threat. the reality was that the level of attention of resources.

are they efficient? and too often my constituents were owe prized with their lives. starting in late 2012 however, the tide began to turn under the leadership of secretary napolitano dhs agencies began to substantially increase the resources they assigned to puerto rico. for example, the coast guard hasmatically increased the counter drug operations around puerto rico and will completely replace the current fleet of cutters with faster, more modern vessels by mid 2016. moreover in, 2013, your agency, i.c.e., sent 30 additional agents to puerto rico where they arrested 900 violent criminals and seized a great deal of illegal narcotics and weapons. in addition, dhs assigned to a border enforcement security task

force and multiagency team of federal and local officials be signed to dismantle criminal organizations. furthermore, cdp repaired the counter drug raider system in southern puerto rico which had been destroyed in 2011. along with congressman mike mccole of texas, i led the effort in congress to safe lyly erase that program from elimination. moreover, tsa has enhanced searches of luggage parcels and cargo transported to the u.s. main land for illegal narcotics and weapons. finally, this year, the office of national drug control policy within the white house published the first ever caribbean borders narcotic strategy as retiredquired by congress. collectively, these efforts produced remarkable results in

2014 there were 681 homicides in puerto rico. that is 40% lower than in 2011. 30% lower than in 2012 and nearly 25% lower than in 2013. you and your colleagues at dhs should feel very proud of this accomplishment because you played major role. nevertheless, as i'm sure you would be the first one to say we cannot relent. rather, we must sustain and build upon this hard earned success puerto rico still has and murder rate that is far higher than any u.s. state or in the district of colombia with two homicides each day. so i would like you to give you an opportunity to tell the committee what i.c.e. is currently doing to fight drug trafficking and related violence in puerto rico, our nation's caribbean border and what plans

i.c.e. has for the future. >> well, you have identified i think i mentioned earlier the successes in this regard including 32000 criminals and 1.3 million pounds of narcotics. a substantial part of what we do in hsi because we're focused on trans national criminal investigations is in the drug area. i don't have a specific with respect to puerto rico. i can share those with you. but those outlineds are a great concern to me. because obviously it's harder to manage. but under the secretary community effort initiative, you mentioned the coast guard. you mentioned i.c.e., h.s.i. in particular obviously border patrol all of these people and customs and border protection, all of us work together pursuant to the secretary's direction to try to make sure that these trans national drug smuggling

gangs are not successful. we had a number of operations in that regard operation ufa, operation identity crisis all of these operation that's go to focus on these kinds of smuggling operations and people and things. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> well, thank you mr. chairman. thank you, director saldena for coming to be with us this day. i know your job a difficult one and it one that is foremidable beyond words. i also know that a lot of the focus of this hearing has been the constitutional question of the president's actions. and for a moment, i understand that you have suggested that perhaps his actions were within the constitutional per view. so for a moment, let's put that aside. you took an oath to uphold the constitution as part of your oath. if there were a situation from

this administration or from any other administration that you found yourself serving and there was a executive order that you were convinced in your heart was clearly unconstitutional which would hold your commitment? would it be your oath of office to uphold the constitution or it would to be suborder nature the constitution to that executive order given that the president would be your boss? how would you deal with that subject if it were in a circumstances where it was clear in your mind that the directive from the president was unconstitutional. >> well, that's not a difficult question. i mean i have always in both my u.s. attorney, assistant u.s. attorney and director oath have sworn to uphold the law and if it were a matter as clearly as you say that something was clearly unconstitutional, i

can't be a part of that. if you're implying that's part of executive action which i think you set aside, i don't agree with that is unconstitutional. but with respect to your general question, of course i would. >> i appreciate the answer to that. i think that's an honorable answer. i hope i would have answered the same way. i know that there is the disagreement given and that's the issue at hand. you understand that some of us given what the president said 22 times simhimself that what he was doing sun constitutional. i think he put you in a very difficult position. and i say that sincerely. i think -- if i were in your place, i would feel in an uncomfortable position. article i section 8 clause 4 of the constitution specifically, specifically bestoezws on congress the duty to uphold immigration law. i think that puts new an awkward position and just for your sake, i'm not going to even ask you to respond to. that i don't know what i would

do if i were you. it seems clear to me that he's put you in an awkward position. awkward is being a very significant understatement. the president also said, and i know this question was brought up earlier. if somebody is working for i.c.e. and they don't follow this policy, there is going to be sequences consequences for it. have you enforced that? are there consequences for not following that policy? >> there are consequences for not following the rules of an employee's status with the agency. i have a whole manual. >> what would the consequences be if someone in the position that was required to follow-through with the president's directives and again we'll set the constitutionalish issue aside for a moment. what would be the consequences for doing that?

>> well, whether it's that directive or assaulting an employee in the office or not abiding by some other rule or policy, the range of punishment can range from a verbal meeting where you council that person to ultimately what is available to any employer and that is termination. >> so, in other words, there are employees that work with you that are subject potentially subjected to determination for not following the president's directive? >> not following any policy or directive or rule of employment -- >> which includes the president's be directive. all right. i understand. >> the difficulty of your position becomes more apparent i think. is it true that under the guidelines that aliens and i say unlawful aliens have to be convicted three times for three

separate incidents in order to be deemed a priority for removal? >> there are all categories. it can be one serious offense. it can be three misdemeanors if that's what you are talking about. that's one of the elements in this card. >> so if -- but in this case you're saying so potentially it's not. potentially it's not true. in other words, if they were convicted of a serious issue that could be basis in and of itself to be required or deemed a priority for removal? >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> the offenses are listed in here. >> okay. >> is it also true that border crossers came to the united states after january 1st 2014, illegally and those that overstayed the terms of visas and fugitives from that law are not required to be processed for removal through the program? >> the gentleman's time has expired. if you can just answer the question?

>> two recent border crossers. you would like me to read it? >> please. >> aliens apprehended in the u.s. after unlawful reentering or entering the united states and cannot establish the satisfaction of an immigration officer that they've been physically present since january 1st, 2014 -- and i want to remind this committee, that there's a general provision with respect to these priorities that give an officer flexibility in making a decision whether someone fits within the priorities and should not be removed -- should not be put in removal proceedings or does not fit. and should be, because of their public safety concerns. >> thank you. >> thank you. i will now recognize the gentle lady from california. ms. chu. >> thank you. director saldana, the recent expansion of family detention from approximately 80 detention beds to now more than 2400 beds

at the new detention center is truly alarming. a vast majority of the women and children escaping the northern triangle region are fleeing domestic and/or gang violence or abuse. in 2011 el salvador had the highest rate of gender motivated killing of women in the world followed by guatemala and the honduras. these women are escaping some of the most dangerous countries in the world to seek protection in the u.s. instead they and their children face prolonged detention while they fight their ally lump claims. in my view there's no way to detain families humanely. when i first learn the average age of a child in family detention is 6 years old, and that there are even babies and toddlers being detained, i was truly shocked. as a psychologist, i know the mental health concerns that children and families in detention face. detention in jail-like facilities retraumatizes victims of violence, and children, in particular. reports show that children in

detention experience weight loss, gastrointestinal problems and suicidal thoughts. in fact dr. louis diaz dean of social work at the university of texas austin interviewed several families at the carnes residential center and found that mothers and children showed high levels of anxiety, especially separation anxiety for the children, symptoms of depression and feelings of despair. children showed signs that detention had caused developmental regression, such as reversion to breast-feeding and major psychiatric disorders including suicidal ideation. the doctor further states in his affidavit that ongoing stress, despair and uncertainty of detention significantly compromises a child's intellectual and cognitive development and contributes to the development of chronic illnesses in ways that may be irreversible. these very serious psychological concerns combined with many due process concerns like

prohibitively high bonds and difficulty accessing lawyers makes family detention a truly, truly troubling institution. it runs contrary to the 1997 flores settlement agreement recording at that time i.n.s.' detention of children. the agreement said juveniles should be held in the least restrengthive setting aappropriate to their age and special needs. and generally in a nonsecure facility licensed to care for dependent minors. and it said that detaining children in prison-like facilities that are both secure and unlicensed runs contrary to the very heart of the flores agreement. in fact as we speak, flores class counsel petitioned the court to reinforce the agreement in light of the expansion on family detention. director saldana, given the concern regarding the mental and physical health effects on children in prolonged detention, i urge you to adopt a family detention policy that minimizes

the lengthy detention of children. and use more humane alternatives like alternatives to detention. i also want to say that my staff alended a live bond proceeding for a mother and her 5-year-old child who had been sexually assaulted. the child was suffering from severe psychological distress while being detained at artesia including nightmares and bed wetting. the family had already been detained three months before the bond hearing. yet the 2014 priorities memo states that field office directors should not expand detention resources on aliens known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness. how do you reconcile detaining mothers and children with such serious physical and mental health illnesses in light of the directives in the priorities memo? so if you could answer these two questions. the lengthy detention of children as well as the detention of children with mental illness.

>> well, i'm not going to comment on the litigation but there are two separate issues, one is unaccompanied children who we do not detain. and those that are coming over with families. i said earlier i wanted to satisfy myself that our detention facilities for families were operating securely, safely and humanely. that's why i visited back in february a month after i came on board. i found that to be the case. in fact, i was very impressed with two teachers i met for these children who are there in the facility and the openness of the facility and these teachers who i visited with who said -- whose commitment and love -- and mind you i was a school teacher at one time. whose commitment and love for their children, or the children that they were educateing, was very evident. the facility was wonderful the technology they had for these kids was incredible. i'm not sure i could operate

some of the interactive items that they have. but that's an issue of great concern to us, ma'am, under that order that we're under with respect to family detention, we have reviewed all of those people that are members of that class. a number of those families have been released. you know, one of our problems is the immigration courts and trying to get a resolution and a decision based on credible fear or whatever there is to move on with respect to these families and have them know what's going to happen with them. that's a matter of -- i think the last number i saw was something like 480,000 backlogged cases in the immigration courts that are under the department of justice. i urge this committee to the extent there's anything you can do to help those courts to get more judges, that would help with our disposition and request for 2016 for more lawyers to assist us to get these people

through the process so they don't have to be waiting or be detained. >> thank you, the gentlelady's time has expired. now i recognize the gentleman from south carolina. and chairman of the subcommittee on immigration. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam director, i want to thank you for your service as a prosecutor and as a school teacher, i am biased towards both. i hope that questioning does not reflect that bias but i do thank you for doing -- both of those jobs are incredibly hard. i thank you for your service. you have cited the case that explains 8% of the releases. how about the other 92%? >> i'm sorry, sir? 8% of any releases? >> 8% of the 30,558 convicted criminal alien releases were under the holding of zavados. >> that's in 2014, yes.

>> so 92% were not -- >> no. another 10,000 or 35% were under i.c.e., orders from the immigration courts that we have to comply with. >> all right. i want to back up and ask you to put on your old hat. prosecutorial discretion, what are the limits of prosecutorial discretion? >> on a situational basis, i think you're very familiar with the process where you kind of have to decide can you take a fraud case with a million dollar loss that is substantial to many victims or do you have to limit it to cases above 5 million. it depends on resources and safety issues in your specific community. >> there would be declination levels based on the amount of loss and there would be declination levels based on drug amounts and bank robberies could either go state or federal usually depending on how good the case was.

but immigration cases can't go state or federal. they can only go federal. so you mentioned in your testimony that you counted 3,000 statutes that you were responsible for enforcing as the united states attorney. how many of those 3,000 did you announce ahead of time that you were not going to prosecute anyone under that particular statute. >> announce it to the general public? >> ahead of time. >> no, i didn't do that. >> right. >> i think many people knew what they were, somehow. you know you can't limit everybody. we shared those priorities with all the federal agencies -- >> sure, but, again, you always have the recourse of going through the state. the state can vindicate its -- texas has narcotic statutes and texas has fraud statutes and bad check statutes. there's always a safety net if it didn't reach your declination level, the state could step in. >> that's correct.

>> i am stunned and i'm sure you may be too, i don't want to put words in your mouth. you worked with state and local law enforcement as a prosecutor. right? >> yes, sir. >> and you would have worked with them in the full range of cases from child pornography to caseses, you name it there's a state and local officer at the table with federal officers, right? >> that's absolutely correct. >> why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle so resistant to giving state and local law enforcement officers any role at all in immigration? >> to the extent they are here, i guess you could ask them. i'm not sure i can answer for anybody else. >> well, in their defense, i'll give you the excuses that i get, that the statute is too complicated. that you can't possibly expect state and local law enforcement officers to understand the complexities of our immigration law. as if dui laws are not also complex. or rico. >> i'm not aware of that. i can't speak to that.