d.h.s. instead politicized it. this decision contradicts i.c.e.'s mission. those released by i.c.e. include illegal immigrants convicted of or charged with theft, identity theft, forgery and simple assault. ill immigrants who were charged with a crime are not considered to be dangerous or criminal until they have been convicted. repeated immigration offenders despite the memo that says these are priorities and recent border crossers is also one of the priority. among those released was a criminal immigrant that spent nearly three years in a detention center. this illegal immigrant became an illegal immigrant when he overstayed a visa. he was detained in 2010 when he violated a probation of assault and child abuse. he was transferred to i.c.e.'s custody and has been contesting an order of deportation for three years now.

director morton confirmed that the agency released 2,228 detainees from detention. 1,599 were noncriminals. however, mr. morton did not provide a break down of the noncriminals. we do not know how many were charged of crimes or not yet convicted or are criminal gang members. additionally, mr. morton did not think any of the individuals released were national security concerns. d.h.s. claimed that all released illegal immigrants are low priorities and have not committed with serious crimes. this is inconsistent that

morton has detained "the worst of the worst illegal immigrants in their ability to detain, deport that the agency encounters." your decisions to release the immigrants unnecessarily put the public at risk. the question remain, are these individuals being released based on legitimate concerns or because sequestration gave the obama administration a political reason to release deportable aliens. surely other budgetary considerations could have come first such as cutting conferences or travel. releasing illegal immigrants gives them little incentive to

report themselves. many will become fugitives. further more, the director has indicated that i.c.e. has had to re-apprehend four out of the 10 of the illegal immigrant for more severe crimes. to make matters worse, many of these individuals released lack the money, family, support, and the ability to get a job. not just because they are present in violation of the law but because they have a criminal record. this is a recipe for disaster that is irresponsible and unjustified.

to make matters worse, many of these individuals lack the money, family, support and the ability to get a job, not just because they are present in violation of the law, but because they have a right -- a criminal record ultimately, the nonsensical action demonstrates the inability and a lack of desire on behalf of the administration to enforce the law, even against illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes. we learned that 72% of the people released an okra record at all. another 21% had convictions for one or two misdemeanors only. unless to rector martin, who we welcome here today, tells us something different, this means that 93% of the people released by ice were not criminals or low, low level offenders. second, the title of the as for whether this was

motivated by policy or politics, from my investigations, i don't believe it was either. i don't believe it was policy because we have no reason to think that someone sat down and decided to release thousands of detainees without reason. remember, this agency, over the past five years has consistently set deportation and it pension records. i also don't believe this is about politics and the president top legislative irony is -- legislative priority is immigration reform. i share the president's goal. the american people share the president's goal. and i know a growing majority of members of congress support that goal. this discussion does not advance that goal. so i don't see how it can be

motivated by politics. so why did the agency release more than 2000 people from custody in february? based on what we've learned, it seems that it was motivated by overzealous use of detention in late 2012 combined with poor communication between the people in charge of ice possible budget and the people in charge -- ice's budget and the people in charge. they did attain an of 34,000 people per day over a fiscal year. that comes out at a daily cost of about $122 per bed. but from october through

december when he 12, -- december 2012, ice detained well over 35,000 people per day. they nearly hit 37,000 detainees on some days. not only did this mean ice was paying more for detention beds, but was paying more over time, more fuel costs for additional transportation and more of everything else required for detention. the secondary core cost brought the real cost of the attention closer to $164 per person per day and explains why ice was maybe $100 million in the red.

ice tried to put the brakes on all of that, spending limits, chief financial officer figured out that the agency was burning through its money faster than its budget would allow terri in -- allow. in early january, the agency was on pace to run out of money for custody operations by march 9. more than 18 days before the continuing resolution expired on march 27. ice seems to have had no choice but to release some detainees bring its spending in check. and so i would like to put this in the record that we need to really move with great care in terms of the assertions that are made in this misleading title. i appreciate the chairman allow me to make this statement. >> without objection, the remainder of his statement in the opening statements of all the members will be made part of the record. rex mr. chairman, i would -- >> mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent that the order of the office of the president,

the executive order january 14 be placed in the record next to it. >> without objection, it will be placed in the record. we welcome our only witness today, director john morton of the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. first, director morton, if you will please rise and be sworn in. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. >> let the record show that the witness entered in the affirmative. john morton is director of immigration and customs enforcement that homeland security. it is the second-largest avidity

-- investigative interest in the -- it is the second-largest investigative agency in the federal government. prior to director 's appointment, he spent 15 years in the department of justice. director morton received a law degree from the virginia school of law. you're welcome to proceed with your testimony. >> good afternoon. while much has been made of ice's recent reduction in levels, and the truth is it was in direct result in attempts to stay within its budget. and now the reality of

sequester. we don't have a traditional appropriation for 2013. ice is funded through continuing appropriation at fy 12 levels through next wednesday, march 27 and we do not yet know what congress will provide ice for the remaining six months of the fiscal year. additionally, as of march 1, we are living under a sequester, a reduction just shy of $300 million in while the expiring cr provides ice 34,000 meds, sequestration has reduced those same funds by percent. despite these challenges, ice continues to produce impressive enforcement results. during the first five months of the six-month cr, the portion without sequestration, we were solidly on pace to remain -- to maintain ready for thousand beds. on the last full week of that, our average annual daily population was 23,925 beds. mr. chairman, this is the

highest level of the tension ice has ever maintained over the -- of detention ice has ever maintained. this comes on the heels of maintaining 34,260 beds over last fiscal year and having removed 400-9000 illegal immigrants. again, the highest levels in categories we have ever achieved. at times, during this fiscal year, we maintained over 34,000 beds to impart to increase support given the border patrol wrong -- order patrol along the southwest border. we obviously could not maintain such highs over the year. so we had to temporarily lower our detention to levels before -- below 34,000 to ensure that we remain in within budget. first, two of the funds were

used to maintain detention space did not reach the funds expected. second, four months into the fiscal year, january 10, 2013, we were maintaining an average in excess of 630 beds come over 34,000. had we continued to operate at this level, we would have had a shortfall of $120 million. nevery, our expenses and time exceeded our cr budget i $16 million. we can usually face these issues during the balance of the fiscal year. this year, we had only six months of known funding. therefore, it was decided to temporarily reduce our detention levels at the end of the cr to stay in budget. locally, -- local officers were regulated to stick to those. from february 9 through march 1, on average, we released over 700 aliens a week. contrary to some reports, those

released for budget reasons did not include thousands of criminals who posed a significant risk to public safety. indeed, 70% of those released had no criminal record at all. the remaining 30% were either misdemeanors or other criminals whose art conviction did not pose a violent threat to public safety. during this time, most of our field offices released on a rich fewer than his team detainees each week. in total, we released 2228 aliens over a three-week. in february bringing the average to 33,925.

99.80% of 34,000. of the 2228 individuals released, 629 had a past criminal conviction. 460 were level three offenders, our lowest classification. 160 were level two offenders, armenian classification. only nine were level -- our median patient. only nine were up 11. -- upper level. as the chairman has already noted, there are only four level one offenders on release. in short, there are no mass releases of dangerous criminals underway or any plan for the future. just efforts to live within our budget. we'll continue to do our level best over the remaining six months of the year to maintain strong detention levels subject

to the requirements of the sequester and whatever funding congress provides us at the end of the month. thank you. >> thank you, inspector morden -- inspector martin. i will recognize myself to begin the questioning. of the more than 2002 hundred detainees that have been released so far, several hundred are criminal aliens who have been convicted of crimes such as theft, fraud and other crimes perpetrated on people in our society. was the decision to release detained illegal and criminal a live -- criminal aliens made by you? >> it was a decision made by the career officials in the agency. in particular, mr. made and our chief financial officers. i support their decision completely and to the extent your question ask, wasn't made by anybody outside of the

agency, the answer is a categorical no. >> did you coordinate with any officials at dhs headquarters in making the decision to release this to eventually dangerous illegal immigrants. >> none whatsoever. >> do you have any authority to act unilaterally to release detained illegal aliens? >> first of all, the answer is yes. the authority by statute rests with me and the officers at the agency. in fact, other than the secretary, we are the only individuals in the -- in the department with that authority. >> you're saying the decision to release 2200 people for this purpose, whatever the purpose may have been, whether to save money or for other reasons, had no communications with the higher departments to which ice, as an agency, that you report. >> that is correct. these decisions were made inside the agency for budgetary reasons. >> let me have this right here.

i have in front of me a memorandum dated december 8, 2010, that you submitted to secretary napolitano under the subject martyr "expanding expedited removal of felons unlawfully in the united states," where you set forth the purpose of making that request the background for making the request, your discussion about the request. and at the bottom, your recommendation, below which is a signature line for the approval of the secretary. is that standard procedure for you and others in agencies within the department of homeland security for making decisions regarding changes in policy at the department? >> that was a recommendation to the secretary about possible ways to streamline removal efforts. that one had to do with expedited removal. so that was a specific -- >> i understand.

but why would the decision in that case have required you to make a request of the secretary and the decision here to release onto our streets as opposed to the expedited removal and deportation 2200 plus people. we have seen documents that suggest the plan was to really several thousand more onto our streets without any approval from secretary napolitano. >> the regulatory authority for expedited removal is set for this secretary, not by the agency. unlike attention releases, ice has exclusive detention authority here to >> if you want to increase the deportation of people outside the country and expedite that, you have to seek the approval of the secretary. but if you want to release the same people back onto the

streets of the united states where they can commit more crime, you do not have to seek the secretaries of rule for purpose. >> no, that's not what i'm saying. if i wish to change the rules for expedited removal, i have to go to the secretary with that proposal. that authority does not rest exclusively with the agency. that was about a very specific statutory and regulatory power that is not held exclusively by ice. ice was under -- as a result, all the other counts in nice carry a balance of 200 $40 million for the year and a hundred 20 million for the past six months. additionally, your cfo indicated that ice carried forward $120 million in user fee balances. can you tell us why ice never submitted a reprogramming request to appropriations which can be handled at the committee level rather than releasing detained illegal immigrants. isn't it true that both ice and dhs could you shoot

reprogramming requests to cover the costs of these detainees? releasingrequest requirements. we did not in this instance. i am trying to live within the appropriations that congress gives us. our single largest appropriation is for custody operations. and we were trying to live within our budget, recognizing that we had to go the full year. we did not have a full-year appropriation. we only had six months. sequester was coming. and we played it very tight to the best -- hi to the vest other than in custody operations, where it was important enough and we operated at a level above what we were approached rated

four in the fiscal year. and i did not want to rob peter to pay paul. my view is that we need to maintain the operations of the agency. i don't want to for low people. and i need to make rational judgments across the ppa's that we are given by the appropriations committee. >> the appropriations committee is used to dealing with access expenditures -- with excess spencers. i'm glad to see that you did dip into surplus funds and other operations in the department rather than releasing criminal aliens onto our streets. toill ask unanimous consent enter the following document into the record during weeks that ice to respond to this request for information. a light -- a letter stating that, on february 20 third, 20 13, immigration and customs enforcement processed and released 270 illegal immigrants from the ice you a facility in

arizona on this date alone. of the 207, a total of 48 had been charged or convicted with either manslaughter, child molestation, aggravated assault for my weapons defenses, forgery, drug offenses or other serious crimes. and third coming memo from director morten morten to secretary upon apollo -- secretary napolitano. without objection, those will be made part of the record. my time is expired. i now recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. rex thank you, mr. chairman -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. the agency, director orton, has been accused of releasing detainees to score political points in advance of sick stray shin.

-- of sequestration. but a son what we learned in the last week, it looks more like ice was forced to tighten its belt beginning in january because it had been spending excessively throughout the fall to detain thousands of people more per day than its budget would allow. can you put some further explanation on to this assertion? >> yes, mr. conyers. let me start out by setting the context. there are about 350,000 people in immigration proceedings at any given time. the vast majority of those people are not detained. and that is by statutory design. that is congressional design.

congress has directed the agency to detain certain individuals by mandate. those cases are known as mandatory detention. there are certain criminals and certain non-criminals that we must attain. and the rest of the system is designed for consideration of release on conditions. the agency has that power and is also overseen by immigration judges them a predetermined the government decisions initial decisions at ice. so the idea that simply because a person is in the country unlawfully or they have a criminal conviction, that the rule is that you are detained is not true. in fact, the use of the tension is the exception to the rule given the number of people that are in proceedings. there are 350,000 people at any given time. we have resources on the very best of days for about 34,000

to 35,000 people. many of those people are not even in formal immigration proceedings. so we have to manage our budget and our levels go up and down. sometimes we are above 34,000. sometimes we are below and sometimes we don't have enough space to take a particular person into proceedings so we place them on an alternative detention. a bracelet, a monitor for mother have two call-in, they are on order of supervision, on bond, 150,000 people are on bonds right now in immigration proceedings. some have criminal convictions and some of them don't. it is by statute. that is by congressional design. nots exactly like become just a system. in fact, the detention system for immigration actually has mandates that you don't see in

the criminal justice system. >> that is a very thorough explanation that i find quite reassuring. you have been doing an outstanding job as director for how long now? >> i am about to come to the end of my fourth year. i will be the longest serving head of the agency that ice has ever had. >> that's great. can you explain how, during the months of our sober, november and december, ice was detaining 2000 or 3000 more people on any given day than he could afford through its budgetary circumstances to detain? >> yes, sir. at the end of last year, we were operating a very high operational tempo. in large part, one of the things i have tried to do is provide the border patrol much greater detentions work. for example, we are detaining 7000y given day 6000 to people in texas for the border

patrol. we are then formally removing them through the ice powers instead of simply voluntary returns. that meant that come at the end of the fiscal year, we were operating at quite a high level of attention, 36,000 during if we had had full-year funding, could have adjusted over time to make sure that we ended the at 34,000 using whatever funds that we had here in this particular year, we had a cr and, two to three months into that cr, it was clear that we would not have a good sense of what the funding would be for the remainder of the year and that sequester might in fact be a reality for us.

said, had to do, as you am belt-tightening. everybody remained in proceedings. everyone is on some form of supervision. our intent is still to remove them from the united states. we are reviewing all of the cases continually. if we made a mistake or there are new circumstances that suggest that somebody should come back into our custody, they will. and as the chairman has artie noted, we have made a handful of decisions already to return people to our custody, both level one and level two offenders. >> thank you very much during i have been permitted one quick question as my time is expired. but we are only a few days away from the end of the cr. and we are more than two weeks into the sequestration. can you tell us any more about your budgetary outlook today? ask i cannot. i hope that congress passes a budget for rice by march 27. -- four ice by march 27. i understand where the concerns come from. i understand that people wonder about some of the releases.

recognize that we are dealing in an extraordinary circumstance where we had a cr for six months. we have a mandate from the congress to have a certain level of appropriated beds. and on top of that, we have a sequester from this it -- from the very same united states congress that says reduce your budget i five percent -- by five percent. enter single appropriation of $2 billion is for custody operations. the next largest appropriation we have is for domestic investigation. and when i say domestic investigations, i mean investigations along the southwest border looking for drug smugglers, child traffickers. that is what i was talking about robbing peter to pay paul. we have to make some very real

decisions and we do the best we can win our funding is uncertain at best. >> thank you director morgan and thank you chairman for the exact -- for the additional time. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. >> under the immigration nationality act, aliens not subject to mandatory detention may be released on bond if they don't pose a danger and are likely to appear for any future proceedings. you also have the office of budget and managed directives to "raise live, safety, or health concerns." you say you released 159 individuals who had been convicted or charged with a felony or multiple don't you consider individuals to be a threat

to the safety of the american people? >> i am obviously concerned about people who engage in criminal offenses in the united states while here unlawfully. >> people convicted of a felony or with multiple misdemeanors, are they not threat to the american people? >> that is too simple. if i might, mr. smith, let me give you a real example of one of the level one offenders. >> you're changing the subject on a. -- on me. >> it depends on the case. generally, i think become an offenders should be the highest priority. the people have different circumstances. >> let me answer the question on behalf of the wreck of people.

i think the american people think you are releasing people convicted or charged with a felony or multiple misdemeanors a threat to their safety. these individuals that you did release, did they all post bond? >> we put about 180 individuals on the highest form of release. >> let me follow up on this point. it was his question about why we did news this. why you did not use the permission to reprogram. their response was the wanted to live within your budget. you would still live within your budget. you're not asking for more money. in asking to get from one department account or another.

>> there's two issues. one using the funds that we were aappropriated and then the other one that has balances. >> whether you have that or not, it has nothing to do with whether you balance your budget. you could use the fees and still balance your budget. >> wk seek a reprogramming from the committee -- we can seek a reprogramming with the committee. >> why didn't you? >> we wanted to live within the budget -- >> you would have done a lot to protect the american people. >> i did not want to rob peter to pay paul. >> you're taking from one and putting to another one. that is not going outside our budget that is using the same amount of money.

actuallyou didn't answer the question. last year you requested, i think detention beds for 1,200 fewer than congress provided. if you need more space, why did did you request more beds? >> the -- >> how much more than the 34,000. >> it also asked for an increase in the detention with language that would have allowed us to go back and forth and supplement the hard beds if need. >> how many beds could you use? >> funding is a consideration, we're at the highest level evered a. >> the question is how many would you need to provide total safety to the american people? >> that is an answer, you can only answer that question if alternatives -- if you factor in alternatives and how quickly can we move people through -- system. >> that is not my question.

how many beds you would need if you to satisfy up demands? allf i were to satisfy demands, if i were to satisfy all demands you would look at i.c.e. with a budget that is unsustainable. >> how many beds would you need? >> the redetain rein move 11 million people? >> that is not my question. how many do you need to fulfill your job. moreave 34,000, how many do you need? >> that begs the question of what is my job. my job is to remove every person -- >> i'm not getting a direct answer so i yield back. >> at the beginning of the hearing, i was not under the impression that the chairman on is sub committee and the ranking member had opening and they agreed to

put those in the record. i want to recognize them in thanks for their forebear rans on their statements. i will recognize the gentle lady from california. >> i agree it is better to go to the testimony than hear our opening statements. i think part of the problem here -- the confusion was the secretary of homeland security statement. i think the way it was taken not there that there was a over spending problem in the custody element but somehow this was in reaction to the sequester and

then people felt we're being threatened if we go through sequester and this would happen. it created a very bad impression. i think that is part of what we're trying to deal with here is this impression that was created by that statement. if i understand it, i would like -- the appropriation committee gets, i think almost constant reports on how many people are in detention at removal. we have access to them as well. they give the number of people in custody who have gone through the system, not just the people who are in custody at midnight, which i think reflects the numbers you gave to us. looking at this and i would ask unanimous consent to put these in the record. >> no objection. so ordered. september 30 it -- it was 36,233. it was an excess of 34,000

every single day there was a report. overoks like you had an spending problem that needed to be corrected. here's the question. do we have -- in our uses of alternatives to immigration detention, if our standard different than what is being used in state courts when people are arrested for crimes? we release people on ankle bracelets all the time because we need them to appear and the failure to appear rate is low. is our standard different than a localty? >> it is not. we have a system that congress has designed that operates just like the criminal justice system. there are decisions that need to be made as you go through immigration proceedings and they are administrative as to whether or not someone should be detained. the agent sets that initially and then it is reviewed by judges.

they do, that is the norm of the system, most people are released. >> one thing -- >> i can just say one thing? in regard to the secretary, the secretary was talking about the potential affects of sequester, obviously, that was a consideration for us, which is entirely correct that the sequester would have a significant affect on our ability to remain the appropriations -- the detention levels appropriated to us. again, i think she was trying to express the real concern -- >> if i may -- i'm not suggesting any ill motive on her part. i just think the way it was reported created suspicious --

suspicion and that is why we're here. we of the hinges i noticed, know from the department of justice that the single most common felony -- federal felony prosecution in america today -- what do you think it is? it is not drugs. it is reentry after removal. that is the felony of conviction. so the fact that somebody -- obviously, we're not for people reentrying but if that is the felony conviction it poses a different type of concern if somebody is convicted of violence or something of that nature, do you have the stats of what -- if they were felons released was it reentry after removal. do you have the data on that? >> we do. there were some immigration offenses but not many. some were misdemeanor or

nonviolent felons. even of the four level fours that are on the street, they are cases that are challenging. anried to give mr. smith example. if i might give you an example. the one individual who was released in arizona, has conviction for theft offenses and drug offenses. at first glance you might say, ok, what is i.c.e. doing? that individual is 78 years old. they are a lawful permanent rez deant and immigration judge the tchearms person is not a dangerous to the community. that goes to show you that these are hard calls that have to be made on a case by case basis and

this is what we have done. >> the account has been mentioned and you said you want to rob peter to pay paul. what use of those fees are going to be made to? couldn't you take the operation in our funding and put it into detention? >> two things are going on. when i say i don't want to rob peter to pay paul. i don't want to look to the other large appropriations to a maintain detention funding above and beyond the appropriation that is given to us. why, sifrl reasons. our biggest is commission and the second is domestic investigation. that is going after child important graphers, drug dealers, ailin smuggers will and that is an important part of work. >> so you could have gone after the funds?

>> i could have moved funds from the investigations, including those that you have concern about, yes, i could have. i did not elect to do that. the user fees are historical unobligated balances that we are considering how to deal with that. they that they have certain restrakeses on them. -- restrictions on them. >> my time has expired and i yield back. thiswill tell you from advantage point, it look like the decision to release detainees was a political determination own not a monetary determination. the release was part of a sequester campaign that included the fictional firing teachers, the closing of the white house for student tour, the displacement of meat inspectors and now we're going

to release aggravated felony felons on the street. >> i have counted six times that you did not want to peter paul. i don't want either one of them to rob our citizens. what is a level one vy violator? >> i disagree about you saying that your characterization -- >> that is fine. you can disagree on your time but don't use mine. how many were released? >> there were four -- >> how many were released? >> eight. we have four -- >> what went wrong with the

other four? >> two were released when the computer records were not correct. we went back and looked at them and brought them back in. one was a mistake. >> what kind of mistake? >> just where the instructions to the field were not carried out correctly. >> if it is $122 a day to house four level one aggravated felons. then releasing them saves you what about $600 a day? >> each day. that's right. >> you can't find $600 anywhere else in your budget? >> we make determinations on a case by case basis. >> can you find $600 dollars somewhere else in your budget? isthe question is if that

well spent on those people or someone else. 44n someone has been a lawful -- >> was he a level one? >> he is a level one offender. >> he was one of the four that you released? >> yes, he is released. that's right. >> ok. who made the decision to release detainees as part of our effort to comply with sequestration? >> the determinations was made by mr. mead the executive associate director are for removal prapings. >> who is john sandwick? >> he work for the secretary. >> was there any conversations

with him? >> not that i'm aware of. >> was there any conversations with the secretary? >> not that i'm aware of. >> if the release of aggravated felons does not rise to the something that the secretary of homeland security should know about, what does rise to the level? >> listen, we release people every day and the idea that we are going to review every single person that is released -- >> you release thousands of people every day? >> we release thousands of peemple month. we operate in a system -- we had -- onyou don't blame it sequestration, do you? >> what is that? >> you don't blame it on sequestration when you release the others. it is not part of this strategy to get the public fired up that mayhem is upon us, that we're closing the white house for tours. that we're firing teachers in west virginia. we have to release level one aggravated felons because of sequestration. >> first of all, that was never said. the system allows for the

release on supervision of people going through immigration systems. we're not detaining people for purposes of removal and the vast majority of people in proceedings are not mandatory detention. >> who are level two offenders? >> they are multimisdemeanor or felons that congress has defined -- >> d.u.i. would be a misdemeanor, right? >> first. >> how about second? >> depends on the state. >> did you release any drunk drivers? >> yes. >> how many? >> i don't have the exact number. we have released many individuals who had d.u.i.

offenses. >> repeat offenders d.u.i.? butost of them were single some would be d.u.i. congress has not provided that a d.u.i. is ground for removal. most misdemeanors are not a ground of removal. it is agency policy that factors that in. i can't order you removed from having committed a d.u.i. offense. >> you can request a rescheduling so you can move money around. this notion that you don't want to rob peter to pay paul you could have done that and you could have found $600 to keep these level one offenders from being released and don't tell me that you couldn't have. i would like to move in a document. >> thank you, without objection so ordered. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia.

>> there is a belief around here that budget cuts have nothing to do for your ability to perform your responsibility. tax cuts have nothing to do with the budget. so you have to work was on this. is there an appropriate ratio for safety for doing staff and detainees? >> yes. >> if there is a budget cut, does that will affect that ratio? >> well, obviously, we have to maintain the facilities with the appropriation that we have.

were we to furlough individuals that would affect our ability to apprehend and detain people safely. my intings is not to furlough our offerss. >> if you have less budget, you will have less people and you can retain your people. is arithmetic? >> it is. it gives us by the congress and the sequester direct us to take a 5% cut to that custody operations. that's roughly $110 million. i can't find that level of resource -- >> i think what some are trying to tell you is you can maintain a ratio with less money. haveu have less money you less people and therefore, you can detain fewer detainees and we're talking arithmetic, it is not philosophy. a lot of focus is on the people's release is based on their prior offenses. can you explain to me what the crime rate for those who have been released has been? >> so far i'm not aware of any so far. we're reviewing all of these

cases. >> excuse me -- all of the people you have released, of the people you have released how many crimes have been committed if sn >> none that i'm aware of. it is had a short time and we have reviewed that. >> so criminal courts let people out on bail and, obviously some commit crimes. you're unaware of any that committed crimes? >> no. listen, mr. scott, we release people every day on some form of supervision, the statute provides that. can i promise every single one of those people are going to behave all year long, i can't. >> you can't do it more than a criminal court of the people let out on bail --

>> of course not. i was a federal prosecutor for many years and the exact same decisions are made. in fact, immigration laws are stronger and we have mandates in immigration law where the criminal justice law there is only presumptions for certain cases. >> your travel and entertainment budget would be enough for offset some of this. how many is your budget? >> it is a tiny fraction of what would be necessary. >> so you couldn't cover these expenses by reducing travel and entertainment? >> no, we're doing that as part of the sequester. we are mission critical only. the entire budget of the agency outside of domestic operations -- domestic investigations is $633 million. out of $5.8 billion. the math won't work with that remainder. >> you talked about a 68-year- old. is the cost of detaining a 68-

year-old including health care more or less than the average of $122 a day? >> i don't know this particular 68-year-old but generally speaking we have additional health considerations with people who are older. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. director morton, one thing that disturbed me is this thing that i was supplied by i.c.e. that says detention and release is solely for budget reasons. why -- why wouldn't it say detention reasons based on national immigration policy? >> we are trying to be clear and accurate with everybody as to the releases that were for budget reasons only. we're releasing people all the time and i don't want people to think we're mixing people in one

way or the other. again, the system calls for release every day. >> my point is, this says these 2,600 individuals were released solely for budget reasons. why would you have not looked at 26,000 individuals in detention and found -- could have been 10,000 that you could have released? i mean, if -- you should never release someone for budget reasons solely for budget reasons. would you agree with that? >> no, we have to mansion our budget every year. >> but you also -- something more important than budgets is the sbration detention policy. that is what you're here to

enforce, not to incarcerate people but you're here to try determine how many people should be detains. >> i would disagree. my principle job is -- on the immigration side and people forget there's a lot about i.c.e. that is not about sbration, unfortunately. but focusing on my job i can do the best i can to remove them from the united states if they are here unlawfully. >> i think the immigration policy of the united states is to as far as detention goes, to detain people when there is not a reasonable alternative. would you agree with that? >> generally that is the way statute --

>> or you mentioned mandatory detentions also. but out of that 26,000 -- what i'm saying, you said these detentions releases were made for budget reasons and there's no threat to public safety as a result of this. >> i said that -- >> or veryological. >> we focused on the releases that those people who posed the least threat to public safety. if your question is do i have enough people, do i have enough resources to detain a million people is answer is no. >> my question is are you over using detention? >> at the beginning of the year we were maintaining a higher level of detention that we were appropriated for -- >> let's not talk about dollars and cents. let's talk about individual who is are being detained. surely, instead of doing a cost

analysis why don't you do a risk assessment on those being detain. how many can be released to family members, how many of them, you know, would be periodically would check in, even some g.p.s.? i would think their ties with the united states, you know, have some that have been adopted as children. i don't think they are going to run away. are some of those mandatory detentions that you could recommend to congress they not be? i'm saying, it looks to me like there is an over use of detention by this administration. i know that totally -- would you agree? ok, if these people are not public safety risks, if they are not violent, if they don't have a criminal history, if they are

not repeat offenders, if they are going to show up for proceedings, why are they detained at all? >> i think your basic assetment is risk of flight. >> that is risk of flight and violent offenders. i would say d.u.i. but what i'm saying, this seems to me that you're saying we've got too many people in detention. >> would the gentleman yield? >> in the report prepared for the committee staff -- by the committee staff there is a statistic that shows 770,000 people who are released did not return for their deportation. >> i understand that but you can say this, you can look at most

of those people and there are predickeders. >> if you release them and they are not showing up then they are probably not getting deported. >> i'm not arguing that. physical i accept -- i think most of these people are probably not going to go back if they do go back they are coming back legal or illegal. what the chairman is saying 40% of those people who are not detained in the first place, do not reappear for the removal, period. and, you know, include someone that does not show up. maybe detain them. if someone has never -- if they were never released or if they were released and showed back up they are going are not a flight risk and they are not a threat to public safety, and i'll go to budget, now why are we spending $164 a day on them? this maybe in the message but maybe there is an over use of detention.

>> would the gentleman -- >> time has expired. the chairman recognizes the lady from texas. >> thank you for this informational hearing. director morton, i've always thought your basic commitment to the security of this nation and might i say that, i appreciate the work your office does, the work you do in washington, d.c. i know that, if i might use a certain american phrase, you're caught between a rock and a hard place. i would like to pointly restate what i thought you said and this is you're responding to the sequester, which is across the bored 5% cuts, which resulted in $110 million you had to address. so i'm going to answer my own question then i will pose it to

you. we need a policy change. that balances the responsibilities of i.c.e. between custodial and other works then that will generate the employment that you can do other things, human trafficking, issues i'm interested in. i also appreciate the fact that in the order of a year, the executive had your office prioritize individuals that could be a lower priority for detainment. when we mention this issue of detaining persons, i think it important to note that you're following a policy supported somewhat by law that either congress has sovert the years through immigration policy.

think should be clear. let me ask specific questions. there are 771 that you released in texas and 241 in houston. can you give me a sense of what those individuals were? i i will let you answer that then i'm going to interrupt you because i have other questions if you don't mind. thank you. >> on houston, there were 134 noncriminals and then there were no level one offenders in houston or the state of texas. that is true for almost state respected here today and true for almost all level twos as well. in houston, we hed 59 level three and 47 level two. with regard to your comment on the policy and the statute, you're right. at any given moment about a half to 2/3 that we detained is mandatory. congress told us these must be detained and the rest is discretionary. that has built up over time to

a policy focused on criminal offenders, recent border entrance or people who have seriously gamed the system. again, you have to look at people's individual circumstances. it is why immigration enforcement is so so challenging. it is easy too to make simple statements about noncriminals and simple statements about criminals. sometimes a criminal can mean someone who is 20 years old and they have committed a terrible sexual assault. sometimes it means someone who is 68 years old and has been here for 44 years as a lawful permanent resident penal who have children. our officers have to make those decisions every day on the facts they have. you can't make sweeping

generalizations or determinationses either by statute or by policy. >> the question has come on this issue whether we're detaining too much. as a chairman i appreciate them and that we do a bipartisan bill that further assists you that was what was done by executive order. as someone who deals with these issues, i'm concerned about detaining people that, frankly, obviously, are being hurt. for example, a young man my the name of marco was someone who was held for four months. he was -- trying to find my pages. he wasn't innocent. nothing more than he was someone who came here and not being documented. had not done any offense. his father was deported. he was the only support for his family. no offense. another woman was a victim of domestic violence.

she had been denied asylum. we held her while she was trying to get council. they are probably level zero to a certain extent in terms of being offensive. how can you work better on these kinds of cases and work better with the i.c.e. regional offices with their great service sometimes detains, detains, detains. >> i am happy to look into the two particular cases and i will ask the staff to do that. the broader challenge is using a resource that congress give us for detings as wisely as we can. isig part of the answer comprehensive immigration reform. you're right. the agency is between a rock

all hard place a lot of the times. we are charged with removing 11 million people from the united states and that number is beyond our capability and appropriations to carry out. it does not make any sense either as a matter of policy. what do we do? we take the appropriations that we get that are about 400,000 removals a year and we try to focus those removals as best we can on priorities that make sense if the country. >> we have a vote pending but we're going to try to get one more question in until the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you. you testified that the decision to release this 2,228 individuals that it was yours and yours alone and you had no commution from anyone outside the agency.

is that your testimony today? >> that's right. >> once you make a decision of that magnitude, did you communicate that to the secretary or anyone on behalf of the secretary, anyone working for o.m.b. or anyone working with the white house after that? just yes or no? >> the answer to that is no. i've said i regret -- >> i just need the facts. the other thing that was pointed out the reason it this is suspicion is the timing of the act. we know that o.m.b. has issued gag orders on not to talk about sequestration. you issued this in february when the talk of sequestration was under takinging from the president i want to take you back to december and november 2012. you bragged here -- about being here for four years. every fact you would have had would be the same as november and december. no one in this room knew that sequestration would be postponed to march 1.

why did you not make this decision in november or december of last year? >> first of all, the principle decisions were made by the career officials, -- >> why did they not make them in november or december of last year? >> the decision was made by the people who run -- >> but why did they not do it last year? all the same statistics, everything was present last year that was present in february of this year and yet, you waited until february to make that decision? >> where are we? >> same averages last year. >> but it goes up and down -- >> no, that projection was the same last year. you're not in a cyclical point

in december that you could predict this. >> last year we had a full year -- >> i'm talking about december of last year. you had the same situation you're looking at now. >> december of the fiscal year -- >> of 2012. let me move on you don't have an answer for that. let me ask you this. on the individuals these 2,228 were any of them members of a violent criminal gang? caseshink there are two -- at least one that i know of when we went back and looked a at the information there was a gang affiliation and that person is in our custody. >> did you ask the individuals if they are members of a violent criminal gang or not? >> we tri when we can. >> is that part of your questioning, do you have that

information on the people you released? >> i don't know if we ask each and every person. >> so you can't answer for the 2,228. all you can say is two of these individuals had a gang affiliation but you don't know if the other 2,228 had a gang affiliation or not? >> i can't speak to every person we detain new york city i can't. >> so it possible we released someone who was here illegally, who was charged or part of a violent criminal gang. you would not know that? >> on convictions we would. on are general gang affiliation i can't say we would know. >> let me ask you there. on the aggravated felonies you talked about. i'm running through a couple of them but no one on that list was charged or convicted are murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor were they? >> no, they were not.

host: inconvicted of trafficing a controlled substance? >> some were -- >> any of them involved in child pornography? >> not of the ones that i'm aware that were released, no. >> so the 2,228 you can testify that none of them were involved in child pornography? >> to the best of my knowledge the answer is no. >> that mean you don't have knowledge of it. can you review that? >> i have reviewed that. >> can you testify that none of them were? >> i have reviewed is summaries but i have not looked a the actual conviction records personly. >> can you answer me this because my time is about out. what time frame of these individuals are to report back where someone can lay eyes on them a and say that we know

they are complying? what percentage of them starts reporting back? >> it depends on what kind of release you're put on. it could be as earlier as every week and plus you have a bracelet. if you're on a order of supervision, it can be monthly, quarterly, or weekly. with a bond, you're dealing with a financial obligation that you must address. there are some accommodation too. >> some of them -- >> the time has expired. director morton, we have to stand in recess for a vote. if the committee will reconvene as soon as the vote concludes. the committee will reconvene thethe chair recognizes gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank youment mr. chairman. mr. morton, in your department's 2012 and 2013

budget requests, did you oppose the inclusion of statutery language for i.c.e. to maintain a level of at least 34,000 detention beds per day per night? >> the president's budget did call for a lower number and called for a level of flexibility that was ultimate not adopt fwid appropriation committee. >> is -- adopted by the appropriation committee. >> now the 34,000 beds that were mandated by this congress, privatee mostly in the nonprofit prison system? >> it is a mix. >> private for profit system.

>> it is a mix. we run a small number of facilities ourselves. >> how many beds? >> i would say maybe in our facilities a maximum a couple of thousands. >> so you got 32,000-plus that are housed in private for profit corporate run prison facilities, is that correct? >> not entirely. we also contract with state and local governments. >> ok. if those beds are unfilled, is there still a requirement that the federal government pay the private contractor? >> yes. many of our contracts require a minimal floor and then depending on the particular contract, obviously, we use more of the minimum floor we pay for

that as well. we do our best not have empty beds. >> it is kind of like you want to fill the beds up so you won't pay for something you're not using. sthant correct? >> that's correct. congress, if appropriates us money we need to make sure went spending the money that what it was appropriated for. >> so you have a guaranteed payment to nonprofit private organizations on corrections corporation of america, which is the largest private prison company in the country. now, you do in law have the flexibility to provide alternatives to detention to certain classes of detainees, isn't that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you have the right to release them on bond?

>> yes, sir. >> that is, in fact, what you did with the 2,228 persons that were released, which is the subject of this hearing, correct? >> that's right. we do that every day with other people as well. >> now, how much does a detention bed cost per day? >> depends on where you are in the country. but on average we calculate it is $122 a day. >> i've heard reports up to $166 a day for housing, accounting, -- excuse me, care costs and guard costs. >> that is correct. in the northeast, if you're detaining people in new york city, it costs a lot more than it costs someone to detain someone elsewhere. >> using the average of $166 a daytimes 34,000 detainees, we're guaranteing to the private prison industry about $5.6

million per day. $5.6 million per day. are you familiar with that? >> well, again, i would note there are other partners that we work with. we have state and local governments that provide us and we do have some of our own contracted detention facilities. do we have a dedicated -- >> let me say this. >> for those beds, yes. >> it is about $5 million a day. are you familiar with the american ledge slay chive exchange council that -- legislative exchange council that fills the prison beds that we're discussing today? >> i am not, sir. itwould not be surprised if was a member of -- along with

70% of the legislatives in the country. would you be surprised to learn that? >> i'm not aware of that particular group. >> but you're unaware of a mandate from corporations to the federal government to supply them with a fixed number of beds for profit per day? we don't monitor these private corporations in terms of, you know, the health, safety, and well being of the detainees? >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. >> i'm rooking at numbers that detaineesrlier 2,228

released and 1,599 are noncriminals. can you tell me if any of them had orders of removal? >> i don't believe so. we can check but my initial assessment they do not. of the >> of the 629 criminals how many of those had orders of removal? >> i don't believe they had final orders of removal. there was one case that involved somebody who had very severe mental issues and that person may have had an order and is subject of some litigation that we're involved in. >> could you tell me how many of the 1,599 noncriminals and the 629 criminals fit under the

category of mandatory detention? thatnof the individuals the field was directed to release could be mandatory detention. furthered earlier, in review we determined there were some cases that were should have been mandatory detention and we pulled those in. amanda tory detention must be detained. >> we're talking about eight or 10? >> there would be four out of the level one offenders that we brought back in. there will be -- out of the level two, i think there would be less than a few dozen brought back in for a variety of reasons. oryou would not have granted

released anyone knowingly on the list of mandatory detainees? >> no, that would be unlawful. >> so, therefore, that list that i heard from mr. forbes, murder, rape, drug trafficking, yes to drug trafficking. would that fit under the category of mandatory detention? >> drug trafficking depending the state laws. >> there was no drug traffickers released? >> not that i'm aware on. >> no firearm or money launders? >> no, not that i'm aware of. one point to be clear on, separate from the budgetary releases there are times when we must release someone with a serious criminal record based on a supreme court case that says if the government is unable to remove people we may not detain them.

>> not making that the issue. it is your position and i hear it here clearly, you would not knowingly release anyone that is amanda tory detainee? >> yes. >> with the request of the letter that was issued for the list on the details of those who fit within the categories that i mentioned, you will provide that at their request? >> we are working -- we've already provided a summary to the committee and we're happy to continue to work on further details. just to give some flavor to it. occasionally we will deal with people who have terminal cancer. there's an extraordinary circumstance but generally when the congress says something is mandatory we view it as mandatory. >> i appreciate that. when you look at your options of releasing these 2,228 into the streets while 629 are criminals, what was the rationale, if you need to free didn't youget why

remove them, the ones with deportation and relieve your budget that way. you can release them into the streets of their home country. >> i don't believe there were any removal cases that we delayed on. >> why did yolt not accelerate had -- you not accelerate that? >> i was not aware of any power that we had to accelerate. >> isn't that something you want to look into? >> i'm a a supporter of trying to make sure that immigration proceedings proceed in a timely fashion. we have a number of proceedings that take too long. irp able to shorten them, think we could -- >> let me ask you if an i.c.e.

agent encounters an individual unlawly in the united states within a jail. that individual is guilty of less than three misdemeanors can they arrest that person and place them in deportation? how would your management deal with an i.c.e. agent like that? >> if a person has less than three misdemeanors with some exceptions of drug offenses, most misdemeanors are not on independent ground for removal. if they are here illegally that is a ground for removal. >> do you encourage your agents to do that? >> i would allow the gentleman to answer the question then we will move in on. >> we focus on offenders. your scenario where someone has three misdemeanor convictions, generally the presumption would be that we take a serious look

at that person for removal. >> >> i would like a unanimous consent to place into the statements from nine groups. >> without objection those statements will be made a part of the record. we're recognizing the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> good to have you, director morton. i want to follow-up on these deportations. how many were deported last calendar year? >> about 4,9,000 people >> can you tell us about the

last four years just general numbers? >> a little bit shy of 400,000 on every year. >> how is that in relationship to the previous four years? in terms of actual numbers of deportations. >> significantly increased. >> so since you got the job four years ago deportations have significantly increased and we can demonstrate that through actual numbers? >> yes, particularly through repeated offenders. >> what is the reason that you believe that you have been able in spite of the call from many of us, to be able to achieve that significant increase in deportations? >> the congress of the united states provides us resources to enforce the law. my job as the head of the agency so to see those resources are well spent. congress has provided us resources that -- >> let me ask you -- sorry to interrupt you. so when you started this job, how many local police

departments, governmental agencies, had a relationship under secure communities and the federal government? >> when i started very few. >> how many today? >> secure communities are in every jurisdiction in the united states. >> so during the last four years, you have expanded an almost unknown program, which gatherers many of freedom that you put in deportation proceedings? >> the secure communities program, yes. the criminal justice system allows us to a window into that system that was never possible before. >> let me further -- why -- so you have to have 34,000, do you feel like you need to have 34,000 people in custody every night in a bed? >> we have to maintain on average 34,000 beds on a budget perspective. obviously, we are not going to have empty beds.

some beds we put more than one person in it. >> but you relayed to us that 40%-45% of everybody in some kind of proceeding is not in your definition of a federal government a criminal, is that correct? you said that about -- you gave us a number and i'm trying to calculate that about 40%-45% -- where are they? >> in removal proceedings. >> you also suggested that 40% had committed no criminal violation. is that correct? >> i think the number is probably higher than that even. >> despite of the fact, they have not committed any criminal violation, we still have astonishingly number of deportation? >> can congress -- >> the secure communities have gone from a few parts of the united states to wherever in the united states of america? >> that's right.

>> ok, so let me sksh i just want to -- i just want to that expresses to me a comprehensive immigration reform. you will deport 1,400 people today and the next day and the next day until we do comprehensive immigration reform. 250 american children are going to be left today because of your actions and those in our department without a mom and dad. there are thousands of children in foster care. american four million citizen children, who i have to tell you, mr. morton, you don't take into consideration as you deport their parents from the united states. matter of fact, everybody likes to talk about the president's order on defered action. something that i praise even was happy to hear about. but the fact is, is it not true that you will still deport the

parents who have gained defer action? >> deferred action covers the children. >> but not their parent. orderhave at executive that does not cover the patients but not -- parents. that is to say, you should have released the 70% of those people a long time ago according to your own statements that you issued in the summer of 2011. i hope you will use more discretionary, not less. so when this congress gets to the work of comprehensive immigration reform we will have fewer families we need to heal. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas.

>> thank you. we're grateful for you being here. i just got a message from my friend, the governor of texas, rick perry, indicating that they think it would be a good idea that if you are going to release previously-convicted criminals, people who are at a higher risk for repeat offenses, and that would include multiple dwi's, they would really like to know that you are about to release those people in your state so they can give their law enforcement a heads up. i played football back in high school as a quarterback. the linemen had sometimes what was known as a lookout block. if they screwed up so bad a guy got by them, they would at least have the decency to turn around and yell, "lookout!" they did not get the lookout for the block in texas. are there requirements that you

notify state or local authorities when you allow criminals and suspected criminals to go free from the tension? >> there are no blanket notification requirements. unless we put -- >> unless we put it into law, you do not even get a look out, here, these faults. >> generally speaking, the noted in -- the notification we give is where we can through the victim notification system. >> but not necessarily to the low law enforcement or the governor's office. >> that is correct. governor'sotify the office, they will let below law enforcement know. that would be a good place to

start. it sounds like we are willing to need to put that in the law. i was staggered to hit my friend from california talk about -- to hear my friend from california talk about the greatest number of federal convictions that this administration has are for federal, which is a felony, reentry after deportation. i was staggered to hear that. mr. morton, if there is anything that comes out of this hearing that shocks the is that theit number one biggest problem in this administration of a federal felony nature is the reentry by deported illegal immigrants after they have been deported. as a district judge in texas, it was an ongoing problem. i had one guy with 9 dwi's, never would be deported, was constantly reported to the federal board.

this was when bill clinton was president. finally he hit someone again and he came before my chord because that bumped up to being a felony. i understand. we took him to the board and released him, i often want to know, did you stick around long enough to watch them come the border or did you drive away after you dropped them off? this is a huge problem. with each one of these federal felony convictions, it means we are paying for a prosecutor, law enforcement to get these people, then a prosecutor. we are paying for a defense attorney for them. we are paying for the officers for the prosecutor, the offices for the law enforcement, the judges, the appellate courts, and the number one conviction is for federal felony reentry after they have been deported? when i start thinking about that fact, it becomes pretty clear the best thing this administration could do for this country is secure the border so they do not have to

keepre-catching the people who have already been deported. to heck with how much a wall costs or drone coverage. whatever it takes. this message should go up to the president. this administration should do everything they can to secure the border so that the number one source of convictions is no longer felony reentry after you have deported people. then you think about the money that would be saved by those who do not have their house burglarized by criminals that have been deported and have come back in. people who have not been raped or cars not damaged in traffic accidents by criminals that have been deported but we do

not secure our borders so they come back in. if any message coming out of this, i would implore you, please send a message to this administration. if you want to save money, mr. president, if you want to save money, secretary napolitano, secure the border and we will have all the savings we will ever need. i appreciate your doing that, if you will. would you pass a message on such as that? >> i would be happy to note your statements here today. >> the chair thanks the gentleman from texas and recognizes the gentleman from california. -- the gentlewoman from california. >> i actually come from an area in los angeles that is very sick -- very concerned about secure communities. and the number of detentions that were non-criminal. maybe you could respond to that in terms of why people were

detained if there were not criminal charges. in addition, i wanted to ask you about the children. he made reference to the children whose parents are deported and the ones that are put in the foster care system. specifically, i wanted to know what happens to them. i also want to know the name of a person in your office that i can have ongoing communication about the children who wind up in foster care. >> we will follow-up with you after the hearing for a name. we are working on a policy trying to address with health and human services the issue of what do you do with u.s. citizen children when you remove the parents. they have to go into, if they are left here, they go into the child welfare system. regardless -- with regards to secure communities, we have implemented it nationwide in

every jurisdiction. there are frequent criticisms and allegations that we are using it to identify a lot of non-criminal offenders that i do not think is entirely fair. it is a very sensible program. we are trying to focus our resistance on the criminal justice system. occasionally, someone will be charged with a criminal offense and they have also been deported from the country before or have an outstanding final order. technically, that person is a non-criminal offender because

they have yet to be convicted. it is not reasonable to expect the agency to ignore the fact that they are in the country unlawfully or they have an outstanding final order that they ignored. in those circumstances, when we identify them, we will place a detainer on those individuals and seek to remove them from the country. >> in los angeles, what would happen was rape of workplaces. i do not know how decision is made about that. >> i am not aware of raids, as you would describe them, in the last four years. the secretary instituted a new policy for worksite enforcement that had us focus on criminal violations by the employers, heighten audits, and an effort to work with the business community to encourage voluntary use, which we have done. last year, we had 3009 audits, the highest in the history. we have not pursued the large scale administrative raids you saw previously. >> i want to give you an example. i was in miami, fla., with the foster youth caucus. we were visiting the residential facility for foster youth. on that day, they were getting 4 kids from los angeles who were being sent to miami to be in residential care. my concern is is that for those parents that one of deported, their children could get lost in our system when they could have relatives who are here legally. >> we do everything we can to

ensure that the children, if they are not going to go home with their parents, are in an appropriate custodial situation. this is a very challenging area. most of the people that we are talking about, most of the parents, our criminal offenders. some of the damage has been done long before our custody of them. the person has been incarcerated for quite some time and a challenging family relationship now exists. simply having a child is not a basis for staying in the unlawfully.

if you have committed an offense, we have to remove you. >> i was definitely referring to the ones that were not. if i could have my staff follow-up to have someone who was looking at that policy, i would like to be included in that. >> yes, ma'am. we will do so. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> welcome. >> thank you. >> you hit the news quite a bit over the last couple of weeks.

it has been reported that he stated that there would be 2220 illegal immigrants that would be released from local jails various reasons. moreaid there might be released as well. my question to you is -- that was accurate and i am sure you are responding to precise figures. don't you think you should have followed up by explaining to the american people, we do this on a regular basis and we do release individuals, thousands of them over several months given the fact that the way it was presented, either you were directed to or you did a little grandstanding, let's make this sound as painful as ever per the sequestration? why would you follow -- why would you not follow up and say

to the american people, we do this on a regular basis? >> i do regret the timing and notification. we should have, as an agency, done a better job communicating what we were doing and why we were doing it, both in terms of communications to our oversight committees and generally. >> i do not hold due totally responsible for that. you said you did not have the communications. i reached down into my heart and find it hard to believe some kind of a wink and a not was not said across the board, let's make this sound as painful as possible, whether it is in your department, the justice department, homer and security. i do have a problem with that. also, i received a letter from northeast pennsylvania, one of my counties is pike county. they do a great job. they have been recognized for this. as the letter states, from the commissioners of pike county, and i will give a very brief summary. "as you know, immigration detainees have been held in pike county correctional facility since 1996.

the fact that, in stark contrast, these numbers, and they go through the numbers about how many there are housing, in number of detainees has been steadily declining since before the beginning of this year. you said as high as $164 per day to keep an illegal in. in pike county, it cost $82.50 per day. they do a great job and have the costs down. why not take more manager of facilities like this, particularly in pike county, built a whole new facility to house these individuals? recently, the number of detainees has decreased. can you account for the decrease since before the beginning of the year detainees? >> why don't we follow up with you on pike county. >> i would appreciate that. >> we have 150 different facilities -- >> when someone asks me if i

know everything that is going on in congress, i have to say no. from one prosecutor to another, i know your responsibilities are great. here is another question i have for you. have you approached the united states attorneys in their respective districts and informed them that these people were going to be released? or were you told not to inform them? did you have any communications with informing them or not informing them? i would find it hard to believe that you did not get pushed back from u.s. attorneys on this. >> no, we have not notified the united states attorney's offices of the releases, non- criminal or criminal. remember, all of these people have been convicted and have served their time. we are talking about removal purposes. we are not a penal institute. >> i understand. don't you think it would hurt morale? i know what my staff went through and how hard they worked.

to simply release these individuals have got to be a morale-buster. i would push back had i known about it if i were the u.s. attorneys. you say there is no communication there. >> from the u.s. attorney perspective, we are prosecuting a record number of cases with them. we are removing a record number -- >> i understand that. my time is limited. have you received any communication from up the chain that we do not want you -- >> let me be clear on this. these releases are solely in the termination by the agency. >> i clearly understand that. the question was, have you received any direction from up the chain not to detain any more illegal aliens in this country? >> no. >> i yield back. thank you, sir. >> the chair recognizes the

gentleman from louisiana for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the witness. as i ponder my questions and look at the title, the release of detainees by u.s. customs enforcement, policy or politics, it begs the question whether hearing itself is policy or politics? i have yet to hear someone asked, if we are so worried about the releases, how much do you need so you do not have to release people? you make these releases based on the sequestered. -- the sequester. what do you need so that you do not have to release anybody? >> i get asked this question the time. it gets back to a recognition

that the agency is asked to do far more than congress appropriates or rationally appropriate to the agency. we are in a situation with 11 million people who are here unlawfully. the agency has resources to remove about 400,000 per year, less than 4%. it is why, at the end of the day, bipartisan efforts come to some level of immigration is the lawful way out. the agency is never going to be able to detain and remove everybody. as a matter of budget, nor does it make sense as a matter of policy. >> as the agency head, how do you plan a budget for a government that is operating 60 and 80 days at a time, almost like a drunk frat house planning the next party? >> is very difficult. i am the head of the agency.

i accept all of the criticism of the agency on its behalf. but i will say we could have done a better job of notifying the committees and explaining what we reducing. let's be frank. we are dealing with a situation in which we had a six-month c.r., a sequestration imposed on top of that. as of right now, i do not know what my budget will be for the next six months of the year. the career men and women are doing the best job they can to use the funds that we have been given wisely in an awfully unique budget environment. >> i am glad you brought up the fact that you're dealing with the c.r.'s. it has been suggested that this is on you. let's take the timeout the last three years. was it your idea to pass a 14- day continuing resolution or a 21-day continuing resolution? or a seven-day, 165-day, a one- day, a six-day? how you run a government or a branch of government with c.r.'s

that go for that short amount of time? how do you adequately budget for that? >> it is very difficult. we err on the side of being conservative, as we have here, to make sure we are not deficient at the end of any given continuing resolution. it is difficult. we are a very large operation. we are taking in over 400,000 people a year. and if it has to go on for the full year. when you are in an environment where you do not know what your budget is going to be on the various marks and the house and the senate are different, when you are looking at sequestration, it is a challenge and you do your best under the circumstances to come up with the right answer.

>> as you went through the releases and you sit here today, do you think your department went through the necessary due diligence to make sure the people who are released pose the least threat to our citizens and constituents? >> instructions to the field were clear. these decisions were made by career professionals in the field. so we did do the necessary due diligence in the sense of giving out good instructions. but we are going to follow through. this is not something that was done for one day. we will continue to review these releases. if we made a mistake, we will take the person back into custody. i do not claim perfection for the agency and each and every action it makes over the year. we have made releases on the best judgments we could on the record that was available. if we get it wrong, upon review, we will take a person back into custody, put them on a level of detention. we're doing that now. >> thank you. i yield back.

>> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from idaho for five minutes. ofi had the privilege working for 15 years as an immigration lawyer. we were on the other side, but i know what a difficult job you have and what a difficult job the men and women in your office have. i do have a question. was it your idea to not pass a budget for four years? >> obviously, but the decisions rest with congress. >> i just want to remind the people on the other side that it has not been this house who has not passed the budget. the senate has not passed a budget in four years. that is neither here nor there. the gentleman from pennsylvania asked you a line of questions. the question was, was a policy or politics? can you at least understand why

this question is being raised? you have a knowledge that you have made some mistakes. can you understand why this question is being raised? >> i have the knowledge that our notification of what we were doing with our committees oversight could have been better. i take full responsibility for that as the agency head. the buck stops with me. >> you said decisions were made by career officers. you said you had instructions to the field.

why were those instructions sent to the field? >> the underlying decisions made by career officers, the budget officer -- both in the budget office and e.r.o. instructions were given on how to carry out the releases, make sure they are non-mandatory -- >> these are not field officers, these are career headquarters. i just want to make that clear. this was not field officers making the decisions. they were getting instructions

from your office. >> you are absolutely correct. >> your budget in 2009 was $4.9 billion. in 2010, it was $5.3 billion. in 2011, $5.4 billion. in 2012, $5.5 billion. in the last four years, your budget has been raised by at least 10%. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you are telling us that because you have to cut 5% of your budget, you cannot do the job that you were doing in 2009- 2010. is that what you are telling us? >> no, i am telling you that we are operating at an all-time high in terms of detention and the removals' -- >> you just testified that in 2009 and 2010, you were deporting about 400,000 per year. you were taking credit for the high numbers of deportation. you had a budget that was actually less than what you're sequestration budget is going to be. >> our removals' last year were the highest ever. >> in the last four years, you averaged 400,000 deportations, removals. is that correct? >> yes. >> you did it with a budget that was smaller than the budget we are talking about now with a 5% cut. >> i gave you an average for the four years. if i were to give you each year, it would be substantially more. >> in 2009, you had $4.9 billion, substantially less than you have right now even with

sequestration. in 2010, $5.3 billion and you were able to do your job. as a practitioner, i had an opportunity to work with people in detention quite a bit. i have thousands and thousands of clients. when i look at these numbers, 2228 were released. you put out a paper that said detention releases solely for budget reasons. you're telling me that 1599 of them have no criminal convictions. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> wasn't that something you were going to do anyway, released the majority of these people regardless of your budget constraints? there were in removal proceedings, correct? >> they are in removal proceedings. we do detained non-criminal immigrants who are nonetheless removal from the united states. >> and if they ask for a release, you make a discrimination regardless of what the budget is whether they should be released or not. >> an immigration judge makes that decision. >> you also make that. your field officers have the authority to release the aliens, correct? >> that is correct. we have some discretionary authority ourselves and our determinations are reviewed by immigration judges. there are many instances in which we seek to detain somebody and an immigration judge, as you know, this agrees with us and orders us to release the person.

there are also cases that i referred to early -- earlier where, as a matter of a court ruling, we must release people. i will tell you, in addition to these 2228 but it releases, we released about 150 individuals for special circumstances. the overwhelmingly largest were were people who unremovable, vietnamese, cubans, people we could not get travel documents 4. >> the way you went about this policy scared america instead of making america feel safe. i know you release people every day. it seems odd to me that the single largest appropriation,

that you did not every day. it seems odd to me that the single largest appropriation, that you did not request programming. if it is the single-largest appropriation, than is the highest priority of congress. if it is the highest priority of congress and you know this, why would you not ask for us to do something about this for free programming instead of trying to scare the american people, saying that because of sequestration, we have to release these people that you have the authority to release and have done in the past? >> i do not agree that we were trying to scare america. we were trying to maintain our budget. again, we are at the highest level of detention and removal we have ever had.

we release people all of the time pursuant to statute and we have got to make good judgments with the resources we have on how we go about doing that. that is what we're doing every day. we're going to continue to do it for the rest of the year. we will try to maintain whatever detention levels congress provides. it is not so simple when the largest custody, the largest appropriation we have discussed the operations. the next largest is criminal investigations. >> time for the gentleman has expired. we still have four more members who want to ask questions. we will recess. do we have consent requests? >> could i have this letter entered in as part of the record? >> can you identify the record? >> the pike county commissioners sent me a letter on some of my questioning pursuant to why pike county illegal immigrant all are down. >> thank you. without objection, that will be made part of the record.

we will recess until immediately after the votes. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. jefferies, for five minutes. >> mr. chair, i am a new member here and i think i am generally a pretty optimistic type of person. oftentimes, many of the teams we have seen over the last several months with in this institution, and i do not doubt the sincerity of several of our friends on the other side of the aisle, but many of the themes we see that have been articulated suggest that the sky is falling.

we are debating what many of us view as a very draconian budget and we are told, if it does not get passed, the need for such austerity measures are designed to prevent the great united states of america from becoming greece or spain or perhaps something worse. the sky is falling. we also, on this committee, subcommittee, had a hearing that was entitled the obama administration regulatory war on the economy. very ominous. the sky apparently is falling, notwithstanding the fact that the administration has created about 6 million private sector jobs. today, there is a thing advanced by some, again, not questioning the views of many good faith members, but the theme is that criminals have been unleashed on the american public. the question that has been posed is, is this policy or politics? parenthetically that i believe in my reading of

the 22nd amendment, barack obama is constitutionally prohibited from running for office again because he was elected and reelected. i'm not sure how politics could make their way into this discussion from the electoral context. putting that aside, the issue of whether criminals have recklessly been unleashed on the american public is an interesting one. i have about 2220 people who are at issue in terms of their release from detention. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> that release took place between february 9 and march 1. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> i believe you testified earlier today that there is no evidence as far as you know that any single one of those individuals, more than 2000 released, has engaged in

criminal activities subsequent to that release. is that correct? >> not that i am aware of. that is correct. >> that is not to say someone may not engage in some form of destructive behavior at some point. these things are very difficult to predict scientifically. i am certain that, under your leadership, you have attempted to do it to the best of your ability, prosecutors, judges, all throughout the american justice system attempt to do. if i just might, for a moment, go through some of the releases that took place at the field offices. it is my understanding about 342 detainees were released from the phoenix field office. is that correct? >> yes. arizona had one and level one, 30 level two, 91 level freeze, and 122 non-removals. >> thank you. any evidence that a crime wave was unleashed on the people of

phoenix, arizona? >> as i said earlier, we only had one level one of fender on release in arizona. that individual was 68 years old and a permanent resident for 44 years. >> there is no documented evidence that people of phoenix, ariz., have been rapid subsequent to the release of the individuals? >> no indication of a crime wave. we will pay attention to every single case. if a case needs a different outcome, we will make that outcome. >> 341 people released from the san antonio area. any evidence that a crime wave has taken place subsequent to that release? >> not that i am aware of. we had no level one detainees released in the state of texas at all. >> miami was no. 2. any evidence of a crime wave unleashed on the people of miami?

>> so far, no evidence of serious misconduct. >> lastly, chicago was no. 7 on the list. i would note, interestingly enough, and i would like ask unanimous consent from the chair to share an article in the washington post stating chicagos murder rate is finally falling. can that keep up? can that be entered into the record? >> without objection. >> in january of 2013, prior to the release of these people who, in the view of some, threatened the well-being of the american public, there were 43 homicides, at the high end. onlyary saw a huge drop,

14 homicides. the lowest monthly total since 1957. i am not suggesting there is a correlation between that low total and the release of those individuals, but any evidence that the people of chicago, no. 7 on the list, have been forced to endure a massive crime wave as a result of the release of detainees? >> no, sir. >> time for the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> good to see you. we worked together in the department of justice during the bush and administration. i congratulate you on your promotion. you always had a reputation for intelligence and professionalism

and hard work. it is good to see you here today. i want to follow up a little bit on some questions that mr. marina ask you earlier. they came from various federal districts or were held in various districts. i understand from your testimony that you did not consult with individual united states attorneys in those federal districts when you were releasing detainees who would have come from them. is that correct? >> that is correct. most of the detainees that we received on the criminal side are coming from state and local custody, just the sheer volume. >> but still, the united states attorney's are the chief attorneys in the districts and they would not be your

attorneys in each of the districts. >> on criminal prosecution matters, of course. >> and on civil matters. >> yes. although they do not get involved in administration removal matters. >> but they would for the instance if you had a boc claim or some sort of claim within your agency. it would be the u.s. attorney's office who would be your lawyers. >> they would indeed. i am a strong supporter of the united states attorney's office. >> during my years, we worked closely with all federal law enforcement, struggles with funding and covering their mission with the amount of dollars that they have to do it. i think the model is, we have to do more with less. one of the ways we are able to work well together is because iraq's and the sacks from ice and the other agencies kept us well-informed as to what was going on. i find it incredibly

unfortunate that you were not consulting with your individual united states attorney's when you made the decision of this nature. the chief federal law enforcement officer is charged with enforcing the laws within the district, the federal laws. for you to be releasing detainees is unfortunate. moving to a budgetary question, i understand that, with the exception of the custody operations, ice was operating under the presidential budget, not the budget set by congress under the continuing resolution. as a result, all of the other counts in ice carried a balance of $240 million for the year and $120 million for the past six months. additionally, your cfo indicated that ice carried forward $120 million in user fee

balances. again, all federal law- enforcement is doubling and struggling to cover their core missions. why it didn't ice ever submit a reprogramming request to the appropriations rather than releasing detained illegal immigrants? >> with regard to the appropriations outside of the custody operations, we were pursuing a conservative approach because we did not know what our budget would be for the rest of the year and those funds would be what would allow us to operate at a substantial level in those accounts for the rest of the year. i did not want to move money out of the other accounts. again, the biggest one the have is domestic investigations. i want to make sure we are doing everything we can on

pornographers and drug traffickers and alien sponsors possible. with regard to the user fee balance, we would have to get a reprogramming authority to use those funds. they are not available to us except for a very small amount. there are restrictions on how they are used. we are considering, as part of how we are going to deal with sequestration and whatever budget we get from congress the remaining six months of the year using those user fee we can get approval

for them. i would just note, i understand that we are below 34,000 right now in terms of our detention levels. but on average, we have maintained during the non- sequestration portion of this c.r., an average balance of 33,925. the agency was right where it needed to be in terms of what congress asked of it. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> how're you doing, director? i have a few quick questions of want ask you. several times, you have made reference -- in real terms, what does it mean? give me examples of the investigations you might need to cut to maintain 34,000 beds and still comply with the sequester. >> we are part of the

immigration enforcement system and the enforcement system. we are the principal criminal investigator for the department of homeland's security and the second largest criminal investigative agency in the government. we have more special agents amadou immigration enforcement officers. we are out there every day investigating war crimes, transnational crimes, child exploitation. that work is critical to a homeland security and national security.

we are the second-largest contributor to the joint terrorism task force in the country outside of the fbi itself. important work needs to go on. in my view, we should not take and divert resources from domestic investigations to the detention budget if that would mean fewer child exploitation cases, fewer special agents on the streets, few were drug- trafficking cases. >> ice has a mandate to maintain 34,000 beds. how many individuals do you feel can safely be released under an alternative detention? >> the alternative detention program has an enormous amount of promise. there is a very high rate of appearance for the full-service model. long-term, it is something congress should pay a lot of attention to. i think it could help some of the budget challenges that the committee and other committees are wrestling with. district alternative to the tension is to make sure the

case is heard quickly. the average cost of alternative detention of a full-service model is $7 per day compared to as much as $122 a day. if the case takes much longer to be heard and decided, eventually you lose the benefit of that much lower rate. again, it is an important form that started back in 2002 during the bush administration did it make sense, assuming we can get the cases heard quickly. >> director, part of the -- >> chairman, there is something wrong with the microphones here. >> is this better? let's try that. >> there was an allusion that you were doing this for political machinations. budgetary reasons have nothing to do with you. there is a video we wanted to run. do we have that? >> passengers arriving at mia face long wait times to get through customs. as lines grew longer, tempers got shorter. >> the yelling and screaming and chanting. there were all people in there and eventually, there were 25 old people that were brought up. people were dehydrated, they do not have enough to eat. >> the seemingly unending cues shared via pictures on twitter. passengers figuratively and literally hitting a wall. >> getting in the glass.

>> even before automatic spending cuts into effect, officials warned of the impact it would have across the nation's. some people's way time at customs was longer than their flight to miami. >> it was a 40-minute flight here and we read here for about three hours and 15 minutes. >> i want the members of the committee to understand that you are doing a tough job under circumstances you did not plan for. we did not expect to be here. it is our responsibility to find agreement among ourselves. what you're doing your doing, i would imagine, to make sure you can carry out the duties and responsibilities of your office. is that correct? >> that is exactly right. >> there was an allusion made, if you deported the same number and you were at about the same number the year before that and the year before that.

i would assume that the first 400,000 were a little bit easier than the second and third. >> it is a challenge for us. we are trying to privatize our efforts on those that make the most sense. >> thank you. i will yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. garcia, the director said there was no way you could plan for this. why could you not planned for this? >> the challenge this year has been that we have had a six- month c.r. on march 27, our funding will run out. i trust that the congress -- >> i was talking about the sequester.

when does that become what? >> that took effect on march 1. >> when did it pass? >> it has been around for quite some time. >> august 2, 2011. the statement that you could not plan for it, it seems to me that you had 20 months to plan for it. when did your agency start planning for sequester? >> wheat, like most people, hoped that a sequester would not become reality. >> you cannot plan on hold. you have got to decide. you had a two-month reprieve, it took place march 1. when did you start planning for what everyone knew the law said. or is the practice not to plan and make decisions based on the law of the land and say, we hope it is not going to happen? >> on the contrary.

lawre doing what the requires in a very uncertain environment. >> that is not the question. when did the folks at i start planning for a law that was enacted on august of two dozen 11. did you start august 3? did you start sometime in 2012? did you start march 2? when did you start? >> most of these releases were due to the c.r. with regard to sequestration, we began to plan in earnest at the beginning of this year. >> so you waited until january of 2013? >> we waited until january of 2013. >> when did you make the decision to release the 2228 detainees? when was that decision made? >> the discussions on that have been ongoing since the beginning of this year. >> let me cut in here. i only have five minutes. when did you decide you would release the 629 who were criminals?

>> february 9. >> is that the same time he made the decision to release the 10 level 1 felons? >> the eight level one felons were part of that overall decision. >> do you think maybe if you would have started planning sometime before this year, you had 20 months to get ready for it, do you think maybe we would not have to release 2228 detainees, 629 who were criminals, eight who were level one felons? do you think that would be a question the american people would ask? maybe if you started planning for this when it became the law, maybe we would not have to let 8 felons on the street. >> congress asked us to maintain 34,000 beds and we did exactly that. >> you keep saying how the c.r. both the sequester and the c.r. had an impact on this decision. >> is a quest for resulted in $300 million being cut out of the budget. >> that is my point.

if you plan for it, maybe would not have to release eight level one felons on the street. you said you did not start planning until a few months ago. >> i disagree with your characterization -- >> did you say that january of 2013, you started planning for the sequestered? >> i felt that -- >> i am not asking how you felt. is it practice for the director of ice to not pay attention to what the law of the land is? we will not start to plan until january of 2013, some 18 months later. >> we have made good judgments and balanced many uncertainties.

one of which was the sequester, another of which was the c.r. >> who made the final decision to let the eight felons back on the street? is it your decision? >> the actual decisions on each

case were made in the field. >> what does that mean? >> by our local field officers. >> do you have to sign off on that? >> i do not. >> i yield back. >> would the gentleman from ohio yield to me? i would be happy to -- thank you. i want to make the point that, when you talk about the c.r. causing problems for you, you got the funding that you requested to be able to maintain the mandate of 34,000 beds. you have a 5% cut moving forward from march 1 to the end of this year. that 5% cut, if you were to apply it, and i do not think you should apply it equally across the entire budget of your department, you could make keeping criminal aliens in detention a priority, but you went ahead with your decision of 5% reduction of 34,000. that would be a reduction of about 1700 people. you have already reduced it by 2200. we have a document that has been submitted into the record that shows a plan to reduce it to an average population of 28,000. this is well beyond what sequestration would require you to do, even assuming your policy objective of spreading the costs evenly across the

entire department. i would not do that. i would look into excess funds in other areas and use those to keep people in there and not release them on to the streets. if you need to work it down over time, wait until you have people processed through the system and have been deported rather than putting them back on the streets of the country. it is now an opportunity for the gentleman from pennsylvania. he is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director morton, for being here today and thanks for the hard work you're doing. a few questions. i am trying to track down -- your written testimony stated that every individual released was placed on an alternative form of ice supervision. is there a standard protocol for level one offenders to have an alternative form of supervision? >> no, though generally a level one offender will receive more attention than someone else. again, it is case by case. >> what kind of things would you be doing with a level one offender? >> let me give you some examples. we would determine, do they have a united states citizen as

a children -- >> are they given an ankle bracelet or something like that? >> some of them have an ankle bracelet. >> there is no scheduled protocol. >> the law allows us to have various forms of supervision. >> and you testified before the home and securities subcommittee that there were 10 level one offenders that were released. can you explain the discrepancy in your testimony today? >> yes, i can. that is correct. we testified there were 10. as it turned out, when we reviewed every single one of the level one offender cases, 2 of the cases involved misclassification in the computer system and their record was less severe. they were reclassified as lovell to offenders. >> so you had eight level one offenders, four of whom are in your custody. >> do you know where the other four are? >> we do. there was the gentleman i referred to was released in arizona. he had convictions for theft and drug offenses.

he is 65 years old and has been in the country for 44 years. he was judged as not a danger to the community. there were two other releases from illinois, larceny and criminal trespass. the individual has three united states children, one with a degenerative how eye disease. a judge found he was not a danger to the community. the second illinois case involved misdemeanor offenses. he is 55 years old and has been in the, 34 years. the california case involved burglary, vandalism, and a dui. he is a 23-year resident. both parents are united states residents. he is on gps monterey 24-7. >> you had no testimony with the individuals. >> that is correct. >> any contact with the leadership? any conversation you would have had with anybody at the department of justice? >> not that i'm aware of. >> any discussion with somebody at the white house? >> not that i'm aware of. >> did you receive any talking

points or messaging points on how to handle budget issues with respect to sequestration? >> received instructions from the office of management and budget on planning, how to execute sequestration were it to come to pass. >> in fiscal year 12, up the appropriation was allocated, just over $2 billion. >> yes. >> under the whole c.r., that number has continued through fiscal year 2013 through the present request of this for cuts of the operation.

5% isking at the number, 102 million. that is a number we're looking at today. in number is 102 million. >> is a little over 100 million. >> there is an un obligated balance that does not provide terms forng in direct the custody operations. a could be used for some custodial. have you many meetings had with your cfo? >> numerous. the meetings have been

ongoing for the last couple of weeks to make sure we deal with the sequester as it plays out. we are still waiting on our funding for the next six months. we want to make sure we end on march 27 with in the directions forave foless the money sequester. >> i think i am last. i want to go through the basics again.

this decision was not made by the president. it was not made by the secretary of homeland's security. it was not made by you. is that correct? >> that is right. the decision was made by the career officials in ero and in discussion with the cfo. >> so the financial folks made this decision, basically. >> and the operational people responsible for it. >> the people who have been released, you know who these people are. we know who these people are. >> we, as in the agency. >> can you furnished the names and country of origin to the chairman? could you do that or not? yes or no. >> with the exception of personal identifying information that, by law, we are restricted from giving, we are happy to provide a summary of the individual cases to the extent -- >> let me reclaim my time. >> we are happy to provide a summary of the cases. >> i reclaim my time. you can give the names and the country of origin, correct? >> yes we do. >> the privacy act does not

apply. >> the chairman next request, i understand that. >> yes, you can supply the names of the people and the country of origin to the chairman if he requests. it is a simple question. >> if the full committee were request it, yes. >> the decision was made by the financial folks. my question to you is this -- do you understand, do you see that the way this was handled could scare the american public? have you gotten that message yet? it occurred in my district. it could not have been handled worse by allowing, all the sudden, the press to know that 2000 people being detained are being released by your agency and you did not know about it. i am not seeing it was on purpose to scare people. i am saying that the result occurred that way. it did have the effect of schering the american public. i sent secretary napolitano a letter.

she of course did not respond. give a copy of the letter to your staff. i would like to respond to your -- to these questions. i ask unanimous consent for the study filed in the record. >> without objection. >> we have heard a lot about people being released, released. 40% do not come back, for whatever reason, they do not show up for their deportation hearing. many of those people, because budget restraints, there is not enough room.

the determination is made, you are released until your deportation hearing, which may be a year from now. 40% do not show up. i was a judge in texas for 22 years. i tried only felony cases. if i had a 40% non return the people released on bonds, it would have had me in jail for that. it seems to me we operate under a system where border patrol and at least do a good job of capturing folks, and then all of a sudden, they are released. the need to capture them again because they do not show up for their deportation hearing. my question to you is this, if financial officer made this decision and you did not, the secretary of homeland security did not make this decision, can the financial officer just decide, do you think she or he has the legal authority to release 30,000 of them? do they have the legal authority to release -- if they had the

legal authority to release 2000, do they have the legal authority to release 30,000? can you answer that question? >> to be clear, it was not the chief financial officer. it was the operational leaders of ero in consultation with the financial officer. >> kendis group released 20,000, do they have the legal authority to do that? >> people in mandatory detention must be detained. theset is not most of people. >> the 2228 individuals, by definition, the instructions were that they could not be subject to mandatory detention. two-thirds of the people in our custody are subject to mandatory detention and would need to be detained. your scenario where we would release 30,000 people is not possible because the law requires that. >> in theory, you could release about one-third of them? >> those individuals that a law

provides a description 4. >> it is a simple yes or no. do you believe that your agency has the legal authority without judicial intervention, a federal judge, an immigration judge, do you have the legal authority to release that 1/3, ten thousand? either you do or you do not. >> we have the legal authority to release people not subject to mandatory detention. >> that is a scary thought. i yield back. >> i yield -- i think the gentleman. director, i want to thank you. i know this has not been your favorite experience. i will tell you i'm very concerned with how this has been handled. toomey, here in the congress, we are in the midst of a very concerted effort on both sides of the aisle, a bipartisan effort, to address the kind of immigration reform that many people in this country feel that we need to have. you struggle with the problems of our current system every day. in the midst of this process

for the release without any notification to the congress of 2200 criminal aliens, a portion of which were criminal aliens, and the planned release of several thousand more is not helpful, when one of the critical issues we are going to have to deal with is how to convince the american people that if make the kind of immigration reform that is discussed, we provide legal status to millions, how convince them that this problem will not reset itself? and what changes can we make? what guarantees can we give the public that our immigration laws will be enforced and we will have millions of people not

lawfully in the country? you have limited resources to address that. we understand that. you're given a mandate by the congress to retain a 34,000 people, and to say that low or local officials can automatically, not based upon individual circumstances of people being detained, but based upon spending measures and the available funds, make this decision, without ever consulting with you, without your consulting with the secretary of homeland security, without ever considering that if congress has a mandate and need the funds to meet the mandate, you should come to the appropriations committee and asked for the reprogramming of funds that are available and accessible for you to do that -- i think given the set of circumstances we are in, it is an unfortunate set of circumstances we find ourselves in. this has not been helpful to

that process because we've got to build the confidence of the american people that we do comprehensive immigration reform, we are going to address the enforcement side of this just as aggressively as we enforce our legal immigration and what we do with people for not lawfully here right now. another gentleman from california -- gentlewoman from california wanted me to yield. >> this has been a useful hearing. i do not disagree that this could have been handled in a better way. i think this raises alarms that were unnecessarily raised. the issue of 40% failure rate, failure to appear rate, that is from a 2007 ig report. i wonder we could ask the department to report what is the current fta rate. >> i think that is a fine request. we think there is more recent

data. we would also ask the director if that data is available for a more recent moment and 2007, to provide that to us, if that is available. if we have additional information, we will provide that to you. i thank the gentleman for question and the director again for his participation here today. without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional questions for the director or additional materials for the record. with that, the hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> tom coburn talks about spending and the budget as long as the debate over gun legislation. he proposed 23 amendments to the bill and pledged not to seek a third term. watch him on newsmaker sunday at 10:00 a.m.. >> this is so dear. you will be in trouble. we did not wake up one morning and said we would go and sit in. we did not dream wednesday that we're going to washington. washingtong here on as we did in 1963.

>> they intimidated so many people. when they use that phrase, that it may many people think that it meant destruction. abouts not anything destroying america. it was about rebuilding america. >> they express their personal experiences. live from the virginia festival, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern.

>> the most striking difference between what is happening today a 100 years ago is the calmness of the parade. it was that a parade so much as a right. of the police refused to protect the marchers. planey pressed down their comment the crowd got larger and larger. they had been drinking. they started to throw things at the women. did they tell them to go home. streetcars continue to help people. the crowd got larger and larger and more aggressive. did the women cannot go forward. the police were not involved. they called out the calvary to push back the unruly crowd so that the women could continue their peaceful exercise. today this is a wonderful peaceful assembly and a celebration of how far we have come in 10ar