do secure our border and hold criminal aliens accountable reecreates an ongoing threat to our public safety and sometimes delays consequences for innocent americans. many of those losses are preventable. the numbers became real in 2015. during the hearing, we heard testimony from mr. shaw whose 17-year-old son was murdered by pedro espinosa, an alien living in the united states illegally. he had been released from jail on a conviction for brandishing a weapon before the shaw slaying. this is a weapons conviction. we also heard from the unck of grant. grant was killed in mesa, arizona, while working an overnight shift at a local convenience store. just trying to do the right thing. alleged killer was in removal proceedings due to burglary conviction. but released on a $10,000 bond.

grant was killed. those families are not the only victims of crimes committed by aliens unlawfully present in the united states. today we continue to put names and faces with individuals whose lives were changed forever by the death of a family member killed by a convicted, convicted criminal alien. the common thread among these stories is that each of them were preventable. if i.c.e. had only followed the law, it is highly likely that these witnesses would not be sitting here today grieving the loss of another loved one. i thank the family members that will be joining us on the second panel. they are heart wrenching stories and it was preventable. it didn't have to happen. you could have deported them and you chose not to. and it's just infuriating. my time's expired. let me recognize the rank member, mr. cummings, for his opening statement. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me first of all start off

by expressing how very sorry i for the families of kasey hadwick, sara root, and marlin theris. the crimes that were committed against them were brutal and barbaric. and their lives were stolen away from them all too soon. but not only were their lives stolen away from them, their lives were stolen away from their parents and their friends and relatives. so to mr. root, ms. hartling, i want to thank you for being with us today. i thank you for something else, though. i thank you for taking your into a d turning it passion, to make sure that it does not happen to anybody else. i really appreciate that.

thank you. i know how painful it must be to relive these nightmares. especially before a congressional committee. when i read your testimony, mr. root, i got to tell you, you said over and over again, a parent should never have to do this. identifying a child who has een harmed and murdered. o, only you can truly know what those losses mean to your families. i also loved -- lost a loved one five years ago almost to the day. a nephew. at old dominion, college. folks busted into his room, blew his brains out. 20 years old.

and then to go there a few days later and to see his brainssplattered on the wall, i tell you, when i read your testimony, i could not help but think about all of that. and a lot of people don't understand, when you have somebody who is murdered, i tell people, it's hard to mourn properly because you're always wondering why it happened, how it happened, sometimes, in my case, who did it, but at the same time you mourn for what could have been. every time a friend of folks get married, you think about your own, what her marriage would have been like or you hear about a child being born. it's just constant. when the birthdays come, when christmas comes, everything. it replays in your mind.

mourning over and over and over what could have been. so, i know you want answers. and you deserve those answers. i want to thank you also, mr. burbank, and chief martin, for being here, for dedicating your careers to combating all types of horrible crimes in your communities. it should be the business of this congress to help you be able to do your jobs effectively and efficiently. after all, you go out there, you put your life on the line over and over and over again and so often you run into crimes that you can't even solve. you try, but you do the best you can, you don't get the cooperation. so, i am committed to making ure we get to the bottom line. director saldana, i want to

thank you for your testimony and your work as a public servant. it is crucial that we hear what immigration and customs enforcement has learned from these cases and about your ongoing efforts to improve the agency's procedures. you can understand why people are upset. everyone on this committee wants to help improve public safety and enhance the security of all of our communities. our committee is not just about oversight. and i emphasize this over and over again. it's not just about oversight, it is also about reform. if we identify a problem, our goal is to address it. for example, in one of the cases we will discuss today, i.c.e. repeatedly attempted to deport the perpetrator to haiti. before his release in 2012. but the haitian government refused to accept him. not once, not twice, but three

times. even after haitian officials aagreed to allow him to board a plane bound for haiti, they reversed themselves and refused to accept him. i'm sure these facts are for little solace to mr. chadwick's family, so we need to ask what i.c.e. could have done, what i.c.e. could have done differently and what i.c.e. can do in the future to improve these procedures. we also need to, and i think the chairman made a good point, we realize that there are issues that go to resources. but the question is, are we using the resources that we have effectively and efficiently? we also need to ask what more we as a government can do to force recalcitrant countries like haiti, in this case, who honor their treaty agreements and to accept their own citizens. this process is already under way thanks to senator richard

blumenthal and senator murphy and representative joe courtney of connecticut. on november 24, 2015, they sent a letter to the inspector general of the department of homeland security requesting an investigation to determine what more i.c.e. could have done, and i quote, to overcome the objections of the haitian government to the removal of this individual, end of quote. so i ask unanimous consent to enter their letter into our official hearing record today, mr. chairman. mr. chaffetz: without objection, so ordered. mr. cummings: the inspector genera has agreed to their request and this investigation is now under way. i absolutely support these goals. what i absolutely do not support, however, is a hateful rhetoric we hear and have heard coming from some of my members of the republican party who disparage all immigrants with false condemnation. donald trump has labeled mexican immigrants as rapists.

he's also called for a shutdown of muslims entering the united states. these were not accidental off the cuff remarks. they're genuine statements from the leading republican candidate for president of the nited states of america. if you think his rhetoric is just words, it does not cause actual harm, consider the brutal assault of a 58-year-old homeless latino man in boston last august. two brothers, scott and steve leader, who have extensive criminal records, hit him in the face, urinated on him, punched him, hit him with a metal pole and then walked away laughing. when questioned by the police, one of the brothers said, and i quote, donald trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported, end of quote. when donald trump heard about this brutal attack, he said that it was a shame, but that

his supporters are very passionate and, quote, want this country to be great again, end of quote. as i close, if we remain silent, if we remain silent in the face of these actions, hate will become our new normal. what we are hearing is racism, pure and similar. i do not like to use the word, because it can sometimes be difficult for people to hear anything else. it can become a distraction. we're trying to work toward real solutions. like tackling criminal justice reform, immigration reform and gun violence. unfortunately in this case, it is warranted. so i've lived too long and fought too hard, i will not sit by silently as some of -- try to plunge our nation into a hateful division where we turn against each other. so i hope our committee ultimately will do more than

just hold hearings, a series of hearings, on immigrants who commit crimes. i hope we will -- we all will take heart and that we will examine all of the legitimate questions, and there are a lot of legitimate questions here. we are facing as a nation. and we will act to develop the bipartisan solutions needed to address them. we must come together to reject racist rhetoric and work to make our communities safer in a comprehensive and constructive way. again, i want to thank our witnesses for turning your pain into a passion to do your purpose. thank you very much. i yield back. mr. chaffetz: i thank the gentleman. i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the criminal alien report released by homeland security in 2015. and also enter into the record a letter from senator grassley and senator ernst regarding the case of sara root.

without objection, so ordered. we'll hold the record open for five legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement. i now recognize the distinguished witness on the first panel. we have two panels today. pleased to welcome the honorable sarah saldana, director of united states immigration and customs enforcement at the department of homeland security. thank you for being here. pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses are to be sworn before the they testify. if you'll please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? ms. saldana: i do. mr. chaffetz: thank you. let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. we would appreciate it if you would limit your oral testimony to five minutes. your entire written statement will obviously be made part of the record. ms. saldana, you're now recognized, director, for five minutes. ms. saldana: thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member cummings, and other distinguished members of this committee. i cannot tell you how disheartening it is to sit here

and hear an issue and very important issues related to the topic of immigration reform be bandied about as a political football. i'm a former united states attorney. i was a prosecutor for 10 years. i am about the law and law enforcement. i'm about identifying problems and correcting them. i am here to tell the public what the situation is with some of the issues we face, inform the public, and i would really appreciate we focus on solutions, solutions, as a -- as opposed to political banter. along with our sister agencies, i.c.e. has no smaller mission, no smaller mission than the national security, border security, and public safety of our citizens. like any law enforcement agency , we deal with serious and difficult matters every day. in the area of immigration, recent estimates are that there are about 11.2 million illegal immigrants in the country.

there are approximately two million, two million undocumented immigrants who are involved in some form or fashion in i.c.e.'s administrative process. there are about a half a million, 500,000 of those, who are part of active cases in the immigration courts. i.c.e. detention program booked in approximately 300,000 individuals last fiscal year. and as you know, we've been funded at the 34,000 bed level for the last couple of years. you, the congress, have not only provided the funds to carry out our responsibilities for which we are very grateful, but you've also set forth the framework to execute those responsibilities. and it's all right here in the immigration and nationalization act. you tell us who we are required as a mandatory matter to detain and you tell us who we exercise our ability to release someone and not detain, make a decision about not detaining or bond for

that matter. obviously a very small percentage of individuals are detained while an immigration judge, under the system that you, the congress, has provided, are detained while that judge makes a decision in their removal proceedings. i am deeply mindful that this is not simply a discussion of statistics, capacity, policies or procedures. there are families whose lives are personally affected by these decisions. as a human being and a mother, never mind my prosecutorial xperience, i feel very strongly any time someone is injured or murdered or killed, otherwise killed by any person. and certainly those within the immigration system. i know that the women and men of i.c.e. work tirelessly to enforce the law and protect the public. and they steadfastly bare the enormous responsibility -- bear the enormous responsibility that they are charged with.

when the chairman respectfully, sir, says we just decided, that being i.c.e., to let them out on the streets and, quote, we chose not to detain people, that is misleading the public and particularly these victims about the immigration situation and the entire picture. i think this committee well knows that this year over 2/3, er 2/3 of the criminal releases, something i wish you had pointed out, over 2/3 of the criminal releases were as a result of the supreme court telling us we had to release someone, wasn't i.c.e. choosing to do so, and another portion of the courts otherwise telling us that we had to release the immigration -- release, the immigration courts, who have overall supervisory responsibility over this system. so to sit there and say that the proud women and men of law enforcement and i.c.e. are choosing to release criminals

is absolutely unfor giveable. i am very proud of representing those men and women. many of them are former police officers, sheriff's department members, and they do not go around trying to put criminals on the street. so i want the record to be clear and want these victims' families to know exactly what i.c.e. is facing and i want they have to have an accurate picture of that. when i.c.e. makes a determination upon an alhe yen with a criminal conviction, we act in accordance with the law. the law that you have given us. we are committed to carefully reviewing the circumstances of make se, to ensure we prudent decisions, and to use the tools at our disposal, including supervision and conditions of release. further, we include in our data sets things over which we have no control when somebody's claiming to be a citizen or an l.p.r., there are additional requirements on us. this is a very complex law. and every time or virtually every time i have been before a

committee, i have begged, i have asked, work with i.c.e., work with me, work with the secretary for comprehensive immigration reform. we can't kick this down the road or after an election. we need to fix this. and i am -- i implore you to help us. so, this issue has been of great importance to me since i started at the agency about a year and a half ago. in march of last year i set up a system that i think i've testified about to this agency, to look, review every criminal release that there is. we have a panel that i've actually visited with. i'm in the process right now, like i do with any policy, of revisiting the policy to see how effective it's been over the last year. because we started in march. and to see what we can do better in that regard. i am willing to learn and i do listen. so, as you're aware, we're

proud of the fact, and i think it's as a result of in part of this panel, of going from 36,000 releases in 2014 to in 2015 a little over 19,7 hub. -- 19,700. so you know, i want to be sure it's clear, that while 2/3 of the criminal releases in 2013 and 2014 were characterized, even here, as resulting from i.c.e. determinations, that ratio actually is reversed in 2015 and, as i said earlier, we have about 2/3 of our criminal releases being required of us by courts. and with respect to what congressman cummings pointed out, and that is the can he calstrant countries and getting people -- recalcitrant countries and getting people to take back their criminals this world is a chaotic world. we have countries with great instability, countries that

have suffered tremendous even natural disasters like haiti, and are in turmoil and trying to deal with them is very hard. but i am working with the department of state, this afternoon i'm meeting with assistant secretary to talk some more about what more we can do with respect to recalcitrant countries. and i'm glad to do that. let me conclude by saying that having heard directly from families over the last 11 years of victims of crime who have suffered tremendous loss, i personally remain committed, mr. chairman, i personally remain committed to implementing i.c.e.'s priorities in a smart and strategic manner and to safeguard our communities and maximize the agency's success. i thank you for the opportunity to address the group and i await your questions. mr. chaffetz: thank you. i'll now recognize myself for five minutes. the numbers you gave us just in the last two days, discretionary releases by i.c.e., were 54ers had.

the total is 46,422. the rulings, you said, were 2/3 of the reason. and yet the number you gave us show that it's less than 10%. your microphone, please. ms. saldana: i don't know which numbers you're looking at. mr. chaffetz: you're the one that said that 2/3 of the reason you release people is based on the supreme court decision. the numbers you gave us just two days ago show that that number is actually less than 10%. ms. saldana: the numbers we gave you were for 2015. mr. chaffetz: we have 2015, 2014 and 2013. ms. saldana: let's focus right now on 2015 as an example. although we can do each year, if you'd like. 19,723 -- there was 19,723 criminal releases. mr. chaffetz: let me ask you another way. no, no, no. ms. saldana: more than that has happened. if 1% were releases, and i.j. orders, the immigration courts

were 52%. mr. chaffetz: we will hash out the numbers with your own numbers, but what is unacceptable is even one discretionary. why do you even release one? why do you even release one person? chaff -- ms. saldana: because of the statute. mr. chaffetz: no, it's discretionary. you took more than $100 million and let it go to other purposes outside of the immigration and customs enforcement. you're not maximizing the amount of money that you want in order to get to the beds that is mandated under the law. and you've asked for $185 million less for detention and transportation. you're not going to be convincing us that you're dedicated to removing these criminal aliens. ms. saldana:ify may answer your question. mr. chaffetz: well, yes, go. ms. saldana: you have said here, only a certain number of convictions even, they're primarily convicts, offenses with convictions, are subject

to mandatory detention. the rest -- let me finish. mr. chaffetz: you have somebody who commits homicide, yes, we want them deported. that's the law. ms. saldana: then put it in the statute. in the statute, say, if they do not commit one of those offenses that are specifically enumerated, including aggravated felonies, then these people are not subject to mandatorydy tension -- detention, which is specifically outlined here. when i say you, i mean the congress. the rest you say, ok, i.c.e., you will then make a determination based on what the judges, federal judges of this country make every day and that is based on flight risk and harm to public safety or potential harm to public safety. you will decide which ones can be released. r. chaffetz: and there's a wholely thelife -- list of categories that are -- a whole list of categories that are a harm to public safety that you released anyway. that law is crystal clear. you are making these

discretionary choices in releasing these people out into the public and they're committing more crimes. i don't understand why you don't deport them. you use it as an excuse these countries that won't accept them. based on section 243-d of the immigration nationality act, how many times have you recommended to the state department, in writing, that these countries are, according to the law, on being notified by the attorney general, that the government of the foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an alien, and then it goes on, that the secretary shall order the officers in that foreign country to discontinue granting visas or nominate -- or nonimmigrant visas. how many times have you made that recommendation to the attorney general or to the state department? ms. saldana: i don't have the precise number but we have. mr. chaffetz: have you ever? ms. saldana: yes, we have, sir. mr. chaffetz: which countries. right off the top of your head. which countries have you recommended -- ms. saldana: i can't tell you off the top of my head. mr. chaffetz: when will you get me that information? ms. saldana: kicket -- i can get it to you within a week.

mr. chaffetz: you'll give me the letters you've given either to the attorney general's office or the state department regarding the problems that you're having -- and the recommendations that you're making about the countries that will not accept these aliens? ms. saldana: yes. you understand that i have to talk to the department of state about that because some of these are sensitive areas that i believe we can talk about this further in chamber, sir, that i believe -- mr. chaffetz: we're going to talk about it in the public. i want to know which countries are not taking -- because you know what? they shouldn't be getting federal aid. and we shouldn't be giving them visas so that more people from those countries can come to the united states. i don't know what you think is so sensitive about that. but i want you to prioritize americans rather than those other countries. that's what i want to hear. i want to know that the citizens of our states are your number one priority. and put it out there in the public. let's know and understand which countries are not taking back the criminals that came here illegally and should be deported back into their country. ms. saldana: let me remind you, sir, that the department of state is the one that issues

visas, withholds aid. we don't have money to give aid to countries. that's not what we do. mr. chaffetz: i know. ms. saldana: if there's a memorandum of understanding with the department of state, we can recommend steps but we have it in a step by step procedure. because this is a complicated world. i think you all understand. and we have to look at each country separately. syria and iraq, that's a pretty hopeless situation in trying to return those immigrants to those countries. mr. chaffetz: do you really think syria and irke is your job and responsibility to make that determination? here's what the law says. on being notified via the attorney general that a government of a foreign country denies or unreasonably delays accepting an anyell who is a citizen subject -- an alien who is a citizen subject of the country, the secretary shall. so if you go to the first part of it. ms. saldana: shall what, sir? mr. chaffetz: shall order counselor officers in that foreign country to discontinue grants immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas or both to citizens subject to national

residence of that country until the attorney general note fice the secretary that the country -- notifies the country that the country has accepted the alyeb. what is -- alien. what is incumbent upon is you to make that notification. if you are trying to take even just one alien and deport them back to a country, these are criminal aliens. remember, these are ones that committed crimes and were convicted of crimes. if you're trying to deport even one of those and the country won't take them back, you need to give that notification to the state department. ms. saldana: and the state department makes the decision. let's be clear on that. mr. chaffetz: there's no decision. under the statute it says the secretary shall. it starts with you. and if you don't give them that notification, it doesn't work. my time has expired. i want to have within a week's time all of those letters, since you've been in office, that you have sent to the state department and/or attorney general making -- telling them where there's a problem. i don't want to hear about this excuse any further. now i recognize the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: let me pick up just where the chairman left

off. when that letter goes to the state department, what happens then? who makes the decision at that point? what happens? ms. saldana: there's a leadership group, the counselor affairs assistant secretary is the person i've been dealing with. she makes the recommendation to the secretary of the department of state and they look at the whole picture with respect to that country and make a decision and notify us. mr. cummings: then that is the decision? ms. saldana: yes, sir. mr. cummings: you can't change that? ms. saldana: i.c.e. isn't in the business of issuing visas. mr. cummings: i want to make sure we put all of this into some kind of context. remember what i said in my opening statement about reform and trying to find solutions. we have these families here who .ave suffered greatly by the way, i hope that dish know you may be leaving after your testimony, as is usual -- ms. saldana: i'm staying. mr. cummings: oh, good. because i want you to hear from them. i think they want to you hear their pain.

they come a good distance and i thank you very much for doing that. ms. saldana: i offered to both families, the roots and ms. hartling, to meet with them personally. mr. cummings: thank you very much. we need to eliminate any misperception that immigrants as a group are more likely to be criminals or commit acts of violence. let's start with the likelihood of landing in jail. census data from 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, found that incarceration rates were negative. u.s. citizens were two to five times higher than that of ingrant -- of immigrants. were you aware of that fact? ms. saldana: yes. mr. cummings: the fact contradicts the misconception that immigrants are inherently predisposed to be criminals. would you agree with that? ms. saldana: yes. mr. cummings: so studies have widely shown that recidivism rate for immigrant criminals is lower than for the general

population, is that right? ms. saldana: yes, sir. mr. cummings: based on the data sub mutted by i.c.e. for -- submitted by i.c.e. for 2015, less than 5% of immigrant criminals committed new crimes. do you understand that? ms. saldana: that sounds right. i looked at the studies by the department of justice and the statistics. mr. cummings: given this information, do you believe it is fair to say that a person's immigration status is not indicate -- does not indicate a likely increase that they'll commit another crime? ms. saldana: yes. mr. cummings: if i were the family of a victim, i would say, well, cummings, i really am not interested in hearing that. because i suffered a loss. that will never be replaced. but i'm trying to just put all of this in some kind of context because i think if we look at the total picture and we have a

better chance of coming up with the solution that it truly addresses the problem. now, i'd like to discuss the cases in which i.c.e. has discretion. the chairman talked about discretion. i think he was absolutely right to address that. i.c.e., as explained in the past, that some criminal immigrant detainees are .eleased after posting bond can you please tell us again, why not simply deport all criminal alien detainees that you have the discretion to deport? and is it a question of resources? ms. saldana: it's not so much a question of resources, sir, as it is the statute. congress, in its wisdom, gave people who were found in the country and determined initially to be in the country illegally a very complex set of rights. and ability to appeal and to have their cases heard by

immigration courts. let me just make this really clear. we cannot -- we'd be violating the statutes, which i think no one here wants me to do, we cannot deport somebody without a final order of removal from a court. i.c.e. doesn't deport people on its own motion. it has to have an order from the court. and obviously we've got to have the ability to put that person in the country of their origin. mr. cummings: i.c.e. has reported having the resources to deport only about 4% of the 11 million documented immigrants. is that right? ms. saldana: that's right. in fact, i think you all have seen the studies that indicate that if we tried to deport 11.2 million people, it would cost nywhere from $650 billion to $750 billion. mr. cummings: so i.c.e. also explained that discretionary releases typically occur when individual associated with less serious offenses, based on your experience as a prosecutor, and

you were a former u.s. attorney? ms. saldana: yes, sir. mr. cummings: i have tremendous respect for our u.s. attorneys. why is it important for law enforcement agencies in general to have the dis-- the discretion to release individuals on mind? what's that about? ms. saldana: again, it's important for us because we have to manage the money that this congress has given us. i want to repeat. the bond procedure, the decision to detain are all -- or not detain, are all outlined in here. we must look at flight risk, threat to public safety, when we make those decisions. but you have given us that authority. it's important for us, because got to manage the number of beds we have and obviously the entire fund that you have given us in order to remove people from the country. mr. cummings: i only have a minute left of my time. i understand that these determinations are based on risk evaluations, giving consideration factors like age, fiscal, mental health, risk of

harm to public safety, risk of flight and whether any mandatory detention factors apply. can you please explain why it's important that these evaluations are conducted on a case by case basis? and then, knowing what you know, and hearing what you know you're going to hear, i want you to tell us things that we can do as congress folk to help you do the job that you're trying to do. ms. saldana: if i may start with the last part of that question first. i would love to sit down with this committee or a group of this committee to go through this statute and talk about comprehensive immigration reform. what we can do. with respect to some of the very complicated part parts of this. this is just a statute. we have realings -- rulings left and right from all over the country, literally going left and right, that we have to abide by, even though we may be appealing them. but with respect to your

overall question, regarding discretion, we have committed to deal with each immigrant on a case by case basis, because we don't have -- i don't think we have the will, nor do we have the funds to deport 11.2 million people. we have to make decisions on a case by case basis. bright line rules don't work here. if we have a bright line rule that we deport anybody who comes into our custody, we don't have time to do what we've been trying to do and very successfully done, and that is focus on criminal aliens. this is why we need to have that discretion and ability to make the decisions that we do. and i will tell you, sir, are we perfect? i have great faith in the judgments of our law enforcement officers in making these determinations. they are experienced, well trained and they care about the safety of our community.

are we perfect? i can say firsthand, i am not. and neither are our officers. but we do the very best we can. mr. cummings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chaffetz: now i recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, for five minutes. mike tyson thank you. i do want to he can -- mr. mica: thank you. i do want to echo the director's remarks, our customs and border patrol are some of the most professional, accomplished, hardworking individuals in the federal government. they work day in and day out to do their job and protect our borders. but we do hear things have affected their ability to control our borders. first of all, the number of deportations total is down fairly dramatically in this administration, isn't that correct? ms. saldana: the numbers are lower -- mr. mica: we have a chart there. can you guys put the chart up?

end of the bush administration we were deport being a quarter of a million. we're down to about 100,000, 2014 maybe even lower than that. that's total, total deportations, right? ms. saldana: no, sir. i think you say up there -- mr. mica: it's total deportations. ms. saldana: sir. your chart says interior deportations. not total. there's also on the border removals. mr. mica: again, in this case i'm taking, they're in the united states, in the interior, not at the border. in any event, criminal portations were 110,000 in 2013 and now they're down to 63,000. i don't have a chart on that. those are numbers provided by you. is that correct? 63,000 in 2014. i don't know what 2015 is. i'm sorry, 2015 is 63,000.

i don't have 2014. and 2013 was 110,000. in any event, it's down. ms. saldana: those are not the numbers i have. mr. mica: all i can go is by what we got from you all. you've said that the law prohibits some of your actions to deport but tilely -- but actually thality agents tell us two things. first they say they're hamstrung by the president's executive order that has granted some amnesty to illions of illegal aliens. that's what the agents say. have you heard that? ms. saldana: from our agents or from border patrol? mr. mica: from your agents? ms. saldana: i've heard reports of that. mr. mica: they're telling us that. they also say that some of those people even, again, that there was a court decision and i.c.e. has admitted however ,457, of the

30,000 releasees, that that would be the number affected by is ourt decision, which that 57% were actually released at i.c.e.'s discretion, at your discretion. so we have more than half of those at your discretion. that's what's -- we've had hearings, we've had your folks in. this is what they're telling us. the other thing too is you have and ght to deport people he discretion is given to you. again, your agents have told us. but more than half the cases you have haven't exercised that discretion. you also have, when the courts do let some folks out on appeal , these criminal aliens that have committed an act, how many times have you appealed the bonds?

ms. saldana: i don't have the recise number. mr. mica: can you provide that? i think the fairly limited. you have that discretion too. 57% of the time where you have discretion, you haven't exercised it. then where people have committed it, they're out on bond, and you could appeal and go after those folks, you don't do it. another thing, we've lost total control of the border. this is most disturbing. got this yesterday. this is the customs and border patrol system, the entire system, that deals with passport control. this is just the last two months, from march 4, 2016, to april 17. the system has been down almost two total days and this is a record of the time the system has done. the system we have to control our borderer and who's coming in is imploding.

i don't know what's going on here. i'd ask maybe the chairman of government operations or whoever is in charge of this area in our subcommittee to look at. this we've lost control of our borders and your system that protects us, the main computer system, has been down, down, down. i think this is something that needs to be looked at. i'm going to hand you a copy of this and i'd like you to respond to these statistics. ms. saldana: are these i.c.e. statistics or customs and border protection? mr. mica: custom and border. ms. saldana: that's another agency, sir. mr. mica: but this is the system that controls the passports. and entry into the united states. you're also a d.h.s., i'd like to have a response for the record. . saldana: we should get the -- mr. chaffetz: the gentleman's time has expired. we now recognize the gentlewoman from new york for ive minutes.

mrs. maloney: thank you. frath first of all, i'd like to director saldana for your public service. first as a u.s. attorney and -- in texas and now as director of i.c.e. i would like to understand the challenges that you and i.c.e. face in trying to deport criminal aliens back to their countries and the countries refuse to take them. i want to understand what the challenges are and, more importantly, what can we do to force a country to take back their own citizen, when we are deporting them for serious criminal crimes? as you know, the chadwick family sheer. they lost their -- is here. they lost their beloved child and they rightfully want to

, ow why a convicted threatening, terrible felon was not deported when he served his conviction in the united states, he was out on release, the law said we can deport him, we should deport him, and as i understand it, his home country, haiti, refused to take him. and i want to understand how this happens and i want to understand what we can do about it. in this case, the guy's name jean jacques of haiti. it is stunning and shocking how many times the haitian officials approved his return to haiti and then reversed themselves and essentially pulled the rug out from under u.s. officials and would not let him come home to his own country. to give a specific example, on october 1, twelve, u.s.

officials submitted a request -- 2012, u.s. officials submitted a request to haiti to deport him. haitian officials gave their verbal confirmation that he was approved to go back to haiti. and are you aware that haitian officials approved his removal to haiti on october 1, 2012? ms. saldana: yes. and you have cited -- i don't know if you're done. mrs. maloney: yeah. and then they changed their minds. they told you, u.s. officials, that he was denied for removal. they pointed out that he was approved three days earlier and do you know why the haitian officials decided on a whim that he should not be allowed or would not be allowed to come back to his country? ms. saldana: we have not been give an response. it is tremendously frustrating. we want to send this person back. we wanted to. and there are others, unfortunately, others in that same position. as i said, with respect to haiti -- mrs. maloney: i want to go on. this is really critical. because if we had succeeded in

removing him and deporting him, we would have saved an american life, we would have saved an american family, and it was the right thing to do. so one week later, unbelievably, on october 10, haitian officials acknowledged to u.s. officials that they had actually approved a flight to haiti that included mr. jacques. he was supposed to go. but then on the very same day, they reversed themselves again. they said that he could not board the plane. what in the world was going on with these haitian officials where they just -- officials? were they just playing games with us? this is the second time they denied the deportation request of the united states government. nd by treaty they had approved illegal ilyens and certainly criminal aliens would be accepted back in their country. ms. saldana: what's extraordinary is that actually the haitian government has

worked with us in many instances before. so, it is a very arbitrary granting and then denial and then granting and denial. it's extraordinarily frustrating. just lining the united states requires people to have -- like the united states requires people to have travel documents when they come through the united states, all these other governments require that too. mrs. maloney: my time is almost up. this is almost unbelievable. then again on february 2 of 2016 of this year, u.s. officials tried again to send him back to haiti. and on this day, haitian officials informed us, the u.s., that mr. jacques was once again approved for removal and then again on the very same day these haitian officials withdrew their approval. what i want to know is what can we do about it? this is something i would like to work with the majority party on accomplishing. i personally support universal reform on immigration, but if we can't reach a quick approval on that, we should get a quick

approval on how we can deport someone back to their country, especially when they are, quote, allies, when we have treaties, when you are literally giving this country aid and yet three times they really made fun of the american government and said, no, we're not taking him back, reversing a verbal confirmation that they would take this criminal back. i feel very strongly about this. i have my own two daughters, i can't imagine the grief that this family's facing. this is such anjustice not only -- an injustice not only to this american family and this young girl, but also to our whole country. that they will not abide by the treaty, they will not take their felon back that came here illegally, and my question is, and it's a serious one, how can we enforce this and how can we stop this type of abuse of the american government?

ms. saldana: we have a system in place and we have an understanding with the department of state, a memorandum of understanding. mrs. maloney: but if they refuse to take him, which is what they're doing, what do we do about it? ms. saldana: what we need to do is have department of state at the table. what we need to talk about is how we accelerate the process. because right now it is very, very slow. mrs. maloney: but you accelerated it, you achieved it. he was ready to be deported and the country said no. we have to get to where we can force these countries to be responsible. ms. saldana: i agree. >> the chair notes the presence of mr. courtney from connecticut and i ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to fully participate in today's hearing. with that -- without objection, so ordered. i'd also like to introduce for he record a c.b.p. system down times log, without objection, so ordered. mr. desantis: the chair will now recognize the gentleman from michigan for five minutes. > thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here.

let me reiterate the fact that, number one, we support the proud enforcement officials that you work with. mr. walberg: and that you lead. we expect that the overwhelming majority of them are as frustrated as we are in trying to deal with the problem. but our frustration goes up to leadership aspects, even above you. in making sure that our citizens are safe. we're also concerned that there are plenty of desiring immigrants who want to come to this country for all the right reasons. it's more difficult for them to come because of what's going on with these illegals and especially the ones perpetrating the crimes and murders in our society. and to get to the accomplishment of having economy hence -- comprehensive immigration reform take place, we have to make sure that our systems are working to keep this terrible, cruel element

out of our society. so let me ask you a question. information that -- information that i have, a statistic, says that as of august, 2014, the administration indicated that over 375,000 aliens and 121,000 level one convicted criminal aliens who the obama administration deems, and i quote, the worst of the worst, end quote, were removed as a result of the secure communities. instead of continuing to utilize that successful existing system, the obama administration ended it and implemented the priorities enforcement program. why did the administration end the successful program that flags criminal aliens once they're booked into jails? ms. saldana: sir, we may have to have a discussion of what successful actually means. i think you're aware of the fact that -- mr. walberg: people living and not dying.

ms. saldana: i think you're aware of the fact that we, the united states, have been sued many times because of secured communities. and the fact that there are people that had claims that they served in federal court, some ended up being successful, even though we challenged them, with respect to the implementation of the program. many people are concerned that as a result of the secured communities and the way it was implemented, something that was in place before i was actually gone, before i got there, that there was tremendous controversy about it. mr. walberg: let me jump on here. during the secure communities program, that's been ended, how many detainers were issued by i.c.e. but ignored by local law enforcement? ms. saldana: i don't have that number in front of me. mr. walberg: do you have the number of how many of those ignored detainers resulted in aliens being releasesed and

committing a crime. salad sailed don't know, sir -- s. saldana: i don't know, sir. mr. walberg: you've indicated you want solutions, but seems like we'd want these numbers in order to get to showslusions. ms. saldana: i don't have them on the top of my head. they're available. we can find them. it may take manual search of our records and time but we can. the fact that i can't answer that right now shouldn't undermine my point about wanting to do something positive in this area. mr. walberg: i'd like to have those numbers provided for our committee. whether the week that you initiated that you said about the letters or not, we'd like it as quickly as possible. why is the federal government satisfied with local localities coming in contact with removalable aliens? and then not collecting sufficient information, records, finger prints, etc.?

ms. saldana: that is happening. when you say removal aliens, no alien is removeable until we have a court order. so they go through a very, sometimes years, in the making, process, a very long process, to make that determination. i will tell you, though, you know that secured communities, that program, was replaced by the priority enforcement program where we work with all of the these state and local jurisdictions. that's what i did as a united states attorney. we relied on local law enforcement, not only police departments, but sheriff's departs, to assist us. we do that. mr. walberg: aren't there stipulations for them to provide information to you, such as fingerprints on these people? ms. saldana: there's a provision that talks about cooperation from them. not specifically fingerprints, but cooperation. mr. walberg: so cooperation would include information that is necessary for protecting our citizens, correct? ms. saldana: it could. mr. walberg: it could.

maybe that's why this hear something being held today. i hope the information will come out so that families won't be seated in the room again, because there's indication that we have not done what's necessary to protect them. that's my concern. again, it's not the i.c.e. agents, it's the administration that isn't doing what's necessary or at least pushing for the funds, the resources, the systems in place to make sure that we have that capability and that's my concern. that's not a charge. that's a request, help us to do the right thing. but in turn, don't give us the excuse. i yield back. ms. saldana: another part though is the congress, sir. could you help us by -- mr. walberg: i think we have helped you with plenty of things. we've asked questions today about why you haven't used some of those resources. why there hasn't been the pushback on other countries, why there hasn't been a request for dollars to put toward the programs that keep these people off the streets as opposed to

other entities. and i yield back my time. mr. desantis: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes mr. cartwright for five minutes. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, director saldana, for being here. i also want to take time to acknowledge and thank everyone for the presence of the families here today. starting with you, ms. matterling -- hartling. your daughter's case has been discussed a bit and we'll talk more about it. but our hearts go out to you. i know i speak for everyone here and everyone in the united states congress in expressing our most profound condolences. also we have chief ralph martin ere taking up the cause of marylin farris. i know she's not family to you, i'm e's starting to be sure. thank you for taking up that cause.

but we also have michelle and scott root here today. and thank you. we have scott root here today. . d i thank you for being here inhe wasable, unspeakable tragedy. we're talking about your daughter who just graduated college the day before with a 4.0 in of all things criminal justice. and then the next day, in a drunken driving drag racing incident, an undocumented legal struck her from behind with such force that she died within about 24 hours. unbelievable. this is a situation that i want to talk to you about, director saldana. we had this 19-year-old illegal from honduras.

really what happened after the crime was even more shocking because he got out on bail. there was a judge, this is in let ka, i think, a judge him out on $50,000 bail. and if you know how bail works, if you post 10%, then you're out on bail. . ll, 10% of $50,000 is $5,000 his brother came up with the money. and as soon as he got out, he was gone. are you familiar with the case, directer? ms. saldana: oh, yes. mr. cartwright: i want to look into that a little bit. the thing -- i was a lawyer for 25 years. and i know a little bit about how bail is set. and one of the considerations is when the judge decides to set bail, is this person a flight risk? is this person likely to be

somebody who will plunk down the 10% and never be heard from again? in fact, he had a history of brushes with the law before this horrible drunk driving incident. he had had a history of skipping out on other charges when the judge considered bail. but what i read, and i want you guys to disabuse me of this if it's wrong but what i read was that the trial court judge never -- the one charged with setting bail, never even heard that this was an illegal immigrant, never even heard of his history with the law, and most importantly never even knew that he had skipped out on other charges before. this was the poster child for somebody that ought to have a very, very high bail set. and the judge never even knew it and it was because the prosecution, which knew all these things, never informed the judge. that's what i got from news accounts. if it's wrong, that's why i'm

asking it. i want you to tell me if it's wrong. we saw in the news accounts that the douglas county attorney acknowledged that his office could have handled the matter better and we'll talk about it later. but if you're familiar with the case, director, am i getting the facts right there? ms. saldana: more or less. although i can't speak to exactly what the judge had in his mind when he made the decision to release the man. mr. cartwright: in a case like that. does it require an i.c.e. detainer for a local judge to set a high bail in a case of probably flight risk? ms. saldana: no. he just needs to know the facts. and we obviously were not in the courtroom at that time. it's a state matter, as you all know, when it comes to this kind of activity. i want to tell mr. root, express my sympathies as well with respect to this. i think you said earlier that the d.a. had said that things could have been done better.

there's a lot -- unfortunately there's a lot of different things that could have been done better. i am going to use this as -- when i said i was revisiting our criminal review process, i am going to use this as an example of what we could we have done differently in this case, because i don't want this to happen again, obviously. neither does the officer or the agents involved in this case. . mr. cartwright: i look forward to hearing from the families. i yield back. >> i recognize mr. gosar. mr. gosar: you reached out to the families, but i want to make sure it's for the record that you reached out to the families around april 22 only finding out about this hearing and their testimony. ms. saldana: i want to --

mr. gosar: i made a statement, ma'am. this is my time, not yours. stalled saled you understand once again i would like the record to be clear, sir. i'm meeting with them this afternoon. mr. gosar: i find it -- i'm going on. i don't think you ought to be picking a fight with arizona, of all places, you better not go there. operation streamline go away. incarcerations over and over again. it's not the men and women in border patrol, it's leadership, like the president, the attorney general all across the board. let's put a face on this. are you aware in january of 2015 in my home state who was shot and killed by an illegal alien and he was out on bound. e you aware of a murder in

mesa, arizona? ms. saldana: yes. gusty goes the numbers that you cite have real consequences. murderous consequences for real people. one life lost in this manner is way too many. ms. saldana:. mr. gosar: the illegal alien was out on bond. n fact, a self-proclaimed drug cartel member had deportation proceedings dragging on more than two years after he was released on bond following a conviction, a conviction, on a burglary charge. while out on bond, this illegal lien had two harris meant -- that rassment charges and one of the victims said he pointed a gun at her and her boyfriend and this man remained on the street.

this thing that you talk about, this discretionary issue. on january 9, 2015, he walked into a convenience store demanded a pack of cigarettes in exchange for a jar of change. when the clerk hesitated, he pointed a gun at grant and shot him. 21 years old. irector saldana, his murder is a result of your failed policies. once again, the discretion, i pointed out, he had a history and a rap sheet. tell me why. ms. saldana: with respect to the fact -- mr. gosar: it's not that code. there is no reason this man -- it's not about that code, the code -- ms. saldana: statute.

mr. gosar: not about that. this guy should have been incarcerated. grant's murder is not unique and murder situation is not an isolated case, is it director? it? not an isolated case is ms. saldana: i think the numbers are in the record. mr. gosar: how many aliens enter the united states and charged with felonies in 2015? ms. saldana: i have to look up that number. how many aliens in the system or out there in the public. mr. gosar: how many entered illegally and charged with felonies. i would like those numbers for 2015 and 2016. ms. saldana: 11.2 million aliens in the united states. mr. gosar: i'm asking about those who come in with felonies, charged with felonies.

ms. saldana: there's no way we can have information on them. mr. gosar: how many aliens who enter the united states illegally were charged with felonies in 2015. you have those numbers. ms. saldana: we don't have those numbers. mr. gosar: after they got here. don't you get it? ms. saldana: many can't be found. we don't have any records they are here. 11.2 is an estimate. mr. gosar: yeah, they are illegally here and charged with a felony here, you got those numbers? ms. saldana: no, sir. it wouldn't be complete. mr. gosar: you have got to be kidding. they come into this country and they are illegal and they have been charged with a felony, what are those numbers in this country. are you kidding me? ms. saldana: i asked you to listen to my answer. 11.2 people here in the country

-- >> the gentleman's time has expired. i now recognize the gentleman rom california, mr. liu. mr. lieu: i apologize for your mplets no one dispute he had a legitimate court order for deportation and the haitian government rejected him three times. are you aware that the u.s. has been the largest donor to haiti since 1973? ms. saldana: no, sir. i don't follow that. mr. lieu: we are the largest donor and are you frustrated that countries don't take back their citizens after they commit crimes in the united states? ms. saldana: absolutely.

if we can can remove somebody and have that order. mr. lieu: would you support a law or an amendment that countries like heighty should not get foreign aid if they do not accept their citizens back? ms. saldana: i would support looking at that question and working with the department of state to see if that is reasonable and logical thing to do. mr. lieu: has the government of haiti apologized? ms. saldana: i don't know. ot to ayes that i'm aware -- i.c.e. mr. lieu: i hope someone from the government watches this because they have bipartisan outrage. they could lose federal aid and i would like to know if i.c.e. and you have gotten a letter from senators that perhaps you

could communicate to the department of state or the government of haiti and said their behavior is unacceptable and we need to change. ms. saldana: i will raise that subject again this afternoon. i would like -- mr. lieu: i would like to talk about sarah root and the person who killed her and the person fled by posting bond. it is my belief that the bond system is in drastic reform. only two countries have a major bail bond industry -- for profit industry. u.s. and phillipines. many other countries actually actually ban money bond and that's because there is very little relationship between how much money someone can have posted or the cash in hand they happen to have and how dangerous they are. in this case, it's a good example where someone posted

money and then fled. seems to me to make a lot more sense if we eliminated money bond and went to a risk assessment system which is what the district of columbia has done for many years and said if you are at risk of fleeing, we aren't going to release you. if you're not and you are poor and can't post the bail, we are going to release you. what happens often these judges and the whole system looks at the money factor and says they can post $50,000. and there is very little relationship between money and how dangerous the person. get the person to post. appreciate if you could look at how the bond system in the federal government may actually be helping to release people that are quite dangerous or at risk of fleeing and maybe

reverse that and look at a risk assessment system. party his is not a system. could you look into that issue and let us know. ms. saldana: it's supposed to be a risk system. mr. lieu: when you attach money to that system, it warps it. i think judges would do a better risk assessment if they thought hey, it's on me now, not how much money but my decision whether to release the person. if you could -- would you at least look at that issue. ms. saldana: i certainly can. mr. lieu: with that, i yield ack. >> i recognize mr. gross man for his five minutes. gross gross you are supposed to

fill an average number of beds of 33 thousand a day. are they filled now? are they filled now? ms. saldana: 32,000. average daily population and right around that number in terms of like the last time i looked. >> of those 32,000 how many have been found guilty of a crime and how many people are maybe that whatever reason grabbed at the border? ms. saldana: there are some that are there of having been charged with a crime and others that are recent border entrants. ?> how much of each ms. saldana: i hate to pull something out of the air but i could look at that. >> you have extra bed space

available now? ms. saldana: 200, if i'm right and that number various. did i say 200. i'm sorry, let me add an extra zero. mr. grothman: how many criminals who are being deported are being deported? there are criminals right now who are arrested for crimes that are not removed, correct? ms. saldana: yes. mr. grothman: do you know what percentage are being removed? ms. saldana: any given year, no, i don't. mr. grothman: half, a third, 90%? ms. saldana: it's a portion of it. i would think -- i don't want to guess. i'll give you a proper percentage. mr. grothman: could you tell us what type of crimes we don't

remove people for now? ms. saldana: traffic tickets -- that's not a crime. t could be for minor offenses. gosh, the list is long and depends state by state. let me put it this way, where the offense has a possible sentence of less than a year. mr. grothman: and you wouldn't remove someone for that? ms. saldana: it depends. people who have multiple crimes, we have to look at it on a case by case basis. mr. grothman: do you have a data base. ms. saldana: a criminal history on anybody who we have touched who is in the removal process. mr. grothman: i'm going to ask

the chairman to have a follow-up hearing. but right now, if somebody is charged with two burglaries in the state of wisconsin, are they part of your data base? ms. saldana: yes. probably so. mr. grothman: you have a data base somewhere in which you are trying to keep track of all illegal immigrants that are convicted of crimes. ms. saldana: those that we know about. mr. grothman: you feel there are a lot that you don't know about? ms. saldana: i said there are about two million in the process and there are 11.2 million here that we may or may not know about. there's nine million or so that we don't know about, that are in the shadows. mr. grothman: did they commit crimes?

ms. saldana: about people i .on't know, we don't know mr. grothman: if somebody is an illegal immigrant commits two burglaries in this country, will you find out about it? ms. saldana: yes, we may. it depends on -- mr. grothman: every one of your answers is yes, we may. ms. saldana: if the local jurisdictions keeps records well and they input into the system that we are a part of, i can't give you an answer. it's not a simple manner. mr. grothman: can you give us a reason why if somebody commits a burglary why they should not be deported? ms. saldana: no. it depends on the cases and the facts related to that case. if the person has been here for 25 years, they have three u.s.

citizen children and the burglary was 24 years ago, that, looking at it on a case by case basis, we may make a decision not to remove them but not to detain them. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, the ranking member on the national security subcommittee, mr. lynch. mr. lynch: thank you for holding this hearing. i want to associate myself with the remarks of the the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright and written comments of mr. courtney and express my condolences to the families as well and thank you for turning your tragedy into something that may eventually help other families from the same tragedy that has befallen your families. thank you for taking something very, very bad and painful and

try to make something positive out of it and i appreciate your courage and willingness to do that. i want to make a couple of observations here. ms. saldana, you are aware of the case where the supreme court back in 2001 said that if you're holding a person -- an illegal alien charged with a crime that has a deportation order but no opportunity for that person to be deported, you have to release him. >> painfully aware. mr. lynch: we have a responsibility here. you have to recognize the context in which all of this is happening and happening in the absence of a coherent and workable immigration policy. and i have had a chance with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go down to central

america, honduras, guatemala, went down to el salvador and like it or not because of the executive orders that are out there, these human traffickers, they call them coyotes, these are human traffickers capitalizing on that and for 7,000 they will give you three shots to get in the united states. and we visited some of the centers where if they get caught trying to cross the border, they get sent back. ms. saldana: and we are targeting those, congressman. mr. lynch: i'm trying to make a point here. every one of those kids that were returned and hundreds that were caught at the border and were returned because in mexico, they support that, sometimes. every one of those kids was picked up by their family within

a couple of hours. so this is an organized attempt. not something that's just people are desperate, they are economic refugees and trying to have a better life. the point i'm trying to make is, the last numbers we have for south and central america, there are 61 million people living on less than a dollar a day. they're desperate, extreme poverty, less than a dollar a day. if we have a system, if we are going to treat north and south america as a boardless region, then i think if we want an idea what might happen, i think we look at germany and look at europe, because in that case and i have spent a fair amount of time in germany and in the middle east and refugee camps and people are in desperate

situations and we do not have control of our border. we do not. and it is not the fault of customs. it's a problem of a willingness here in congress to grapple with that problem. and we have a serious, serious problem. we can't -- we can't sustain that. that's not a system that is going to provide for the safety of our citizens and that's not going to be a system that will adequately address our need for legitimate and legal immigration. and i think it is -- at one point you were pointing back at congress and saying you have a responsibility here, too. and i think you are absolutely right, ms. saldana.

we are responsible. and i think there's a solution out there and i think we've got to just let cooler heads prevail despite the language we here elsewhere about painting every single person south of the border with the same brush. that's not helpful, that's not right. but at the same token, we have the prime responsibility of protecting our people and this is a national security. we have to get control of our borders north and south. and the faster we do that, the better opportunity we will come up with a responsible immigration system. i thank you for your attendance here today. i thank the chairman for his indulgence. mr. chaffetz: the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan for five

minutes. r. jordan: i was struck by the director's statement, in fact she was looking at the acting chair when she talked about republicans making this political. not about politics but enforcing the law. ms. saldana: i didn't say republicans. mr. jordan: you were looking at him and following his opening statement but that's fine. you did say i think political bantering was the term you used. i want to go through these numbers. and from my perspective following the law is not politics, it's what america is supposed to do and what america is supposed to be about. seems to me there are four tegories of individuals that i.c.e. has interacts. people who are here on a visa

and overstay. if someone does that, they are supposed to head back to their native country. someone who is an illegal entrant and if that comes to your attention and they are also supposed to be deported. and then you have the categories that we're talking about today, the subset of this bigger universe, you have people who overstay their visas or are here illegally who commit a crime and they are in your custody and supposed to be deported and then maybe the most important category, overstayed their visas or illegal entrants who commit a violent crime and in your custody and supposed to be deported. we have four categories where the law says they're supposed to be deported but only focusing on

the last two. even a smaller subsets, illegal entrants who commit a crime who you have in custody. you released 86,000 of that subset over the last few years and over half of that 86,000 were released at your discretion, what is called principal discretion -- prosecutorial discretion, is that correct? ms. saldana: that's correct. mr. jordan: people came here illegally, did a crime, many cases, violent crime, were in your custody, the law says they are supposed to be deported and at your discretion, not because their country wouldn't take them back, notwithstanding other reasons, but over of those 86,000, you just decided you were not going to follow the law but release them? ms. saldana: i disagree that. the law that congress has

provided other than those that e subject to mandatory decision a bond decision must be made. very much familiar of the penal system. mr. jordan: you release them. ms. saldana: after a careful analysis. mr. jordan: i guess the families who are here -- ms. saldana: are we 100% accurate looking back, as i said earlier, we strive for perfection but we are human and do fall short sometimes. mr. jordan: half of the 86,000, the way i described it, is that accurate? ms. saldana: i think so. mr. jordan: what are the other reasons, what are the other 40%. ms. saldana: someone on their death bed and is going to -- we have something from a doctor who

says there is no purpose putting this person in detention, someone who is too ill to board a flight, someone who is pregnant, those are some of the reasons. mr. jordan: i'm struck by the four different categories and ocused on the most -- the most dangerous category and over half of them are released just because you can do it. ms. saldana: congress has said we could do it. we wouldn't do it. consider bond that are not subject to mandatory detention. mr. jordan: you have the capability to hold more and you're not doing that? s. saldana: we do. based on -- mr. jordan: can't be your judgment and have the capability

to hold more and then blame it on congress. ms. saldana: i'm not blaming it on congress. that's what the law says. mr. jordan: can't be your judgment -- ms. saldana: you have given us that judgment. there are things that are mandatory. mr. jordan: you have the capability to hold more people in that final category, illegal entrant committed a violent crime you have the ability to hold more and you are exercising your judgment to release them and some of the people you released took the lives of american citizens. ms. saldana: today we have 2,000 beds available based on what this congress authorized us to do. tomorrow it may be 34, 36 tomorrow. that number fluctuates. > the chair recognizes mr.

connelly from virginia. mr. connolly: i'm a dad with a daughter. i cannot imagine. t was a failure of the system. that made you victims and made your daughters victims. we have a problem with immigration and i think director saldana has been trying to point to that saying i need your help in fixing that, because there are problems in the current system that affect american citizens who count on it to protect them, but also immigrant families who want to make sure they are treated with respect and dignity because overwhelmingly, most of them are not criminals. i want to enter into the record,

mr. chairman, two pieces of correspondence, one is from the southern poverty law center and some of the problems in atlanta and another one from northern virginia, from the arlington public schools, direction given by the superintendent of schools to all families and staff because of growing anxiety about these raids in northern virginia. >> without objection. mr. connolly: i thank the chair. ms. saldana, i entered those letters into the record and one of those letters states that i.c.e. trampled legal rights, subjected mothers and children to terrifying and unnecessary police encounters and tore families apart and said these raids turned to schools including on students on their

way to schools. are there raids on students on their way to school? ms. saldana: no. we conduct operations and i really worked very hard in the community. i have met with lots of organizations that simply do not understand what i.c.e. does. and when the term raid is thrown around, it implies a thoughtless sweeping of people. the people we targeted in both these operations that occurred earlier this year, operation border resolve and border guardian were specifically targeted to people whose status was determined to be illegal, who had -- had run the gambit of appeals and rights and the processes afforded them by the immigration and naturalization statute who had a final order of removal. that's not what i call a raid. mr. connolly: they do.

and it's leaning to superintendent of schools eeling he needs to provide counsel and reassurance based on the actions of i.c.e. maybe you want to talk to the superintendent. ms. saldana: i'm happy to. if i could brag a minute. e have set up a network of community relations officers, people who meet with law enforcement, with school superintendents, with rotary clubs, whoever will listen to us so we can lay out for them exactly how we go about our business. the taxpayer is entitled to know hat. mr. connolly: supreme court has ruled irrespective of status, if you are a student and show up, you are entitled to a public education, correct?

ms. saldana: i take your word for it. mr. connolly: matter of case law. that was the supreme court ruling, i'm not making that up and that's why local governments have to educate children irrespective of status. so whether they are documented or not is immaterial to a local i.c.e. chool and is targeting children on their way to a constitutionally protected children. ms. saldana: only adults. over 17 i believe or older. so no, we don't target children. mr. connolly: i have a few seconds left. while you're doing your outreach, i urge you to do it with members of congress as well. i can tell you in my district, probably my number one subject now is immigration given the

demographics of my district and we need a partner in your agency. we're not trying to make your life more difficult, but we are trying to solve through difficult problems that are family related and confusion and all kinds of other things. >> i would like to follow up with you. mr. connolly: if we don't have your cooperation we can't resolve problems and try to make sure from the top down case workers know to cooperate with members of congress as they are trying to do their jobs, too, on behalf of their constituents. i wish i had more time. i thank the chair for the hearing. my profound sympathies go to the families. there aren't words to describe how we feel. >> the chair recognizes mr. gowdy for five minutes.

mr. gowdy: i appreciate your service in a previous life and i was surprised when you used the phrase political bantering. i was not only surprised but disappointed because you seem to direct that towards the republicans. it was the solicitor general of this administration not two weeks ago before the supreme court who talked about the damage wreaked by the separation of families. he wasn't talk about sarah root's family or casey chad steinle's ly or kate family. and that struck me as a political comment. nd it's not on our side that have sanctuary cities that we are going to allow state and local officials to decline to follow federal process but at the same time, we don't trust state and local cops enough to

actually enforce immigration laws. that is not done by folks on our side of the aisle. my friend from maryland, mr. cummings, went to great lengths single from a republican. i never heard him quote secretary castro who has come before committees of this congress and advocated for citizenship. like all 12 million can pass a background check. all 12 million, not a single one of them can't pass a background check. if we are going to talk about political bantering and you are the one who uzbekistanned it, we ought to acknowledge there is plenty of political bantering going on on your side as well. ms. saldana: let me -- make myself very clear.

i was not referring to one party or the other. i asked everyone to drop the political bantering and fighting and give me a system that works. i want the record to be clear on that. mr. gowdy: i am vehiclesed as to why mejia was not detained. can you tell me why the killer of sarah root was not detained? ms. saldana: an individual from i.c.e. looked at the facts and circumstances related to that matter. had this individual had no criminal convictions, previous criminal convictions and made a determination based on his judgment that he did not need to be detained and you and i disagree with that decision. mr. gowdy: it's more than that. that individual was in fact wrong because mejia has failed to appear.

ms. saldana: it's easy to look back and yes. mr. gowdy: we are looking back so we can prevent the next one and look at what facts we were given. and the only two things you look at in a bond analysis are danger to the community and flight risk. those are the only two things you look at. so help me understand why someone driving three times the legal rate of impairment who is not here legally -- did he have any arrests at all? ms. saldana: i have been advised that he had some traffic violations previously, but criminal convictions, our records didn't indicate that he had. mr. gowdy: has he failed to appear subsequently for court appearances subsequent to killing of sarah root. so he has failed to appear.

ms. saldana: absolutely. mr. gowdy: the discretion exercised was wrong. ms. saldana: these are tough decisions. mr. gowdy: this one is not that tough to me. ms. saldana: federal judges. mr. gowdy: would you have granted a zhrrs 5,000 bond for that defendant? ms. saldana: i don't think the bond was set at $5,000. mr. gowdy: $50,000. ms. saldana: if i was a judge in that state court who made that decision. another factor that the officer from i.c.e. mightville looked at in making his decision, i will tell you judges make tough decisions every day and we can point to judges. i was on the receiving end as a prosecutor asking for bond and the judge said no and later that person and sconded.

it issuings me every time. unfortunately it happens a lot. mr. gowdy: i'm out of time so i will close up with this. i believe in a previous life, you worked with state and local law enforcement in addition to federal law enforcement. and struck me as unusual that we trust state and local law enforcement with the enforcement of every category of crime and i'm sure you had them on task forces whether it be narcotics or human trafficking, child porn cases. traffic enforcement. so why don't we trust them in immigration cases? ms. saldana: we have a 287-g program that enlist the help of local law enforcement that help immigration. we have asked to expand that program. it's not shrinking other than maybe a jurisdiction

withdrawing. we begged them to stay. mr. gowdy: you do trust state and local law enforcement to enforce local immigration laws enforce that crime. ms. saldana: that is a fully loaded question that i would like to break down. there is racial profiling. but there is. for me to agree with your general proposition would make me agree with parts of it that i don't agree. mr. gowdy: there's racial profiling in narcotics cases and esn't stop local and state departments. you may have said it. but my democrat colleagues have not. you may have. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair recognizes delegate

norton for five minutes. ms. norton: i'm less interested in the racial profiling than the racial sensitivities raised by this issue. i want to thank you, director for being here, like those who have spoken before me, i don't have the words to offer to parents who have lost their children, particularly when they consider it could have perhaps been prevented, i have only the deepest condolences. i would like to get beyond and how you do law enforcement when has racial overtones. i grew up in the district of columbia. as a minority group, it was a deeply segregated city.

there were segregated schools. i couldn't go in public accommodation because i was black. and even the newspapers, the sarahewspapers would say, jones, black, committed x crime in northeast washington. this had an effect on me and how i felt about criminals to tell negro, truth, john jones i don't know if he was guilty or not, but by pointing out his race, my community, minority group in this city felt that law enforcement was pointed at all of us. i want to ask about the delicate task of law enforcement when

those that are chiefly involved do happen to come from a minority group. for example donald trump when he announced he was running for resident said something that where mexicansr i think people would know how i and others are from minority groups, when mexico sends its people, they are not sending their best, they are bringing drugs, they are bringing crime, rapists. now i want to ask about the effect on law enforcement where you have a delicate task of going mostly after perhaps mexican americans, central americans who are coming into this country and operating under the specter not of racial

profiling but the highest levels on television every day, hearing ethnicity called out in relation to your work. how does that affect law enforcement from the point of ew of those charged with carrying out law enforcement that involve the very people whose names have been called out , cheering from the grandstand. how does that affect law enforcement? ms. saldana: we go about our business without regard to race. i will tell you this, though, congresswoman, immigration enforcement is a little different in the sense that the very definition who we are after is determined by their country origin, the fact that they are not from the united states. ms. norton: country of origin of

where people of color come from. flr many relatives in this count troy, too. and law enforcement has to handle the delicate task -- talked about the raids, perfectly legitimate to do and somehow making sure it is not aught in the rhetoric we hear. we heard also from mr. trump that i would close up our borders to people and he was talking about muslims. apart from the ignorance of that statement, is completely ceiling our borders to any group possible? and is it an effective way to combat terrorism? ms. saldana: well, that's a huge

issue, but i would say no. that's why everything we do, starting with the secretary and his priorities, is based on a case by case basis. you have to look at every individual. ms. norton: ceiling the borders would involve what? ms. saldana: i can't imagine how you would go about that. there has been discussion about building a wall and that kind of thing. that doesn't sound like it would secure anything because -- ms. norton: could you issue something to people coming from overseas, saying if you are muslim, do not come here. ms. saldana: we would not do that. ms. norton: somebody has to make the american people understand delicacy of this

task. my second thought with those who have to carry out this difficult mission. thank you very much. >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. thank you for coming. just echoed some of my colleagues. i appreciate your service and what you are trying to do but to dismiss what we are trying to get at, political banter. mr. desaulnier; many of these releases were before you. and when we see people that were in custody and end up getting charged with murder and kate steinle who was going about her business and got killed by somebody who had no business being in the country. that concerns people here. mr. desantis: our government is involved in a lot of different things, how much water a toilet can flush, but the core function is to ensure the safety and

security of the american and it's frustrating when government is involved and fails at its core function. so we are serious about it and it's not political theater, it's just the frustration to have families who have to go through this. you said something earlier in your testimony, you said you need a removal order to deport someone. without that, you can't do it? ms. saldana: a final order. mr. desantis: aren't there stipulated removals and expedited removals, correct? ms. saldana: the person can volunteer, a person who is caught at the border, we can move through that process quicker. mr. desantis: there are ways to do it. part of the frustration is we have gone through the numbers about, the numbers that were discretionary versus what i.c.e. would say because of the supreme court precedent, but even there,

that's a six-month window, so you have somebody in custody who got out of prison after committing a sexual assault against a child and that individual is being held, you do have time to repatriot that individual back to their own country and we are told by d.h.s., they don't get the paperwork to us in time and then the six months latchese and they are clearly a danger to society. you can work through this quicker and some of these other countries and i get they aren't going to comply, but we have not used our leverage against them. the state department has not suspended a single visa for any of these countries at all. we have the ability to do that. they depend on us more than we depend on their visas. what can you do to move through the process quicker so people who are clearly dangerous and

have been convicted and don't have any legal right to be here can be -- ms. saldana: i have to make sure it works. my interest is not second guessing our officers. it's setting up the process and procedure. mr. desantis: what do you need to do or we need to do, mr. gowdy has a legislative fix for this issue. is that something that you are familiar with? ms. saldana: i'm not. mr. desantis: is that something you would be interested in learning about? ms. saldana: and working with you. mr. desantis: you have raised the statute book and said they are not mandated to be deported even if they have been convicted since congress has made these decisions. and while some of those crimes may not be mandatory, that doesn't mean that the law does not provide you authority to detain them. in other words, just because it's not in that book, it does

not follow that that's the case. ms. saldana: that is true. mr. desantis: in terms of the immigration courts, you have mentioned those, just so the american people understand, the immigration courts, they aren't article 3 courts, correct? ms. saldana: they're not. mr. desantis: they are article 2 courts but within the executive branch. ms. saldana: department of justice. mr. desantis: if a judge orders that an individual has to be released, you can then go to the higher up in the executive branch and try to change that? ms. saldana: i will gracious courts of appeal. mr. desantis: when we first did that issue, there were 36,000 individuals who had been released, convicted of crimes and here illegally. last year, there had been 1,000 of those people who had been

convicted of new crimes. do you have the figures from that from 2013 to 2015 has been in i.c.e. custody, released and then convicted of a new crime? ms. saldana: we do have those numbers. mr. desantis: if you could provide those for us. and back from 2013, that has changed. my time is up and the chair recognizes mr. hice for five minutes. mr. hice: bottom line when we all come to this everybody involved when it comes to the issue of criminal aliens, the public safety is paramount for past victims as well potential future victims, do you agree on hat.

with these criminals under the custody of i.c.e., are there convicted sex criminals? ms. saldana: yes. mr. hice: do you have any idea how many? ms. saldana: i think that number is available but i don't have it in front of me. mr. hice: if you could provide that. ms. saldana: in 2015? mr. hice: in 2015, there almost 1,000 sex criminals released. let me go on from there, of these sex offenders who are released back into society does your agency notify law enforcement? ms. saldana: we do and this is what i testified about the last time i'm here. i'm proud of the fact that we have stood up the law enforcement notification system whereby when we are releasing actually more than sexual offenders but other criminals

into a state, they have indicated and are going to a specific state, we notify them -- mr. hice: notify who? ms. saldana: state data base, the state office and in my state of texas, austin. mr. hice: you promised the that by the end of 2015 that the states -- law enforcement would be notified. i spoke with the sheriff of my county, which is the second largest county in america where criminal aliens are being released and said he does not hear from you. ms. saldana: we did get the notification system up and running to the states. what we are working on is phase two. mr. hice: so you're saying when an illegal alien, sex offender is released into a community you are assuring me that law

enforcement is notified? ms. saldana: state law enforcement, yes. the state that is responsible for all the local jurisdictions within. mr. hice: not the specific counties? ms. saldana: we have 254 counties in the state of text as. when phase two we are going to be communicating with the specific local jurisdictions. mr. hice: what about victim notification, are they notified when a criminal is released? say you have someone who is raped and the rapist is released, is that victim notified? ms. saldana: yes, we do. and people sign up for that and we do issue notice. mr. hice: suppose a rapist is released and do not register as a do not do, how does previous victim know that that

predator is released? ms. saldana: mr. root wanted to be advised about the proceedings with respect to that particular illegal immigrant but they sign up for the victim notification system and that's how we give them notification. mr. hice: all of them sign up? ms. saldana: i can't say. mr. hice: my question has to deal with the predators. i have introduced a bill and i think it closes this loophole, h.r. 2793 called track. i.c.e. to uire register the sex offenders on the national registry when they are released. right now that is required of every citizen in the united states that commits a sex crime. they are put on the national sex offender registry. that is not the case with

illegal aliens who commit sex i don't understand that. . if an individual commits a sex crime. would you have a problem with that -- with supporting that bill. ms. saldana: i understand it happens to every person. mr. hice: not to illegals. and that's the point. ms. saldana: we expect the person to -- mr. hice: do you expect someone to put themselves on the national sex registry? that doesn't happen. would you have a problem with i.c.e. being required to put it on the sex offender list. i would like to encourage all our colleagues to get on board with h.r. 2793.

this is a commonsense approach to close an enormous loophole by requiring these people to be put the national sex offender registry. >> the chair recognizes himself for five minutes. throughout this testimony this morning, you have made a point to pat the large book in terms of the law that you need help with. you continue to focus on everyone else that has a stake in this and yet some of the blame actually rests directly with you and that's where i want to go with this because you have been with some of the questions that have been answered and you know specifically the ones that i had issue with when you were talking with mr. grothman, do you know the entire universe of those who have committed crimes

that get detained, do you know who they are, yes or no? ms. saldana: who are in the country illegally. mr. meadows: who get arrested. do you get notified of all of those, under the new system, which would be the priorities enforcement program? do you know, yes or no, all of the people that are there? ms. saldana: not necessarily. mr. meadows: is that a change zph ms. saldana: is what a change? mr. meadows: where they don't ping d.h.s., has that changed in the way you have been notified? yes or no? i know the answer, so yes or no, is it a change? mr. meadows: i don't understand the question. mr. meadows: under the secure communities act that were required to actually come and ping you and let you know they have someone who committed a crime and lets you know that, is

that not correct? ms. saldana: i don't know that. that program mr. meadows: i'm a congressman nd i i had to read up on it. you you say they're all participating what would you call participating. ms. saldana: i didn't say they're all participate, all the jurisdictions, because that's not correct. we've made progress. mr. meadows: say made progress. so if someone has committed a violent act under the pet program, are they required to let you know they have them incarcerated, yes or no? ms. saldana: no. mr. meadows: so we could have an illegal alien that has had a violent crime and local law enforcement doesn't have to let i.c.e. know. ms. saldana: they don't have to

but many do. mr. modos: i know many do. do you not see a problem with that? ms. saldana: that's why i'm working so hard -- mr. meadows: but you're not working hard. why would i.c.e. be arresting and detaining 40% less people than they did in the previous years. ms. saldana: apprehension numbers are down. mr. meadows: are you saying there's less people committing the crimes? ms. saldana: i didn't get to finish my answer. mr. meadows: i'm all ears. i want to understand how all of a sudden there's been this 40% reduction in crimes by illegal aliens according to your stats. because you're not 40% less on detainers, 40% less on administrate i removal, how all

of a sudden does that happen this year? ms. saldan: what happened this year? mr. meadows: 40% less. ms. saldan: we have fewer people in the system. mr. meadows: by design because you changed the system to make sure there are fewer people. that's the frustration of the parent, what happens is you have made the universe low sore you can report less people that you let out of jail free. do you not see a problem? listen, if you want to go over the numbers privately after this hear, i'll be glad to go over the numbers, i'm a numbers guy system of you tell me how it could be 40% less? ms. saldana: part of it is the apprehension they can number of people in the system. we are going about our apprehensions, all our ecisions, on a very informed -- mr. meadows: not informed because you have to know the whole universe of people in

order for it to be informed. so how many drug dealers, how many rapists, how many kidnappers do you let get out of jail free card? ms. saldana: none that have a final order removal. mr. meadows: you're equivocating again. . saldana: there's not a simplistic answer. mr. meadows: out of of the 40,000 plus that you have discretion over let goge, were any of them violent. think weren't traffic offenses, out of those discretion were any of those violent. ms. saldana: yes, some had been convicted of violent crime. mr. me coes: so don't blame it on everybody else. ms. saldana: i'm not. mr. meadows: some violent criminals were -- ms. saldan: i can read the

statute out. mr. meadows: it's your discretion, ma'am. i'm out of time but if you -- are you willing to take me up and go through these number after the hearing? ms. saldana: i'm always happy to meet with you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold. mr. farenthold: thank you, mr. chairman. i've got a couple of lines of questions but i want to start with this discretion stuff that verybody is talking about. congress has given you the discretion to not deport people. i give my children discretion to spend their allowance as they see fit. i would probably have to come back and revisit that if i thought they were being stupid about how they were exercising that discretion. to me, it seems like you're

exercising your discretion in a way that's coming up with tragic results. listen, i can understand, you've got a violent criminal who is hospitalized and isn't expected to live six months, of course you use the discretion there. it's not worth the money or probably not even possible to safely transport that person to their country of origin. but that's the far extreme. i think you're too far toward, we're just going to let them go. i think that is the criticism you're hearing from the members of congress here. even though we've given you the ability to do something, doesn't mean you should do it. and i just wanted to clear that up. i think in all the back and forth here that hasn't entirely been made clear. i think the whole point of this hearing is, there are a good many members on this panel who have you up here because we think that discretion isn't being exercised wisely.

ms. saldana: i got that impression. mr. farenthold: i wanted to be clear on that. i want to talk about the enforcement, i hear quite a bit from my local sheriffs in texas and as a texan, you know, everybody loves the sheriffs, they all have an opinion. and what i hear from them is that they are having problems in getting you guys to etermine what about detainers. sometimes they arrest somebody and it'll be three, four, five days before they hear whether to arrest them. by that time the person has bonded out. so how can we improve that process to where they get, let's say, pick a number, 24 hour response there? ms. saldana: ok, you know, i don't have to tell you, but

there are 254 counties in the state of texas and it is wide and long. mr. farenthold: but everybody has a computer. ms. saldana: but the problem is getting to the specific local jurisdiction within the timely manner. we try to get people there as quickly as possible. mr. farenthold: they want a determination of whether or not to keep them. they'll be happy to deliver them. ms. saldana: would you give me the nameses of those sheriffs? i'm only half kidding. i would like to know any sheriff that is having any difficulty in hearing back from i.c.e. want to know. mr. farenthold: we have worked with some of your local people. it seemed to improve. ms. saldana: the great state of

texas is doing a great job of working with us. mr. fashte farenthold: we're doing a job the federal government could be doing. but i want to talk about the 287-g program. what the sheriffs have found is that if they have the revenue to pay for somebody, and a will the of small county, brooks county, a small county, very little property values, they don't have the ability to pay for a person to -- you'll give them the training for free but they have to pay the salary for a person. but what's been found effective in that program, in addition, is you get jailers in that program where they can actually access the computer and directly n database on the computer. so i encourage you to work on that program, and make that

work. i want to go back to discretion you don't make the decision for everybody there. it's delegated down the line. how do you ensure that it's consistent and how do you ensure that the person who has that discretion isn't of a disposition to say, let's just let them all go? ms. saldan: no, sir, they all know my background and know that would be fully unacceptable. what we do is we train, we issue directives and policies, make things clear, give guidance. we revisit. i have myself, at least once, maybe twice, gotten on the phone with each one of the 24 field office directors with responsibility across the country to say my expectations and to make sure that people have a message of how we go about our business with respect to detention and those decisions and the exercise of

prosecutorial discretion in general. it is a challenge when you have 6,000 officers out there who are involved in this. we just need to stay on top of it. i've got my field leadership coming in next week, we're going to go through this, item by item and talk about the general subject of is the word getting down all the way. so that's what i do. it's a constant vigilance. mr. farenthold: i have plenty more to talk about but my time is expired. i thank the gentleman. >> now recognize the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, ms. saldana for being here. last year, it's my nderstanding that you released 19,723 illegal aliens with criminal records. 19,723. that's the number i've been given. 19,723. ms. saldana: that number is

correct but remember by court order or discretion. >> these are illegal aliens with criminal records such as kidnapping, sexual assault, d.u.i. and homicide. ms. saldana: that's correct. mr. carter: you say that somewhat matter of factly as if it's ok. ms. saldana: it's not ok but it is the statute. mr. carter: it's unbelievable to me we have released 19,723 with criminal records such as kidnap, sexual assault, d.u. ifrl and homicide. no wonder america is in an uproar. s. saldana: it is appalling. mr. carter: tell me when you can detain them. what's the priority -- explain to me what a priority one is. very succinctly. s. saldana: threats to

national security -- mr. carter: so it is if they're convicted? you released 19,723 with criminal records including those with kidnap, sexual assault, d.u.i. and homicide and you're telling me you shouldn't have released them? ms. saldana: you asked about priority one. there's another priority they might be included in. let me just remind -- mr. carter: so there's more than just priority one. there are two priorities? and the second priority includes kidnapping, sexual assault, and homicide. ms. saldana: the first could also. we don't -- in the united states we don't assume somebody is going to be convicted until they've actually been tried. i'm just saying a simple matter of fact. i think that's fairly obvious. mr. carter: so you release them. please answer my questions, so you go ahead and release them. ms. saldana: if we ordered by a

court or exercised discretion in looking at an entire case. mr. carter: why are you releasing them instead of deporting them? ms. saldana: i'm not going to go outside the law in what i do. i can't deport somebody without a final order of approval, without providing the framework you provided, including apeels and consideration by the courts with respect to their claims of asylum or torture or whatever it is. mr. carter: to you're just releasing them here in america, not deporting them, they're staying here and we've had numerous examples of where they've gone and committed these crimes again? don't you find that to be sexual appalling. ms. saldana: that's horrible. i wish there were no crimes committed -- mr. carter: let me ask you something else. since fiscal year 2012, the annual budget has increased

more than $680 million. is that correct? that's the figures i've been given? since 201 your budget has increased more than $680 million. ms. saldana: yes. mr. carter: but at the same time the numb of aliens removed has decreased by 174,000. 174,000. can you tell me what the reason for that is? ms. saldana: we can only remove people who have the final order removal and proper travel documents. mr. carter: if we give you less money will you quilt releasing them. we increase yod budget over $60 million and you decreased the number of people you deported by 174,000. ms. saldana: these releases, only 7,000 plus have been entirely discretionary but it's not willy nily. it's made on the case-by-case

analysis of the record that we have in front of us and on flight risk analysis. mr. carter: d.h.s. leadership took $113 million that congress appropriated to i.c.e. detention and reprogrammed it for use by credit service and fema. why was that? are you familiar with that? ms. saldana: that's a secretarial level decision. mr. carter: secretarial level decision. it's department of homeland security. i'm informed about the process but the decision is the secretary's. mr. carter: we're giving you oney and here we are releasing less than -- i'm just appalled by this. it does not make any sense what we're doing. no wonder america is upset. mr. chairman, i apologize but -- and i appreciate this but,

ms. saldana, we've got to do something. this is ridiculous. it's ludicrous. >> the gentleman's time has expire. mr. carter: i yield. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. palmer, for five minutes. mr. palmer: thank you, mr. chairman. director saldana, critics argued one factor encouraging illegal immigrants to enter the u.s. is the belief that once they enter the country they won't be removed. i think that's been pretty well established here. secretary jay johnson recrenly stated the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country are not going away and are in effect, and i find this astonish, united states citizens. does that include those who have criminal records? yes or no. ms. i'm just asking. ms. saldana: what was your question specifically? mr. palmer: jay johnson stated there are 11 million aliens in

the country who are effectively united states citizens. ms. saldana: i don't think he said they're united states citizens. mr. palmer: but we're not debating what he said. i'm asking you, do you believe that inclouds those here with criminal records? ms. saldana: they are not united states citizens. mr. palmer: are they staying? ms. saldana: we're going our best to remove them. mr. palmer: let me tell you what happened in alabama this month. authorities in oxford, alabama, not in my district, arrested three men, two from honduras, one from mexico. espinoza men medrano, had been ordered removed from the united states in absentia by an immigration judge on or about january 7,

2014. according to the affidavit it fails he failed to voluntarily deport himself. another guy, one of the other benitez of mexico, immigration history confirmed he was illegally present in the united states, his criminal history check showed he has prior convictions for possession of cocaine in 2011 and evading arrest in 2008 in the district court of dallas county, texas. let me tell you why they were here. they were working for a security group out of honduras who is a front for a drug cartel and they were here, and here's what the affidavit says, supposedly they were here in a deal arranged through a security company owned by another guy who is an enforcer and debt collector for drug organizations. they were going into a private

residence to steal a safe and kidnap the occupants and benitez state head and the other individuals traveled to oxford, alabama, were provided firearms, bulletproof vests and other materials to do the job. here's the point. two of these men had criminal records. one goes back to 2008. but they're still here. now, the cost of the tissue because of the excellence work of the ox -- oxford police department who stopped them on a traffic stop but realized something wasn't right when they saw they were in camouflage and weapons, one of the weapons was a smith & wesson confirmed stolen. can you imagine what would have happened if they'd carried this out? benitez said he planned to shoot the occupants of the

house if they presented a firearm. just about every house in alabama has a gun. for good reason. i won't get into this administration's policy on gun control, but this, let me tell you. can you imagine what would have happened if they'd shot that olice officer? this is insane. you let people in here, you do criminal background checks, i've got a deal here, one guy raped a 10-year-old girl in alabama. ere's another one. this guy had 34 arrests over 12 years, he's a palestinian. he was arrested by a town in my district, i.c.e. said they couldn't deport him because the u.s. doesn't recognize palestine. they've started to require fingerprints of people claiming

custody of children who entered the united states illegally without an adult relative. among the many policy suggestions that's been made do you think this is an effective policy for who are repeat offenders who are not ed priority one. ms. saldana: i would consider that. we have not proposed it but i would consider it. mr. palmer: why haven't you? why haven't you taken that action? ms. saldana: i'll tell you, sir, there's a lot of things i need to get to and i'm pedaling as fast as i can. we all have that under advisement right now and we're looking at it. mr. palmer: pedaling as fast as you can won't do much good for people at a funeral. s. saldana: it's all i can do.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman. >> i want to start by recognizing two groups of people. the first one is sara ann root, age 21. mr. root, i'm proud of you for representing her today and proud of your service to our country. casie chadwick. i can only imagine what your family is going through losing this 25-year-old beautiful daughter here. marilyn ferris. chief, thank you for coming all he way to represent her today. there's also another group of people i want to talk about, three people, again. zacharias , joan and victor ramirez. they also have something in common today in the fact that all three were arrested on

previous charges before they ultimately considered -- committed this heinous crime. victor ramirez was an illegal from mexico. over 15 months time, the chief arrested this gentleman six times. six times. over 15 months. yet this is the guy along with his partner that beat mrs. ferris' face in with a hammer. somehow show fought back, survived eight days. this is huge. and then we hear today from my colleagues that the way we justify this is that criminal aliens according to one statistic commit less crimes than the general public, of which you had a sweet chat with him about. what if they weren't here to begin with? would they have committed these crimes? it's not rhetorical. if they were never here, would they have committed these crimes? ms. saldana: no. >> then we talk about the challenge of returning these people to the country.

then we believe -- i want to make sure you're on record saying this, as director of u.s. office of custom immigration and enforcement, did i hear you say that sealing our borders, building a wall or finishing the wall that was started in former george bush's presidency, you said that wouldn't help us prevent illegals coming in. ms. saldana: yes, sir. i've seen videos where people scale the walls. there's lots of things we have to do to secure the border. mr. walker: it's easier not to have a wall at all instead of making somebody scale a wall in your opinion. i don't understand that. here's the data. do you believe the sexual assault, abuse, and exploitation are heinous crimes? you'd agree with that, right? ms. saldana b.c. yes. mr. walker spst these 19,000 are not charges, they're convictions. ms. saldana: yes.

r. walker: include 114,000 sexual offenses. my wife is a sexual assault nurse. she reaches out to people going through their darkest point of life. 352 convictions involve commercial sex trade. my state's number nine in the country. yet for some reason these are listed as priority two instead of priority one. why is that? ms. saldana: because the most serious offenses are listed in priority one, the most serious, terrorism, it's directing resources to the place that hurts the country the most. mr. walker: so you're saying sexual offenses or the rape of a 6 or 7-year-old child -- ms. saldana: you know the answer to that question. of course it's a serious offense. mr. walker: i'm going with what you told me. you said that's priority two because it's more concerned --

ms. saldana: in your authorization you directed taos prioritize the -- the secretary of homeland security shall identify and remove aliens convicted of a crime by the severity of the crime. you may disagree with the categories or the way they were placed, but you directed taos do that and we did that. mr. walker: here's what i hope we agree on. we have illegal aliens in this country who are committing crime. there was a statement made earlier that law enforcement needs to be concerned about the delicate task of not putting some of the national origin into the definition of the criminal activity. do you believe that law enforcement should stop -- i look at chief martin who worked 30 years in gang related activities with el salvador, great work there. do you believe we should drop the race part of describing some of the crimes going on?

s. saldana: we have to look at whether they're in the country who is not a citizen, so we have to lock at their country of origin. mr. walker: i don't know if that's a yes or no. but i yield back. >> you got a little bit of attention when you encouraged us this morning to drop the political banter and i think you pointed to the rules and regulars and statutes in front of us and invited taos help you develop a system that works. mr. mulvaney: i'd like to talk about that. you and i have talked about that in the past. so let's go back to something you and i talked about before. would it help you develop a system that worked if we figured out a way to require local law enforcement to cooperate with your retainer requests? ms. saldana: we need to figure out a way to get law enforcement to work with us, just like this individual from law enforcement worked with us. i don't think he'd take kindly to us browbeating him and

forcing him to do things. mr. mulvaney: you know what i'm getting at. would it help you develop a system that works if we required local law enforcement to cooperate with i.c.e.? ms. saldana: compulsory? it would help me to some extent but that's what i'm doing in p.e.p., i'm trying to get them to the table. mr. mulvaney: that's the third answer i've gotten now. i asked you the same question in june of 2015. i asked you, would it help if we clarified the law to make it clear it was mandatory that local communities cooperate with your detainer requests, end quote and you answered, thank you, amen, yes, end quote. the next day you released a statement that read in relevant part a different answer, quote, any effort at federal legislation to mandate state and local law enforcements' compliance will in our view be a highly counterproductive step. and today you gave me a third

answer, in a way it would help. so let's talk about how requiring local law enforcement would help you. ms. saldana: in enforcing this 4,000 laws we had to enforce i found the best way to work with state and locals is through cooperation and agreement and stand big, side-by-side. mr. mulvaney: but if i'm in a city that says, i'm in a city that wants to be a sanctuary city, we don't want to cooperate with i.c.e., i many guess is the cooperation is gone at that point. would it help if you said, you have to cooperate with i.c.e. when it comes to dealing with the sorts of people who killer that children? ms. saldana: i am working with the cities -- mr. mulvaney: how is that working in san francisco. would it help you more if we required them to do it? ms. saldana: i don't think the local government would be more cooperative if you browbeat them over the head by saying the fed --

mr. mulvaney: how about if you required them by law or withheld some type of money? ms. saldana: i think state and local government don't want the federal government telling thepping what to do. mr. mulvaney do you think they should have a right to say they're not going to cooperate? no.saldana: i am tellingou the realities of the real world. mr. mulvaney: i hate to be melodramaticing it's not good at but 'm turn around and tell the people behind you about the real world. does this esanctuary city put your field personnel at more risk than they would be otherwise? ms. saldana: yes, having to go into a jurisdiction in somebody's home when we could have gotten them at a local

sheriff's or police department, yes it does put them at risk. mr. mulvaney: so you don't want us to take steps to lower the risk for your own people. give me na: i'm saying an opportunity to get this done. p.e.p. has only been in effect since last july. i have made tremendous headway of the top 25 jurisdictions that did not honor detainers, we've got 17 back at the table. mr. mulvaney: it's been a year since you were here last time. let me ask you this, does the sanctuary city program put the public at risk? ms. saldana: i don't know what the sadget ware city program is. mr. mulvaney: the program whereby cities say, we're not going to cooperate with i.c.e. i.c.e. calls and says, detain that person you picked up and they say, we're not going to do that. does that put the public at more risk. i want them owl to

cooperate. i'll work with you to improve that situation. mr. mulvaney: i yield back the balance of my time to the chair and recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. all over this country, people have read headlines an stories similar to the ones, some that i have here in -- here, and this one story has been mentioned a few times already today but i was presiding over the house earlier and didn't get in on all of this and i know there are some people watching now who didn't hear this earlier. mr. duncan: but the "washington examiner" had a headline, i.c.e. releases 17,000 criminal ail generals, 900 convicted of

sex crimes. before that, a story from "the washington times," which said, 3,700 illegal immigrant threat level one criminals were released into the u.s. by the department of homeland security, and that story said most of the illegal immigrant criminals homeland security officials released from custody last year were discretionary, meaning the department could have kept them in detention but chose instead to let them onto the streets, some of those released were the worst of the worst. more than 3rks700 threat level one criminals who were deem the top try by -- priority for deportation were still released out into the community. that's why people are so upset. that's why people are so angry about all of this. and then earlier, we had testimony in this committee from jessica vaughan from the center for immigration studies, and she testified that i.c.e.

officials have told her that since the administration's policies on prosecutorial discretion were expanded they are processing a small fraction of the number of aliens that they used to process, one recently told me his office used to process as many as 100 aliens per day but since the president's executive actions went into effect, now they are processing closer to five aliens per day with the same staff and budget. and it seems to me that this is a shameful record that -- and the top, people at the top should be embarrassed about this. as mr. carter pointed out about how the funds have gone up so much and yet the pross -- the prosecutions have gone way down. and i doubt that there is another agency in the entire federal government that has gotten the percentage increases

director saldana that your agency has, percentage wise. we just keep pouring more and more and more money into your agency and we're getting less and less and less for that money. and i cab tell you people all over this country are angry about that, upset about that. are you embarrassed about that in this way? ashamed, disappointed? surely you're not happy about all this that weave talked about here this morning. ms. saldana: no, sir, and i will tell you, i think you may have missed when i spoke earlier about the fact that i would like not to see one person injured or one person certainly killed at the hands of someone who is in the country illegally. but when people say -- congressman when people say that we have released 19,723 people, it fails to point out

the fact that 2/3 of that were by court order or an instruction of the supreme court of the united states and that is a misrepresentation. that's what i object to. mr. duncan: it's a terrible thing. i've got stories up here from the "texas tribune" that tell about one man who was passed through the webb county jail four times on more than half a dozen charges before allegedly beating his wife to death with a hammer. another man spent three months in the hidalgo county jail, four months in state custody, six years in federal prison for multiple felony offenses, at the time he went on a random shooting sfree from houston killing two people and injuring three more. then you had the famous case of this man in san francisco who stinel to death after he racked up a a criminal record including seven felonies, mostly drug related, people are really angry about

these sanctuary cities that the administration has gone along with. the american people are the kindest, most generous, most sympathetic people in this world. and we have allowed far more immigration, many, many millions more than any other country. and the american people have gone along with that. but they are sick and tired and angered about reading about all these criminals being released and you or somebody is going to have to do a lot better job on this i yield back. mr. mulvaney: the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney, for five minutes. mr. courtney: i want to thank the committee, both majority and minority, for having the opportunity to participate in this hearing. to chief martin and mr. root, thank you for your presence here. your stories are incredibly powerful and demonstrate that this discussion today is not academic. it has profound real life

impact and it takes a lot of persistence on your part to really be here to remind us of that fact. i am here because one of my constituents is here, ms. wendy hart ling, joined by attorney chester fair lee whose story has been mentioned by other members here this morning. again, just a little less than a year ago, just a horrific crime took her child, casey chadwick from her and i can personally attest to the fact that southeastern connecticut and the whole state, you know, has, you know, been just part of the grief and pain that followed and the admiration that folks have for ms. hart ling as mr. lynch said -- ms. hartling, as mr. lynch said, trying to get some good out of this horrific event, has drawn admiration from all quarters. thank you for being here, ms. hartling. i think i'm the last one here.

all your patience is going to be paid off shortly and give you an opportunity to talk. director saldana, the one thing about the casey chad it is wick case is there's no ambiguity in this instance in terms of whether or not someone's charges were pending or whether or not the individual was nvicted of aning a rah vated versus a serious offense. jean jacques came into the country without documentation. convicted by the state of connecticut of a homicide. served over 15 years in prison. at the completion of his sentence, the department of corrections surrendered him into the custody of i.c.e. again, your -- the government had run the traps in terms of getting a deportation order completed at that point. any appeals that he tried to pose had been exhausted. so there was just, again, no sort of glitches that anyone could point to that would

interfere with that process going to the next step which is of course removal from the country. as we heard from mrs. maloney, the government of haiti, again, played this very frustrating exercise in terms of verbally granting and then refusing on a number of occasions system of a year ago, you were before the committee and this question of uncooperative other nations was raised with you and at the time your testimony stated that bolster i.c.e.'s ability to obtain travel documents from recalcitrant countries is important and i will continue to work on getting countries to accept return of their nationals. you talked about your efforts with the p.e.p. program over the last year or so. can you just tell us with some specificity what's going on between i.c.e. and state in the intervening time since you testified to fix this, you

know, glaring problem? ms. saldana: i've met with the assistant secretary for consular affairs, ms. vaughan and i'm going to see her this afternoon about gi nee in particular. so we meet periodically and we made a commitment to continue to do that because i want to keep her posted on the countries we're having trouble with. so this memorandum of understanding we have, we make -- we give her, we meet to discuss what can be done with a particular country and right now, countries like syria and iraq and afghanistan, we're just having tremendous difficulties with. so she has listened, she has promised to follow up, she sent a cable out to all our ambassadors across the world last march to say, please, be mindful of this. help i.c.e. and other agencies seeking to get cooperation from the jurisdiction, and assist them in their efforts to remove

people back. mr. courtney: but what levers, we have levers. members mentioned the visas we grant to citizens from these nations coming into the united states. foreign aid. give me an example of where they've actually done more than just meet to discuss this. ms. saldana: where department of state has? i'm not familiar with the specification of what they've done. mr. courtney: i guess, mr. chairman, that's sort of the -- the crux of the frustration that myself and senator blumen thaul and murphy have screams ed which is, out for the fact that the agencies in the u.s. i.c.e. and state department are not getting this done and that's why we requested an inspector general's report that, that process is under way right now. we're going to be receiving the results of that. but frankly, i would just say, director, you know that response is just really, not

acceptable. given the fact that, you know, we have instances where somebody, again, there was just no question about their status in terms of being deported and to have other countries stonewall our efforts and to say that the state department's best efforts right now is just to meet with i.c.e. and send out warning telegrams to embassies, there are other options we have available to us and we need to exercise those. ms. saldana: withholding aid and the sanctions i mentioned but i want to be sure, i'm doing the best i can to try to persuade state. state is the most appropriate witness to explain to you why they make the decisions they do. i can't speak for them. mr. courtney: if i could have another 30 seconds. again, we experienced in this case where the government of haiti, again, for paper worg reasons, stone walled mr. jacques' deportation. i.c.e. can do more in terms of creating a record of country of origin in terms of interviewing

witnesses in the u.s., this guy had been here for over 20 years, there were other ways verification of country of origin could have taken place on state side in addition to have the state department apply levers of pressure which again i think should have been exercised at the greatest and highest levels. so this discussion, mr. chairman, again, i want to continue with you and the members here about the fact has not esponsible been satisfactory. i ask that the letter to you -- mr. mulvaney: it's been submitted. mr. courtney, i appreciate your commitment on this issue. the director agreed within a week's time to give us all the letters and correspondence she's had with the state department. because the statute is clear, once the secretary receives that it says the secretary shall. we're fascinated, i think

another hearing will be most appropriate. the gentleman's time has expired. director, we thank you for your being with us here today. the committee will stand in recess until 12:30 and then we'll convene the second panel. we stand in recess. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

>> former virginia governor bob mcdonell was quicked of federal corruption charges for accepting gifts aened loans from a businessman in exchange for giving the businessman access. the governor appealed all the way to the supreme court saying he did not commit any act in exchange for the gifts and money. the supreme court heard the oral argument in the case this week, you can here i want tonight starting at clp 45 eastern. then the 400th anniversary of william shakespeare's death. the foal jer shakespeare library marked the anniversary of the death with actors,

writers and playwrights discussing the author's death. >> here's some programs to watch for. this saturday at noon eastern, book tv has coverage from the fourth annual san antonio book festival. among the topics, the u.s.-mexico border, featuring author kimbel taylor and his book "the coyote's bicycle" the untold story of 7,000 bicycles. women. violent crime featuring kali nicole gross, featuring her ook "hannah mary tabbs and the disembodied torso." and h.w. brands and his took with the reagan: a life." then sunday, at noon, william

hay good will be on to discuss is many books. "the butler" a witness to history and "showdown: thurgood marshall and the supreme court nomination that shook america." he will take calls from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern. sunday evening at account eastern on yet afterwords," steve case looks at what's next for the interneat in his book "third wave: an entrepreneur's voifings the future." he's interviewed by congressman john delaney of maryland. >> i think everybody needs to think about the future in a more optist mick way and think about how they can think about their own job? a -- in a world where there's nor -- where the definition of work has changed, 44% of people are in a freelance economy and

millions of people are working for multiple companies in the same day, this gig economy or flexible economy. the nature of work has changed. there are some positives to that, some negatives to that. how do you position yourself? in hockey we used to say wayne gritskey was great because he didn't focus on where the puck was, he foused on where the puck is going. the noimp book is for everybody to understand where the puck is going so they can position themselves and their career and prepare their families for the future that's going to unfold in the next 10, 15 years. >> go to booktv.org for the complete schedule. >> if you've been watching c-span regularly over the last couple of months you've seen your student cam contest winners. incite high is where we school and junior high students to talk about issues of send ince and they can the video. it is a contest. today, we are going to talk with

our grand prize winner, olivia oklahoma. she was given a check for $5,000 for her video. we want to show you a portion of it. [video clip] spendingcretionary received $1.1 trillion. the second section is mandatory spending, $2.45 trillion in 2015. lastly, interest on the federal debt. this totaled $3.8 trillion. in order to pay for these things, the government has to take in money somehow. you have revenue and asked thence. the u.s.se of

government, revenue is created through taxation. when the money taken in through is putoesn't equal what out through spending, we have deficit. borrowing can be a temporary solution to an unbalanced budget, but it is the cause of a greater problem. debt is the sum total of all past deficits and futurents all of the generations, my generation, are going to have to pay that. dear candidates, i would like to know how you, if elected president, will deal with the debt crisis.

host: where did you come up with the idea to do this. i wanted to do something related to --. i discovered what a big problem the government funding of other areas is. that got me interested in the national debt as a whole. there is not just one solution. a big effort to be and we are going to have to try multiple things. at the end of my video, i threw it out to the candidates, but please get this nation back

under control. have you gotten more involved or do you follow politics more since working on the project? since doing all of the research, whenever i hear somebody talking about the debt or something along those lines, i was like -- oh, i know what you are talking about. how did you find out about student cam? i am in film at my high school. my teacher has all of his students enter this competition every year. this year it rolled around and he was like -- get to work. host: it was a forced assignment. [laughter] are you going to give him a cut of your prize money? guest: i might buy him a gift

card or something. host: have you gotten the check? i got it in the mail last week. you andat year are where are you going to college? i am a sophomore. i don't know where i want to go. i would love to go to film school in california or new york. she is the grand prize winner of this year's student

tomorrow on "washington journal," lisa cur tit, and uygur will talk about bernie sanders' campaign after a loss in four state this is week. c.e.o. g. media group's patrick gavin will join us an talk about thousand the correspondent's dinner went from a modest, one night affair to a week-long celebration. be sure to watch c-span's "washington jounl" beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on saturday morning. join the discussion. >> it's known as one of washington's premiere events, bringing together government officials, members of the press and hollywood stars. c-span has live coverage of the 2016 white house correspondent's dinner this saturday starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. live coverage from the

washington hilton hotel includes red carpet arrivals, background on the dinner and award presentations. 2,700 people are expected to attend. larry wilmore, host of comedy central's "nightly show" will headline. president obama will give his last address as commander in chief. watch it live on c-span starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern. >> we want to introduce you to lieutenant counselor jason fettig, director of the marine band. what's your job, lieutenant colonel? >> i'm the 28th director of the united states marine band. my job is to lead the band in performanc and i'm commanding officer of the unit as well. >> how big is this unit? >> we have 154 dedicated members of the marine band, it's designed to cover multiple commitments a at the same type and coffer a wide span of

different types of performances that we are required to do, both for the white house and across the national capital region. >> in the practice we saw for the correspondent's dinner, we saw about 50 members and the band is about 154, the whole band? >> that's right. that includes musicians that play in the concert band, we have a chamber orchestra and a number of musicians who also double on jazz instruments an different styles that may be required at any time and we have a professional support staff that supports our operation through the the year. >> lieutenant colonel, when you perform at the white house, when you perform on the south lawn when you're performing at the white house correspondent's dinner, how many members, and how do you choose? >> it depends on what the needs and commitment are. it could be anywhere from a single musician who may be performing in the grand fay yay of the white house up to -- grand foyer of the white house up to the whole group. >> what's your favorite event? >> there's so many to choose from. i think one of the thing us

love about my position in this organization is the great variety of what we have opportunity to do throughout the year. certainly, we appear over 200 times on average at the white house but also performances we do on national tours across this great country and ceremonies we perform at arlington national cemetery and across washington, d.c., every single one of them has a special meaning to me and i love the diversity. >> does the band -- does what the band does change with each president? >> a little bit. there's a tremendous history to what we do. we've bnch doing this for more than two centuries. the band was founded by act of congress in 1798. so a lot of what we do, especially at the white house, does have a foundation of tradition. but we try really hard to cater what we do to each presidency. not only the musical tastes of each president and first lady but also the needs of specific events. every event is different. and the marine band has evolved over the years as well as our

national culture has evolved, as what it means to perform american music has evolved. the band has followed suit. and so our capabilities and our tastes and the kinds of things we do have expanded in range along with that. >> what's your background? how did you get involved? >> i came into the band as a clarinet player. i didn't necessarily have aspirations to be the director of the band. i was really so fortunate to win a position as an instrumentalist here. i enjoyed 3 1/2 to four years playing in in the band for me to move over and become an officer and assistant director. i have background in music performance and music education and a little bit of conducting. so when that opportunity arose in 2001, it was kind of a chance of a lifetime and i jumped at it, not knowing how competitive i might be and was so fortunate to be given that position an then here i am, 18 years later, director of the band. it's incredible. >> did you have to go through

marine corps base extraining as every marine does? >> we don't go through basic training. this is one of the unique things about the band. we have such a specialized mission to perform music for the novet united states as directed by the commandant of the marine corps. there's a certain we have a very rigorous audition process. the marines are aware to do their job. and serving the marine corps and by that measure. our marines are dedicated.

there's a strong ceremonial component to what we have done. and so it is led by our senior enlisted and the drum major of the marine band. it's a great opportunity for him to conduct that ceremony and have some involvement in the presidential support event. >> often the band is performing while something is going on at the white house, some ceremony and how do you keep your eye on what's going on and the band.

you shall the link between starting and stopping. >> there is a real challenge to the operation and logistics and especially at the white house because we are trying to make music and responsible for providing the sound track for an event and make that event even more special. but there are a number of moving parts and any commitment we have at the executive mansion. so you have to be ready to change on a moment's notice and to be prepared for surprises. that takes a little bit of getting used to. when you are training to be a professional musician. i was an assistant director for 13 years and got used to that environment and i became director in 2014. it is one of the most exciting parts of my job to see music and make music that is in the background and creating the

event but it can become the feature and thrb so many moments that the music started at background becomes the entertainment. >> have you ever had a president decide to walk up and conduct? >> we haven't had a president walk up and decide to conduct. we did have a president in president bush conduct the band at a white house correspondents' dinner in 2008. we found out he had a little bit of conducting experience and so we were looking for an opportunity he might want to conduct the band and the white house correspondents' dinner might be a great opportunity. to our knowledge, that is the only --. >> it was planned in advance. >> went over to the white house to rehearse with the president, he practiced on his own and did a remarkable job for a nontrained musician and the

it in opened and led "stars and stripes." i assume you consult with the white house, what kind of music have you chosen? fights the event and we will try to program special things. much of what we do at the white house correspondents' dinner happens before the president takes a stage. we play a lot of patriotic music and get everybody in the mood and i believe on this particular event, we will throw in some marries that have to do with chicago as a nod to the president's background and when the president is ready to take the stage and president obama and mrs. obama, one of the things that has been so special

to them is the service of our members of the armed forces. they have gone out of their way on so many occasions to acknowledge the service of the men and women in uniform. and we do that at the white house correspond enlts' dinner and that is special. and it's an opportunity for anybody who has had service or current service to stand and be recognized when their service song is played. one of the things that brings the room together and is special to this president. >> is your unit responsible for the color guard that comes into the dinner? >> we coordinate with the color guard. we work with them. different color guards from different services, sometimes a joint color guard and we work with them with a number of different events and we are coordinating with them and that comes from a different section of the armed forces.

the music dictates what the color guard does and how they move. >> how so? >> we have a traditional set of music to play and march on the colors and the color guard when we play the national anthem. so it's coordinated that way. >> what is your job here with the marine band? >> i'm the senior enlisted leader and drum major for the united states band. >> that is what. >> i lead the parades, responsible for uniform, appearance, decor umh and training. >> you will be conducting the band. why have you been chosen for that? >> the drum major takes this performance because of the ceremonial nature, working with the color guard and the music that we do at the

correspondents' dinner. >> what dress uniforms will you be wearing? or our traditional red coat with blue pants. >> how many members will be there this >> 40 members for this. >> and where on the stage or hilton will be settled? >> behind the stage at the head table performing for the guests as they arrive and then for the ceremonial portion in the beginning. >> is this the first time you have conducted at the correspondents' dinner? >> my third time. >> what is the particular challenge to this event? >> one of the challenges is getting the band -- fitting the band on the stage because it's a very narrow we have to work with because being able to see left to right.

>> your back is to the dinner most of the night? >> yes, it is. >> are you listening to anyone that we are about to begin? >> the drum major will wear a headset that is looped in to the event staff to get cues when the president arrives and when he comes on stage. >> when the color guard marches in, who are they are representing? >> joint color guard representative of all services, so you'll have the american flag and then the organizational flags from each service and then additionally, you have two rifle bearers on each side. >> there are a lot of ribbons on top of the flags? >> those are battle streamers d represent each battle that service has taken part in.

>> perhaps hundreds up there at the top? >> yes, sir. >> how did you get into this business? >> lucky enough to be tall. i started as a trumpet player coming out of high school, i went into the marine corps and due to my height, most people said you look good in front of a band and everyone will see you. and they trained me how to be a drum major and here i am. >> you went through basic sergeant as a regular marine. >> yes, sir, that is correct. >> you knew at that point that you were going to be in the band? >> i have. we have 10 fleet bands and i actually joined the marine corps our a trumpet player in fleet band. they are stationed throughout the marine marine corps, camp le judge, paris island, new

orleans, three in southern california, hawaii and japan. >> how did this become the president's own band? >> thomas jefferson gave us that name after the years after the band started performing and he was very fond of the band and took us on as his own. >> do you ever hear john phillips sousa in your job. >> i sleep pretty well and they make it easy. >> will the band get to eat? >> yes, sir. not. >> at what point is your evening done? >> we finish as far as the event time line, we finish fairly early, once the president comes on and play the colors and play the national anthem, we are done

shortly after that, we close the curtains and begin the speeches. >> are you acting up? >> we are. we get out of there. once the curtain closes, we grab everything and make our way out. >> few notes from the low brass. ood sound. pick it up. [♪ 10 years after the dinner started was when it started and we have a leader's log that said we performed in 1931 and performed spore addically after that and the last 0 years or so, we had a regular appearance at the correspondents' dinner but music has played a role.

there have been a number of guests, artists and singers who have performed. prior to having a regular comedian, music was the central. aretha franklin and barbara streisand were performer. and there has been a strong military music component to the dinner as well, in addition to the marine band, several other bands have performed. it has been a central part of of the dinner as well. >> beautiful. just like that. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> bringing together government officials, press and hollywood stars. 2016 white house correspondents'

dinner. live coverage from the washington hilton hotel includes ed carpet arrival. 2,700 people are expected to attend. and this year, president obama will give his final speech as commander in speech. join us to watch the dinner at 6:00 eastern live on c-span. ofmadam president we give 72 our delegate votes to the next president of the united states.

>> there was a briefing at the pentagon on the findings of the recent investigation looking at us air strikes on a civilian hospital. 42 people were killed in that bombing. commander of u.s. central command spoke to reporters for about 40 minutes. >> thanks for being here, everyone. general votel from central command is here and is prepared to deliver an opening statement regarding the investigation. he'll be prepared to answer your question on that and other topics as well. without further adore, general votel.

general votel: well, good morning and thank you all for being here today. i have a statement to provide and take your questions. today, u.s. central command is releasing the results of the investigation into the strike on the doctors without borders promise center in afghanistan which occurred october 3, 2015. let me first state again our deepest condolences to those injured and to the families of those killed in this ncident. i am sure we are committed to learning from this tragedy and minimizing the risk of civilian casualties during future combat perations. general john cam ben, then the u.s. forces afghanistan commander, directed the investigation into this incident and william hickman was the lead nvestigators along with sean jenkins and u.s. air force brigadier general robert armfield. these general officers were selected because of their years

of professional experience and understanding of the complex operational environment in kunduz, afghanistan. they were also selected because they came from assignments outside of afghanistan and could bring an objective and independent perspective to the investigation. these officers and a supporting staff of more than a dozen associated subject matter experts visited the doctors without borders trauma center in afghanistan and various other key locations in kunduz city, interviewed more than 65 witnesses and engaged each echelon of the command in this investigation. this investigation was done with painstaking detail followed with an in-depth review progress. the progress of the investigation was guided by a pursuit for an accurate account of the facts and contributing factors associated with the incident. following his review, general campbell approved the investigation on november 21, 2015.

subsequently, we were able to begin the process of redacting the more than 3,000 pages making up the report and its exhibits to ensure no classified or otherwise protected information was released while maintaining true to our commitment to be as transparent as possible regarding the investigation. in line with this commitment, following today's briefing, u.s. central command will post the redacted investigation report to central command's freedom of information act reading room website which is accessible to the public. before i get to your questions, i'll briefly provide an overview of the investigation findings and outline the actions that have been taken to reduce the risk of a similar tragedy from occurring again in the future. importantly, the investigation concluded that the person involved did not know they were striking a medical facility. the intended target was an insurgent controlled site which was approximately 400 meters from the doctors without borders trauma center. the investigation found that an ac-130 gun ship aircrew in

support of a u.s. special forces element that was supporting an afghan partnered ground force misidentified and struck the doctors without borders trauma center. the investigation determined that all members of both the ground force and the ac-130 aircrew did not know that they were firing on a medical facility throughout the ngagement. this engagement was human error and equipment failures. understanding the context is important. leading up to this incident, u.s. special operation forces and their afghan special operations partners had been engaged in intense fighting for several consecutive days and nights in kunduz and had repelled heavy and sustained in the attacks. the ground force was fatigued

from days of fighting, still engaged with an aggressive enemy and running low on splice. in response to this urgent tactical situation, the ac-130 aircraft and crew launched from its base 69 minutes earlier than originally planned. as a result, the crew did not get all the preparatory information they would normally have received -- excuse me -- before a mission to include identification of no strike areas. their ability to receive this information while in flight was lost when one of their satellite radios failed. shortly after arriving on scene, the aircraft was fired on by a surface air missile and subsequently moved several miles away from the city center. from this distance, the aircrew received coordinate coordinates of a taliban building. when they attempted to plot the coordinates of the building, they were directed to the open field which was obviously not the correct location. the aircrew attempted to find the intended target in the nearby area. instead, they found the doctors without borders trauma center that generally matched the physical description of the building relayed over the radio by the ground crew.

the crew mistakenly believed that it was the building. the investigation found throughout the engagement that followed, the ground force commander and the aircrew mistakenly believed that the aircrew and aircraft was firing on the intended target. i want to emphasize that the trauma center was a protected facility and was on a no-strike list. our forces did not receive fire from the trauma center during the incident, nor did the investigation find insurgents were using it as a base for operations. some insurgents were treated at the trauma center but hospitals and patients are protected on the battlefield. the trauma center was a protected facility. but it was misidentified during this engagement. the investigation concluded that certain personnel failed to comply with the rules of engagement and the law of armed conflict. however, the investigation did not conclude that these failures

amounted to a war crime. the label war crimes is typically reserved for intentional acts. intentionally targeting civilians or intentionally targeting protected objects or locations. again, the investigation found that the incident resulted from a combination of unintentional human errors, processed errors and equipment failures and that none of the personnel knew they were striking a hospital. the investigation identified 16 u.s. surface members whose conduct warranted consideration for appropriate, administrative or disciplinary action, including a general officer. general campbell took the action he deemed appropriate regarding 12 of the 16 personnel involved in this tragic incident who were in afghanistan including the general officer. the actions included suspension and removal from command, letters of reprimand, formal counseling and extensive retraining. eneral campbell also forwarded

the investigation to me at u.s. special operations command where i was serving as the commander at the time to consider action regarding the five personnel who had returned to the united states. i subsequently took action with respect to four of these five personnel by issuing letters of reprimand and admonishment and directions that the flight crew be referred to a u.s. air force flight evaluation board to assess their suitability for future flight duties. i referred the fifth service member to the lieutenant general, the commander of u.s. army special operations command who issued a written reprimand and directed recertification in the job specialty. it's important to say they can carry severe repercussions on the careers and personal qualifications of these individuals that could include denial of promotion or advancement and possible separation from the service. in light of the report's

conclusion that the errors committed were unintentionally and after considering other mitigating factors such as the intense combat situation and equipment failures that affected the mission, from a senior commander's perspective, the measures taken against these individuals were appropriate to address the errors they ade. let me add that we are not publicly releasing the names of these service members to protect the privacy of the individuals and because some of them remain assigned to overseas sensitive or routinely deployable units. in addition to these personal measures, general campbell -- rules of engagement and the commander's tactical guidance, all which were designed to minimize the risk that a tragedy like this would occur. this training was delivered to over 9,000 personnel and completed in november of 015. he also directed a comprehensive review of the process and posted an order about the application no strike list.

they are loaded with applicable information including the no strike list to minimize this kind of problem. u.s. forces afghanistan also provided the leadership of doctors without borders with a means to facilitate direct contact with our command centers. and today, secretary of defense carter will release a memo directing all of the services and senior commanders to take a series of correct i actions as a result of kunduz. it is clear we must take steps to reduce such incidents in the uture. we have made it a priority to engage with doctors without borders and the afghan government to offer our support where we can.

senior government and central command officials including me have spoke within doctors without borders officials over two dozen times to express condolences, explain how this tragic incident occurred and outline future steps. additionally, u.s. forces afghanistan lead verse offered their sympathies and provided condolence payments to more than 170 individuals and families affected by this tragedy. these modest payments are not designed to compensate victims or place value on their lives but are a gesture of sympathy. the department of defense has approved funds to construct a similar structure in kunduz to be used as a medical acility. we are committed to learning

from the mistakes that were made and will work hard to train and put systems in place to reduce the risk of such an accident occurring again in the future. i'll be happy to take your questions now. >> general votel. on the matter of accountability, given the number of mistakes and severity of the consequences and despite the fact that as you said these actions were unintentional, could you explain in your own words why this did not amount to negligence warrant manager severe punishment? and also could you, in your own words, explain why this was not a war crime.

general votel: let me take the last part of your question first. as i mentioned in my remarks here, by the interpretation, the legal interpretation and our understanding of this, the fact that this was unintentional, an unintentional action takes it out of the rem of actually being a deliberate war crime against persons or protected locations system of that is the principle -- principal reason we do not consider this to be a war crime. to your earlier part of your question, i personally expended a great amount of effort and time in adjudicating the cases that were provided to me. i had the opportunity to review the investigation in great detail. i consulted with my legal advisors. i consulted with my chain of command, both the army and air force side. and i personally met with the four officers that i adjudicated against. and what i concluded after that was that this was an extraordinarily intense combat situation. ground force commander, as i mentioned in my remark, and his force had been engage for about four days in intense combat and up until the time of this particular strike had been

actually fighting at the will lo -- at the location where they were. this was an extraordinarily intense situation. they were doing a variety of actions at the same time, they were trying to support their afghan partners, they were trying to execute resupply operations and they were trying to defend themselves. o the picture i'm painting for you is a very intense situation on the ground. the air crew, as i mentioned, arrived over kunduz, shortly after arriving there was engaged by a surface to air missile. that's a significant thing, doesn't happen very often in afghanistan. they took appropriate measures, got off station and it so happens that the coordinates for this location were passed while they were off, due to some technical aspect of the system, it flew to a location that was not the right one, and they went through the process of communicating by air and ground to do their best to locate the location. they ultimately arrived at the

wrong location. in my evaluation of that, as i talked to each of these individuals that were involved, their intention was true, they were absolutely trying to do the right thing, they were trying to support our afghan partners, there was no intention on any of that are part it is take a shortcut or violate any rules that were laid out for them and they were attempting to do the right thing. unfortunately, they made a wrong judgment in this particular case. and ended up targeting this doctors without borders facility. >> general, you -- the written statement here talks about one of the -- the fifth service member who was referred to you, you referred that case to the commander of army special

operations command. and he was directed to -- he was recertified. does that mean he was, this one officer who, i believe, is described in here as the ground commander, was he kicked out of the special forces? general votel: no. and let me just correct, let me just state this. the fifth member i referred to general tokol was an enlisted member a noncommissioned officer. in my estimation as i went through this, the yen had all the right tools available to him to adjudicate this. my interest as the socom commander at the time was to specifically address the actions of the officers involved in this, including the ground force commander and three officers who ere in the aircraft. >> just a couple of clarifications.

the flight evaluation board for the air crew, what did that determine? are they still flying? general votel: to my knowledge, up to the time i left socom a little over four weeks ago, they had not flown. my understand is the flight evaluation board is in progress and should be completed. i'm not aware, that is an air force process, so i'm not aware of what they have concluded from that. >> their boards are not complete? general votel: in the process of being completed. >> and can you say how much the condolence payments were? general votel. they were $3,000 for wounded and $600 for those killed. >> you mentioned that the ground commander, he'd been fighting at that location for several days, i think a lot of people would be surprised to hear that, that he was actively engaged in combat in afghanistan when they're not supposed to be engaged in

combat. general votel: this special orces element wasn't permanently positioned up in kunduz. they were actually at another location in afghanistan. so when the situation in kunduz as a result of the taliban attack that took place there really presented a very significant security threat, he was directed by his chain of command to take his team an move up to kunduz and link up with an afghan partner force on the ground so he did that. he was very clearly in an advise and assist role there but of course they are in -- they are having to do that locations that brought him under, he and his team and the afghans were supporting under direct fire. and so they were very much in an intense situation here. >> the port -- the report by

john campbell listed problems with the ac-130 communication systems, some sort of problems that resulted in bad targeting after an evasive maneuver. are you undertaking any awe tit or evaluation of the equipment on the ac-130 to see how systemic this is? and are you investigating whether on ground communication is required? general votel: we are always making a constant effort to check that our systems are appropriate. air force special operations command has looked in great detail at that particular problem. in my estimation, this was not a systemic problem, this was a failure at that point of this specific radio system and antenna designed to receive data and transmit data to the ground.

i'm unaware that this is a systemic problem. it was a problem that night obviously that contributed to this issue right here. with regard to the other part of your question on jtacs, the processes that we use, of course, do account for the fact of whether we can see the target that we see or that we cannot. i remain confident in our procedures to do it either of those ways. so i do not foresee us changing anything with respect to those particular techniques and procedures that we use. i think the key point that i would highlight to you here is that the procedures are good. what does need -- what we do need -- what we did learn from this is the significant importance of clear communication between the ground and the air and that is a specific area that i and my previous -- that i in my previous role as socom commander focused our commanders on, and one we'll continue to press

n. >> did the aircraft crew have a visual feed of the hospital and see that there was no fire coming from the hospital? general votel: yes, but that's ot unusual, frankly. as an individual who looked at a lot of sensor you don't always see fire coming from a building. that in and of itself, the fact that they don't see fear coming from a building which is difficult to see in my estimation, is not particularly unusual. >> if you step back for a minute and look at -- you talk about the strain the forces were under after four days of combat, there's a limited american footprint in afghanistan compared to other times, what does this say about the strain on u.s. forces in afghanistan, given the variety of attacks they've been asked to carry out?

and what about reducing that burden further? general votel: i won't comment on discussions that are ongoing in terms of what our force levels will be going forward here. but i would add that the capabilities that we have on the ground now that allow taos pursue our counterterrorism objectives and allow us to continue to work with our after began partners to advise, assist, i think are appropriate to what we have. this i would highlight to you was an extreme situation. and i can't sit here and tell you we won't have more of those in the future. but this was an extreme situation we were dealing with. and an area where we did not have a normal presence of american soft forces. >> i wanted to follow up on that very point because while it's not a direct comparison, you've had another incident like this with a battle down in the south

where the team has remained out overnight with wounded because you were unable to get to them, though i know you had air support for them. i guess the question is you've now had two of these instances where your teams are in the field in extreme combat, running short of supplies, is this still a risk, are you satisfied with the risk right now or now that you have two incidents, does it raise concerns for you and some adjustment in your mind? and i have a quick followup, sir. general votel: first, i remain extremely confident in our forces and leadership to make right choices on the ground and to evaluate risks and make proper risk calls. and so this is a topic that we talk about incessantly in our train, in our preparation to deploy people about how we make those kinds of digs, how we assess risk.

certainly the fact that we don't have as many people on the ground now as we did several years ago does affect how we do things system of what it requires us to be is more deliberate, more thoughtful in how we are applying our forces and how we are managing the risk with that. but in my estimation, i am re-- i remain very, very confident in our leadership's ability to do that. >> can i ask you a quick isis followup? the president has said he can no longer target mosul being centers of attacks, the secretary of talking about having enough iraqi forces to envelop mosul, having them assembled by the beginning of am dawn. what's your assessment about the ability to get moving against mosul in iraq and if you could meet the president's objective of not tolerating them if you

could get mosul and iraq back out of isis' hands, what is your assessment of what that would do to them? general votel: it would take away one of their key pillar the ability to have terrain. so i'd -- as secretary pointed out repeatedly and others have ointed out, raca and mosul remain extraordinarily important object is we are focused on. there will be other areas that we will have to work on as well. but those two are -- remain extraordinarily important to s. >> i want to go back to the equipment question. the american public spends $100 billion a year on procurement, they expect the equipment to work. in your press release you lumped it all together, process, human error, equipment failure. if the equipment had worked this radio system, it worked properly, would the tragedy have been averted in your view? >> possibly.

let me -- the equipment failure that, let's talk about equipment failures here. the first equipment failure we talked about was the radio system. the antenna system that prevented them from receiving digital information that would have told them of no strike areas and other things and then would have been able to -- allowed them to send a picture to the ground. that's an important aspect right there. and that may have contributed to it. but i would also just remind you that as the aircraft got up on station, it was engaged by a surface to air missile system of they followed the proper procedure, got off station, and then we are given the grids. and the angle, again, i won't get involved in the technical aspect because the angle they were trying to acquire that caused the system to come up with a wrong location. so there are, i wouldn't point you to any specific thing that if we had not done this would have prevented this, but the combination of all of these things and an intense combat situation i think contributed to this very unfortunate ccident.

>> they did not have a chronic problem over the years, this was an acute, one time only from what you saw? general votel. i'm not aware of the meantime for the failure of this political system. i'm not -- it's not something i'm aware of as a systemic problem we've seen on these aircraft for a long period of time. >> i want to be clear that i understand the authority under which the strike was conducted. as it's been described to us at the pentagon, u.s. authorities in afghanistan are limited but air strikes can be conducted to protect u.s. forces on the ground, to go after remnants of al qaeda and in cases where afghan forces are in xtremis.

which of those criteria applied in this case and can you explain why? >> the ground force commander made the decision to conduct the strike under self-defense authority because he considered himself and by extension the afghan forces in proximity that he was supporting as part of his force. so he chose to apply the self-defense authorities to orchestrate this strike. >> if i can follow up for a moment, in that scenario, we've seen it several times in afghanistan, it almost appears that commanders in afghanistan are getting around the imitation against supporting afghan forces in the field by simply embedding u.s. forces with them and then authorizing the strike under the self-defense authority rather than the -- to get around these restrictions against helping the afghans in their combat operations as they were trying to repel the taliban attack.

general votel: i have not reached that conclusion, would not reach that conclusion at this point. i think our commanders attempt to apply the rules of engagement and the authorities are in exactly the right way they're intended but unfortunately we get in situations like this that are confusing. there is a lot on the ground. it's a fast-moving situation and we have young people, young leaders out there that are trying to make the right decision in the heat of combat and sometimes it comes up wrong. but i don't -- i would not tolerate, frankly, our commanders trying to use go-arounds to apply fires in ways other than they're ntended. >> i have two questions, one the m.s.s. doctors say they called military headquarters to say they were under attack within minutes of it starting and that the attack continued for 60 to 90 minutes later.

can you explain how that happened -- was that a result of radio communications being own? why did they not get that message in the air and stop? and second -- can i get your thoughts on the green beret being reinstated who attacked an after began commander who raped a young boy. general votel: i'm not familiar with that and won't comment on that that that would normally be a service responsibility, not a u.s. central command responsibility. to the first part of your question, what the investigation reveals is the strike, lethal effects lasted for 30 minutes. what the investigation established was that at about 10 minutes into it, the doctors without borders contacted one of our command centers and passed hat information to us.

that went through a series of layers to get to the people on the ground. frankly, the ground force commander was not tracking medical facility so when that information first got to him that didn't immediately register. so it took a few moments, a few minutes to figure that out, that they were firing at it. but what i would add, as soon as they made that determination they stopped firing. >> that's different from the original investigation which said that the attack was over, completed by the time anybody in the airplane realized that what they were shooting at. general votel: what the investigation characterizes is when they were notified, they stopped firing. >> you talked about errors here, technical human errors. walk us through, when you look at this report, is there something in particular with a human error that jumps out at you? is it the fact that these guys had a visua is it the doctors' frantically trying to call u.s. military officials to get them to stop shooting, when you read this report, with your experience, is there one thing that jumps out at you and you say to yourself, how could this possibly have happened? general votel: i think the one thing, as i went through this, that jumped out at me was the communication between the air and ground. and it was relatively concise,

brief communication back and forth and in a, i think in a confusing situation like this, what i think it merited was more discussion between what was going on. there was not complete situational awareness on the ground with what the aircraft was seeing and there was not

complete situational awareness from the aircraft with what was happening with the ground force. so to me it is about the case and i think, again, i think both these elements were exactly trying to do the right thing, trying to get to the right answer here and do the exact right thing in accordance with the authorities they had. unfortunately, they came up short. i think communications contributed to that. >> they were shooting at this hospital for quite some time, a half-hour. were they using all the guns? were they using the 105? were they using everything? general votel: to my knowledge, i think they used all the systems available on the aircraft. >> clearly when they're looking at this build, there's no indication of enemy fire, there's no indication of fighting around there. are you concerned that they were hitting a target but there's no indication of any hostile intent? general votel: this is an area

we examined in some great detail as we went through this. as i mentioned earlier, it's not uncommon to not see fire coming from a building or from a location through a sensor system. and that is my own personal experience. some trained analysts who have looked at this over a lifetime may be able to do that but it's not uncommon to not be able to identify that. so you know, yeah, the other aspect that we looked at was what was the pattern of life around this particular facility? and i think one of the contributing factors here was that what was being described by the ground force commander happening at the intended target was very closely being replicated at the doctors without borders. so they found about the same number of people, about the same general locations outside the building. and so they -- >> nobody was shooting at the hospital, correct?

general votel: nobody from the afghans -- right. right. t was at a different location. >> wouldn't they think there's something wrong here? general votel: again, there's a mistaken identification of the target. so the aircraft is looking at one location, the ground force is thinking they're looking at another location. there's no way to visually confirm that back an forth between them. and their discussions, as you look at the transcripts don't add clarity to that. >> i don't want to belabor this but looking at what they saw, there was no one shoot, no one running around with r.p.g.'s, there was no fire fight on the ground. so why would they keep hitting it? >> again, that is -- you know, again in the experience of these individuals right here, who have done these types of operations before, what they were seeing was, frankly , in line with what was being described from the ground and with their own experience.

i mean, the enemy does adapt to how we operate. so they don't operate in quite an open fashion where we can always see everything we have. that is a known factor that is mixed into this with the crew. >> we have time for two more. > i want to walk through a couple of issues that i have starting with the equipment failure, the satellite radio. i understand that was a video down link that would have gone to the jtac. is that correct? general votel: that's correct. >> surface air missile, that's a loose term. was that a manpad? general votel: that's our assessment. >> next, moving on to the hospital, what the aircraft can see what the ground forces can see. the jtac talking to the aircraft, did they have united nations the n.d.s.? i understand they were supporting a raid.

>> to my knowledge he, did not have eyes on either of the locations, intended facility or the other one. >> ok. did any american have eyes on the intended target? >> they were all located where the jtac was, so my understanding is no, they did not. >> and from i understand, you know you had afghan forces forward, that's who we were supporting, this air strike was authorized in self-defense of americans, so if there were no americans near the target ocation -- >> as i mentioned, the ground force commander made the determination that the afghan forces that he was partnered with were part of his force and so he made the decision to apply self-defense in support of his force that included these afghan partners? >> the afghan partners at the national directorate buildings were under heavy fire, right? general votel: on their way to that facility. > so the facility was targeted

by the ac-130 in extremis, when here were no effects -- what i don't understand, you're using ac-130 with full suite of guns, you pick the guns for the situation. they're not taking -- general votel: the report is they were taking fire from the n.d.s. build, that's what prompted the call for self-defense fires. et me clarify one thing. on the jtac actually seeing the building. as you are probably aware, we have a variety of techniques that allow us to call for fires properly, safely, whether we can see the intended location or whether we can cannot. in this case, they were using hose procedures. >> the release of this report occurs at the same time that another doctors without borders

facility has been struck in aleppo. can you affirmatively say the u.s. had no role in that attack? general votel: i can affirmatively say the u.s. had no role in the attack on that facility. >> can i clear up one thing, they said the force was notified they were targeting the wrong hospital but they remained fixated on the hospital because of the physical description of the building but that fact is, different than what you're aying. that they were never notified during the actual bombing of the ospital. they were never notified they were striking the wrong target. general votel: that's my understanding. they had no idea that the facility they were striking was a medical facility. when that was determined by the ground force commander he, stopped their firing. >> thanks, everybody. thank you, general. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]

>> former virginia govern was convicted of federal corruption charges from accepting gifts and loans in exchange for giving the businessman access. he has appealed saying he did not commit any official acts. the official supreme court heard the arguments and you can hear it tonight at 7:45 eastern. and then the 400th anniversary of shake peer eel death. the library marked the anniversary discussing the impact. you can see that tonight on -span at 9:00 eastern.

c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and issues that affect you. heritage foundation will discuss the strategy towards isis and then founder and c.e.o. of the young turks' network and his support of bernie sanders' campaign. he will discuss what his candidacy means for the progressive movement. and patrick gavin will join us and preview the white house correspondents' dinner and press, power players and parties. he directed and produced the film inside of washington's wildest week. watch "washington journal" saturday morning. join the discussion.

>> it is known as one of washington's premier events. c-span has live coverage of the correspondents' dinner at 6:00 p.m. eastern. red carpet arrival, background on the dinner and awards presentation. 2,700 people are expected to attend. ost of comedy central will host. join us to watch the 2016 white house correspondents' dinner live on c-span at 26 p.m. murphy, you were featured in that student video. it was a remarkable video. it shows the insight of what happens with mental health in america.

the huge cost, cost of lives, cost of productivity. whether it was elected officials or clinicians speaking, it is the greatest health care embarrassment. host: what is the federal government's role? under medicare, medicaid, hhs, it is pretty sizable. it creates the barriers that prevent you from getting care. in terms of paying bills, it is multiple levels. patrick kennedy led the charge on that. private insurance that provides -- of mentalcare illness. up to this point, there is a certain wall that prevents people from getting care.

the second thing is understanding what medicaid pays. 5% of the population who use medicaid consume 55% of medicaid almost all of them are mentally ill. it is a huge cost. why is that? illness,with mental 75% of them have at least one of their -- have at least one other chronic illness. costs spending there. they're not getting care, they don't follow through on care, they don't believe they have problems. their lives are deteriorating. jail,o have the cost of you are 10 times more likely to be in jail than a half though. if you are a minority, it is worse. these things all multiply. other federal barriers exist.

are low income, they don't let you see to doctors in the same day for the same problem. if you see a family physician and he says your son is showing bad symptoms here, he is depressed, with drawing his grades are going down, he is blocking the windows in his if youe is irritable, are on medicaid, the door is closed. we create this prejudice against impoverished mentally ill. you will not get help. if you are mentally ill, you're more likely to be in poverty. you are working this slow-motion spiral of chronic illness and we are blocking care for you and you will go to prison, where prison costs are 20 times higher than outpatient care.

they send you to an emergency room, general hospital. it is much more expensive. emergency room, a few thousand you are blocking other patients fromom coming in. they sedate them. this is the embarrassment of america's mental health system. what we are left with is people in prisons, or if they are at home. the family is told we are sending them home, good luck. the family says what is the diagnosis? what are we supposed to do. federal barriers continue to

make it most difficult for the people who have the most difficulty and the cost skyrockets. phonewe will put the numbers on the screen. we are talking mental health care in america and the role of the federal government divided by political affiliation. tim murphy is a trained psychologist. the 16 bed rule? you can't have more than 16 beds in a psychiatric hospital and get treatment. has come up with a variation of that, which we are happy about, but it is not totally helpful. for somechanging cases, a person can have 15 days per month of care rather than worry about 16 days per month.

admitted on june 15 and you need 20 days of care, you can stay there. on june 1 admitted and you reach the 15 day limit, it stops. to do?e they supposed they get transferred to a general hospital psychiatric bed or to the emergency room. the costs are going up. if you are having heart surgery and halfway through, the doctor says my shift is over, a new doctor comes in and says what are we doing, what am i supposed to do? you would never do that. mentaligotry toward illness. building confidence and understanding history is essential in treating mental illness effectively.

where going to start all over. the federal government comes up with these bizarre notions that that is helpful. it is not. if that is the case, at least they have come up with the role that we will work with them. what happens to them clinically? they getting worse? are they going to be discharged? many of these folks are not aware they have a problem. they don't even know they have a problem. they think their hallucinations are real. many will go to jail. problems cascade. we will work with them on this and see what happens. discussing the segment

yesterday, one topic we talked about was if we walked up ross the street and saw somebody with a broken leg, we would know how to deal with that. we call 911. we see someone who we think is , what do we do? be lying on ay subway grate in the wintertime. some places they may come up and check on the person. if that person is not an , they will let him go. if you see someone who has twisted their ankle or is lying in the street, paramedics show up. they are treating because it is

an illness. when it is a mental illness, it is handcuffs and off you go. i half of mentally ill people the police encounter and the dead. ill person,entally think of what happened to the captain a month or so ago, a man itwering is a pellet gun, and when you are a police officer, they shot him. i think it is incredible restraint on the part of policeman -- goodness knows, at any moment, 20 police.

it could have been a disaster scene. if that situation itself across the country every day, where that is how we treat the mentally ill in that way. host: you have a bill to reorganize the way mental illness treated in the u.s., what the federal government spends is allocated. guest: the general county office told us the number, the majority disability payments and not treatment. some goes toward treatment, but we send about 500 million to the state, 700 million to the states for substance abuse, but the amount of money we spend in this country dealing with mental health, health care issues, all those things together is $444 billion. if you add the criminal justice system, $550 billion a year.

$500 million to the states, the cost is about $500 billion across the country. it does not make sense. we are spending so little. if a judge has a mentally ill person who committed a crime, they send them to prison, they have to provide. it is not a crime to have a heart attack, not a crime to have diabetes, not a crime to have cancer, but we do not say we will not do anything for you. we have a perverse notion that compassion is to do nothing at all, let that person live in a dehumanizing environment. we relegate them to the back alleys of mental health care. if you ever saw a community health clinic, unless it is a new one, it is old, not that nice, the furniture is old, and you go into a cancer treatment center, beautiful building.

look what we do. we do not do the same for mental health and that stigma maintains this level. my bill would change a lot of things. we would restructure samsa. have some accountability for the grant programs. they have good programs. those programs do not talk to each other. there are 26 homeless programs, i do not think we need 26. get it out to help the homeless. we have the 16 bed rule, some of the confidentiality rules, all of those, the bill addresses. host: let's get some calls, john from pennsylvania on the democrats line.

caller: thank you. my question was i had seen anything on -- remember when the reporter was shot and the fired shot and the fired employee that worked there, i watched a show, he had been shuffled around, he had been suing the stations, he definitely had mental problems, and hr do not want to deal with them because they did not want to get sued. then the tragedy happened. and instead of dealing with a mental issue of the gentleman, it was all put on the guns, let's get rid of the guns, the guns is the issue. they do not want to deal with mental health. they do not want to stigmatize these people, they do not want to put them in institutions because that does not seem right, but yet when the people get a hold of guns and this gentleman got it legally, he purchased the handgun legally to

commit a crime, nothing was said about it, nothing was said about the responsibility of hr and the stations. it was all dumped on the law-abiding gun owner. host: let's get a response from congressman murphy. guest: you are bringing up a great point, and that is when these tragedies occur, 1200 homicides occur by a person who is mentally ill. most mentally ill are not violent at all. those with severe mental illness if they are not in treatment, , they are 16 times more likely to be violent than someone who is not. not homicidal violence but is there. even worse, let's remember -- they are six times more likely to be victims of fraud, rape, abuse, homicide. those things should also drive us to do something. we used to put people in asylums. we needed to get away from those days because those became massive warehouses of cruelty.

they begin in the 1800's, dorothy dix, the leading person to get those things moving, the goal was to get these mentally ill people out of jails. we have come full circle. as we closed the asylums because of the abuses and the importance of protecting someone's rights, what have we done? we have not changed much. we replaced it for the jail cell, or the homeless person on the street, or, unfortunately, the county morgue. i believe the reason we should be dealing with this and not talking about what is in our hands, let's address what is in their minds. host: calling from poughkeepsie, new york, independent line. caller: good morning.

i am from poughkeepsie, new york. we used to have a large psychiatric center in the area. it was closed down in the name of privatization, which promised cheaper and more effective. we both know those two words are mutually exclusive from each other. i am wondering, could we go back in that direction? you were talking about asylums. i would not categorize the institution we had here as an asylum, but they were giving good care and probably as good, i work in a nursing home, and i would say probably better than 80% of the people we have have some sort of psychiatric problem. it is not being done as effectively because once again, cheaper, more effective, they do not mesh.

guest: let me address how it works. in the movement to close those large institutions, it was driven by those two parts. people thought they get save money, and there was another working on the rights of patients, because many people were assigned to those places, also family members, they stay there for a long time. it was important to protect their rights so they were not just put into an institution without having control of the treatment. what happened was that states did not have as much community-based care as was there and that is why were people and it being arrested and going to jail. we have focused on the rights, you cannot force someone into treatment and cannot do this and cannot do that here we refer to letting them die with their rights on, it is terribly cruel. new york changed some of this.

the assisted outpatient treatment. if a person has a history of violence and incarcerations and falling apart when they are not in treatment, a judge may see them so their rights are protected and say, when you are in treatment, you do better. we will assign you to outpatient care. what they have found is the results are staggeringly positive in terms of, not only are people saying my casework was doing well, but 70% for homelessness reduction, for other health care costs, and the costs went down by half. i think that is more humane to do that. new york has had some positive aspects of that, but new york also spent more money on outpatient care and i think they are see much improvement in many cases, but they are not done.

host: mark from florida on the democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have a few questions for representative murphy. is he a psychologist or a psychiatrist? i was watching your program this morning with the committee, talking about immigration. when the congressman get up there, and 80 into the badgering of the witness, why don't you know? it is a very simple thing. i am sick and tired of hearing our congressmen, no matter what party no matter what division, the senate or the house, we cannot leave this to our children or grandchildren. we are leaving it to our children and grandchildren.

host: a little bit off-topic here. what is your take, as a trained psychologist? what is your take on congress and its mental health? guest: i am the chairman of the oversight investigations of committee in congress. when we have had witnesses come before my subcommittee dealing with the issue of mental health and the costs of health care, sometimes a witness has not done their work and giving information that is misleading. we had hearings with -- saying why are you spending money, $25,000 on a painting of people sitting on a rock?

why you giving out grants, to make a fruit smoothie if they are stressed? it has got nothing to do with serious mental illness. they do not mention the world -- the word schizophrenia. members of congress saying, where you going and what are you doing there? i do not diagnose my colleagues but i know this. their attention is part of it. what happens here is even though someone may disagree on how we do this, there are compassionate people, my colleagues. we may disagree about how to do it, and that is where you debate and talk. members of congress are representing america. just like americans struggle with mental illness and their families, a lot of my colleagues know this themselves, this spouses, their kids, their friends, they come to them and say, how do they handle this? they feel the same pan and the

same misery and trying to do something and they feel the same levels of stigma, saying, what if word got out of my struggles? i say we all deal with this. it is time we say that it is ok to acknowledge that, just like you had heart disease are answer, to struggle with. in america where we make it so so difficult to get care, when you see members who stand up with courage, i will go back to to patrick kennedy, a courageous man, and he and i probably vote the same way and many thanks. i admire him, he struggled with aspects of mental illness, he is getting help and he is getting better. i want to see more people do that. congress deals with that as well. there are good people trying to do things, but that doesn't not a good copy for the news. host: what is the status of your legislation?

guest: we moved it out of the health committee, very sympathetic, we are working on wording that help deal with some of the divides on this. the biggest divide before was the costs, where the congressional budget, the 16-bed rule. now that the senate for medicaid services says they will move forward on the 15-day rule, that now scores zero. i believe we should codify that, go with that, and do an intense study of how that is working. that was probably the biggest hurdle was the cost. we are looking on structuring some other things. working for a while on how we handle this hipaa rule. some people say, never release

any records it that patient does not authorize it. i talked with families across the country that when this person hits this will, they do not understand their illness, they may have a disease and not seeking care, i want there to be a little keyhole of compassionate to medication where a doctor tells a family member i am not telling you anything else, but you need to know that your son needs to see an endocrinologist because the diabetes is out of control. we should at least have that. we are working on some of that to deal with this problem. you are on with congressman tim murphy. i have a comment for mr. murphy. mr. murphy, i want to congratulate you because you made a comment on the television a few minutes ago about the

people in the hospitals. how they get transferred from one hospital to another and how the prices go up. sometimes you are in the emergency room on a gurney, and you are there for hours. i have been in very poor health. i have been in and out of the hospital. the doctor said, what am i doing here again? you do not have enough to admit you. 200.ood pressure was over something has to be done with this mental help for the people in our area. prices are terrible. they do not want to pick up their prescriptions anymore because we cannot afford it. host: thank you. guest: it is important. r camera canw if you're ♪

see this. i just did a national poll last week of people who support this legislation. the numbers are staggering. we did a poll on if people be more or less likely to vote for a member of congress if they support this bill? we saw among republicans and independents, 60th percentile. americans want there to be changes in these things. we will continue to drive that home. host: with this kind of support, you have democratic cosponsors? guest: there are 51 democrat cosponsors. the democrats are very ll intended on this and i think those are some things we have there that we want to accommodate, specifically, we need more minority providers. there are not enough african-american and latino. it is a phenomenal shortage. half the counties in america do

not have psychiatrists at all. we want to allow for more. now we have people talking over their cell phones or their computer. there are many aspects. we have good points and we want to accommodate those and work together. host: is it an issue with gun control on the democrats' side? guest: that is a separate issue. most mentally ill are not violent. when we see a mass murderer, about half of those involved with -- only 10% of murders overall involve the mentally ill but one is too much. when we see big headline events and we find out the person was undertreated for mental illness, that is a concern. but the idea is to treat their illness. some people say we should never force a person into treatment. keep in mind, that most states have a law that says if a person has an involuntary commitment,

their name now goes on the list and they cannot purchase a gun, but i caution those with any involuntary commitment at all, a pretty serious problem and i think in those case -- in those cases, they should not be able to push continue to work with people to help them be better. there are a lot of people with anxiety and stress, i am a navy psychologist, i have no concerns about them going hunting or target practice. it is a sport for them and they have their illness under control. that is fine. we ought to be looking at other things in terms of enforcing the laws out there. host: joanna is in maryland. go ahead. caller: i am a retired case manager and i had a number of clients with mental illness. i retired about eight years ago but i see the same problems exist today that existed while in practice.

there are three major problems i want to throw out to you. the first is a lack of access to appropriate treatment programs and appropriate medication. many people with serious mental illness are very low income, and medicare and medicaid will only pay for the cheapest medication, even if the psychiatrist thinks another medication would be the best for them. the second problem is a lack of supported housing programs, places for people to live, and also a lack of supported work programs. there are number of people with serious mental illness, who, with support and appropriate medication, can actually be productive and work, and it is frustrating to me because i do not know if the problem is a lack of money. i think that is the case in terms of treatment programs and medication, because it was very frustrating when a psychiatrist

would -- host: what was it like to deal with the federal government in the general sense? [laughter] caller: very frustrating. you would appeal their decisions and it would go nowhere. it would take forever and meanwhile, someone is suffering or their behavior is out of control, or they are on the street, and the bureaucracy and red tape you had to go through would take forever. host: let's hear from congressman murphy. guest: she is right in those aspects. obviously, we want the supportive housing and employment. some employers are afraid of hiring someone. i was talking with a father the other day and he said, how did you get his son a job? he knows with proper support, he

would be fine. many people in the workplace, with treatment, they do great. some just need someone to check in on them on a regular basis, how are you doing, are you handling your stress at work? much better to do that than to have someone not doing well in the job, who gets fired and takes up the stresses at home. she brings another point about medication. cms has also worked with the rule, let's limit the types of medicine we have let's go for the cheap ones. when you have eight or nine antidepressant drugs on the market, they all treat depression, but the side effects can be very different. a patient who may take one drug may do well, but on the other drug, the side effects might not be good, so they do not want to take it anymore. if that drug is cheaper, that person may end up saying, i will not take that anymore and i do not like the side effects. aat we want to say is protected class of jars, so for

psychotropic medications i do , not want cms or any federal bureaucracy interfering with the doctor's ability to prescribe what is best for that patient. to me, that is malpractice. if you do not have a license to practice, stay out of it, because of the important issue of side effects and the effectiveness of drugs. the v.a. and the department of defense, they have resolved some of it. i would see patients at walter reed hospital, they get discharged on a certain medication being effective and they say, that is not enough, we will try something else. we have legislation that says wait a minute, if it works, leave them alone and let them continue to take the medication that helps them. why turn them into a guinea pig and saying, let's see if we can make some a cheaper, no, these are human beings and the cost of when that person stops taking medication and the exacerbated effects of being readmitted to the hospital far outweigh the

cost of the drugs. let's continue to do what is right. host: jeff in silver spring maryland, about one minute left, go ahead. caller: is that me? first of all, i want to thank c-span very much for the service they provide are my question is a little off topic, but it seems like there is a clinical neurosis that seems to be affecting especially republican congressman about not being willing to except what most people consider is science when it comes to climate change. i'd be interested to hear the congressman's reaction? host: anything you want to address there? guest: instead of looking for what divides us and finding other ways of building on are prejudiced against each other's party, i am reaching across the aisle constantly as a republican saying this is an area where members of our country are suffering. let's not look at other ways to pick a fight. let's look at ways to follow through. anst: didn't speaker ry

speak favorably about your legislation? paul ryan is very supportive of this and when it comes to committee, it comes to vote and he will support it. kevin mccarthy said this. i hope that during may, mental health month in america, that we can produce something for americans. we are wearing green ties. it is the color of spring and rebirth and mental health support, and i hope we can celebrate may as making these changes. host: it is an election year. will it pass? guest: i think so. it does not go as far as ours, but the senators want something there. even if you do not understand the issue, what i showed you before in terms of the graph of support, americans want to see that. the politics alone outside of policy, people ought to be passing this, go back to constituents and say, we are working at saving lives. host: please come back and talk to us in a longer segment about

this. journal" every day. saturday morning, a senior researcher will join us to discuss the strategy toward isis and the role of allies in the region. then the founder and ceo of the young turks network will talk about his support of the bernie sanders campaign. he will also discuss what his campaign means for the progressive movement. then a preview of the white , and correspondents dinner how it evolved to nearly a week long celebration of celebrities and party. film.vin produced a be sure to watch "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion.

it is known as one of washington's premier events, bringing together members of the press and stars. coverage starting at 6:00 p.m. eastern on saturday. live coverage includes arrivals, background on the dinner, and awards presentation. of "the nightly show" will headline, and president obama will get his final speech as commander in chief, beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span. it is a group of journalists who advocate for access to the white house and increased access to the president. we also do scholarships for up theto try to build

next generation of journalists. our main focus is on expanding access to the president. >> who are the members? carol lee any organization that covers the white house is able , to veryember small news organizations or foreign news organizations. there's a large number of foreign outlets. television,pers, photographers, do they all have the same -- ms. lee: no, they do not. they are always managing the different needs of different outlets. the thing that binds them together is everybody just wants more and more frequent access to the president. it is important to be able to see him doing his job, to be able to understand the decisions

he is making on the various policies, so we have that overarching goal. a reporter does not necessarily have the goals as a photographer. you do not always the to be in the front to take a photograph. you can stand in the back and listen to what the president is doing. >> what is your role as president? ms. lee: basically be the leading person to press the white house on various issues any concerns that we have. very mundane sorts of things like coordinate travel and get to what they up need to do in terms if they are orng on a presidential trip, in the white house, we coordinate pools. we organize those sorts of things. you have to plan the dinner every year.

>> you are the correspondent for "the wall street journal." how much your time is taken up with a business? ms. lee: it varies. i have been on the board for six you weigh in on these issues and the president handles most of the various complaints and any issues that arise. it can be a time-consuming -- the dinner, around the dinner, the dinner starts to get time-consuming. you also have to maintain your day job, so you try to have balance. 90% on the about -- association. >> what is your role when it comes to the white house correspondents dinner? ms. lee: the president is

responsible for everything from picking what flowers go on the tableto assigning allocation and all those things, although i will say in the last year or so there has been an effort -- we expanded that role in terms of allocating responding to people's request to tables, to broaden it out a committee so it is more of a group decision. you hire the entertainer. you have to pick someone. that is always interesting, and interesting exercise. wilmore will be the entertainer this year, and no one will go unscathed. generally, making sure that everything is running on time. we have an executive director who makes everyone's life easier

when it comes to the dinner. >> why larry wilmore? ms. lee: he is interesting in the sense that he pushes the envelope a little bit, a little more than -- has a little more leeway. he is edgy, he is not as well known. it was nice to have somebody who is not as well known sometimes. but jimmy fallon, or somebody like that, but he is intriguing. he talks about race a lot, and i think that is not necessarily something that a lot of comedians do, so that will be interesting to see what he does without. seering of both sides. this planning the dinner year, did you put anything in the plans, because it is president obama's last dinner?

ms. lee: we thought about this. there may be a surprise. foruld say that overall, the president to show up at the dinner every year is a validation of what we push for, which is access. all year long we are having these discussions and sometimes arguments, and sometimes there's tension in the relationship. for him to show up every year for eight years is to access -- he recognizes the importance of a free press and what we do as an organization. >> you have been on the board since 2010. do you get the sense that president obama enjoys these dinners? ms. lee: he does not dislike them as much as people may think. dinnerrespondents setting is an interesting one for the president because it is a time he can let loose a little bit, it is a time for us as journalists you can learn a

little bit about what is on his mind. itt year he did the riff if he had a bucket list. we saw that play out in the last year. he is taken more risks, not as cautious as he was, eagerly in the first term. for this president in particular, the reviews afterward have never been he bombed and it was not good, so in that sense it can be a good experience for him. >> will be sitting next to the president throughout the dinner. what advice have you been given when it comes to chitchat? ms. lee: the president likes to talk about his family. settings, hes of does not want to be grilled about his policy against the islamic state. you'd dot is not that not talk about those things, but

it is not a time to needle him. whatever conversation happens, it is not something you would write about. >> is it difficult as a correspondent for "the wall street journal" to be the president's peter partner one night and the next day put him on his isis policy? at all. no, not that is what we do every day, and that is our role, and there is a mutual understanding that ande can have a dinner, then we are going to ask you tough questions. that is our role as the white house press corps, what white house correspondents do, and is important to do that. you not need be antagonistic or cannot have dinner with somebody that you cover, and then it impacts how you question them or

the critical angle that you look at what they are doing. >> what are the scholarships that the white house respondents association gives out? ms. lee: we get out scholarships, and they are great, and we acknowledge them at the dinner. there's a number of different schools that they attend, and our goal is to foster a new generation of really thoughtful journalists that hopefully will cover the white house someday. mason createdf this program where we will partner individual scholarship recipients with a white house correspondent. so that -- and then they do that for the. some of thern habits white house correspondents, that they will have somebody to talk to as they go through the year, in school, and hopefully it will be a longer-term contact. >> what is mrs. obama's role?

veryee: she has been helpful in acknowledging our scholarship recipients. you cannot overestimate how important this is to them, and for her to be at the president, the president and first lady, to be around some of the reporters that they admire, and she has taken her time to hug each and every one of them on stage and really make them feel like it is a real moment and that she has a connection with that event. has given these kids a more meaningful experience than perhaps they would have had otherwise. >> do you get the sense that she enjoys these dinners? ms. lee: i do not know. it is a very good question. she does not want to speak, which is fine. she really enjoys the kids.

that is very clear. >> you mentioned jeff mason of reuters, who will be your successor. given this pastor, what is requested him? ms. lee: that is a very good question. my advice to him would be a couple things. one, to have somebody there who manages your request to talk to media, because there is a lot about that comes around the time of the dinner and when you are doing a million different things. fun broadly, just to have and to understand that the andousness of what you do get up every day and think about how you can make things better for the white house press corps in terms of what they get in access to the president. i think that is going -- i think jeff is going to do that. he is great. he is very thoughtful.

he has been a terrific fight president. -- vice president. he tends to get a little cooler. i went to journalism school at degree, and ier's was going to start a magazine, and then i got a job working at "the new york times" editorial page. i worked in florida for several years. came to washington to cover the white house for politico, and moved over to "the journal." it has been an interesting trajectory. it is them as one of the premier event of washington, bringing together officials, members of the press, and hollywood stars. live coverage of the white house correspondents dinner beginning

on saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, red carpet arrivals, and award presentations. 2700 people are expected to attend. larry wilmore will headline, and this year the president will give his final speech as commander in chief. join us to watch the dinner beginning saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, live on c-span. wednesday, the supreme court heard the appeal of former virginia governor mcdonnell's conviction for bribery. several justices expressed concern over corruption lost int could give prosecutors dealing with supporters and donors. the former governor was convicted on 11 counts of fraud in 2014. this is just over an hour. chief justice roberts: we'll hear argument this morning in

case 15474, mcdonnell v. united states. mr. francisco? mr. francisco: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the government argues that in quid pro quo bribery, "official action" encompasses anything within the range of official duties. in order to reach that conclusion, it asks that you disregard the 9-0 decision of this court. the government is wrong. in order to engage in "official action," an official must either make a government decision or urge someone else to do so. the line is between access to decision makers on the one hand and trying to influence those decisions on the other. justice kennedy: and that's the sun-diamond case, the 9-0 case that you refer to. mr. francisco: yes, your honor, the sun-diamond case, the 9-0

case. and i think what sun-diamond confirms is that when an official simply refers someone to another official, an independent decision maker for an objective decision, he hasn't crossed that line into prohibited "official action." justice kennedy: i take it all parties concede that the act of the university official to undertake or not to undertake a research study would be an "official action." mr. francisco: yes, your honor. and the question is, did the governor cross the line into influencing officials to undertake that action and was the jury properly instructed? justice kennedy: can you tell me the posture of the case with reference to, under virginia law, the government the governor's authority or lack of authority to tell the university, you will engage in this research or you will not engage? mr. francisco: sure, your honor, -- justice kennedy: what is the state of the law, and do the parties agree on this point? mr. francisco: your honor, i think that the parties agree that the governor at least had a bully pulpit authority, but he had very little authority to actually direct any university researcher to do anything. and here i think one of the critical -- there are two critical questions -- one, was the jury told that it even had to find that he tried to do that and here it wasn't, and, two, did he in fact do that. and we would assert that he clearly didn't.

justice ginsburg: would it have made a difference if the medical faculties had agreed to the testing? mr. francisco: your honor, if they had agreed to the testing, i still don't think it would have made a difference in terms of whether governor mcdonnell tried to influence their decision on that, because he didn't. and it still wouldn't have made a difference on the jury instructions because the jury still wasn't instructed that it had to find that governor mcdonnell tried to influence a particular governmental decision, because it wasn't so instructed. justice kagan: mr. francisco, could i ask the line you're drawing between exercising influence and providing access, just to sort of test that with a hypothetical, suppose that somebody knew that there was a contractor who was going to award a very large contract to one of two or three firms that he was meeting with. and a company paid to make sure that they were on the meet list, to be one of those two or three

firms, in other words, bribed -- mr. francisco: sure. justice kagan: an official in order to become one of those two or three firms from which that was the pool from which -- mr. francisco: right. justice kagan: this billion-dollar contract would emerge, would that be sufficient? mr. francisco: your honor, i think that probably would be "official action" because there the only way you can even get a decision in your favor is by being one of three people on that list. so being on that list is a prerequisite to getting a decision. being denied on that list is a denial of the decision, and that's an official governmental action. here the jury wasn't instructed on any of this. they didn't have to find that governor mcdonnell tried to influence anything. indeed, it would have been required to convict under these instructions if governor mcdonnell had called up a staff member and said, i'd like to you to meet with this fellow, jonnie williams. i don't really trust him. his product is a little hinky, but you're the expert. so meet with the guy and exercise your complete and unfettered judgment. justice kagan: can i -- justice alito: let me just

change the hypothetical a little bit. suppose that a governor is going to make a eventually going to make a decision that will help either a or b and hurt either a or b, and the governor says, you know, i'm going to have a preliminary discussion about this with members of my staff. we're not going to come to any decision, but we're going to talk about it. and whichever of you pays the most money will be able to sit in on this staff meeting. what about that? mr. francisco: sure. well, your honor, i think i'd want to know, are there facts suggesting that it really isn't just a payment to sit in on the staff meeting? it's a payment to try to influence the meeting. justice alito: just a payment to sit in. mr. francisco: to sit on the i think it would violate a whole lot of other laws, but i don't think, unless there was any kind of indicia that you were trying to influence the outcome, you would cross that line into prohibited "official action" corruption. after all, these laws are not meant to be comprehensive codes of ethical conduct, as this court said in sun-diamond. they're meant to target the worst form of ethical misconduct, the corruption of official decision making.

justice alito: what if it's not just sitting in? maybe i wasn't -- i should sharpen this. suppose the party is allowed to speak and present its point of view. mr. francisco: your honor, again, the more facts that you put on to suggest that it is more of an attempt to influence the decision, it's not just a meeting, i think the more likely you are to get to that "official act" -- justice sotomayor: so tell me, what do we do with the evidence in the case that the university individuals who were assessing whether or not to do these studies themselves felt pressured? there is both testimony and documents in which the pros and cons of accepting these studies was discussed. mr. francisco: right. justice sotomayor: and in the pro and con, it was, the governor really wants us to do this. the governor is pressuring us to do this. we just don't think it's a good idea. they were honorable people, obviously.

but the point is, what do we do with the fact that they perceived that he was trying to influence them? mr. francisco: i have two responses, your honor, a legal one and a factual one. legally, you still need to instruct the jury that it had to find that governor mcdonnell tried to actually influence a government decision. and here it wasn't instructed, so they could have completely agreed -- justice sotomayor: but why? isn't this -- i thought that this crime was taking money knowing that it was being paid to influence an "official act." so aren't all of these examples of "official acts," whether they are or they aren't, irrelevant? the question is, what was his intent at the moment he took the money? and why couldn't -- mr. francisco: yeah. justice sotomayor: a jury infer at that moment that he took it with the intent to commit an

"official act" the way mr. williams wanted it committed? mr. francisco: so again, your honor, two responses. even assuming that the jury could have inferred it, you still need to tell them what an "official act" is, that an "official act" is an attempt to influence a governmental decision. justice sotomayor: well -- mr. francisco: understand -- justice sotomayor: to study these dietary supplements. mr. francisco: well, to actually, you know, conduct tobacco commission-funded state studies, but you still need to tell them what that is. but i'll get directly to your question. why is it that the actual "official acts" are relevant? and that's because both the district court and the courts of appeals' opinions made clear. here in this case, the corrupt agreement turned entirely upon, as the district court case said. it hinged upon whether the five specific acts were, in fact, "official acts," because in the absence of any direct evidence of a corrupt agreement, the government's argument was that you could infer one from the pattern of actual "official acts" on the one hand and the pattern of gifts and loans on the other and the temporal connection between the two. justice kennedy: and so is it your position at page 60 of the

supplemental joint appendix the instructions aren't numbered, which makes it a little hard, but the judge instructs the jury that "official actions" are set forth in the five paragraphs of the indictment. and is it your position that at least some of those are not "official acts"? mr. francisco: yes, your honor, and certainly the five things that were proved in this case are not "official acts." and likewise, i don't think any of those things, as they actually came into evidence, demonstrated "official acts" because in none of them did governor mcdonnell cross that line in trying to influence the outcome of any particular decision. and just as critically, the jury was never told it had to find that. so the jury in this case, justice sotomayor, could have completely agreed with our version of the facts. it could have agreed that as we argued very vigorously that the most that governor mcdonnell did here was refer jonnie -- justice sotomayor: the matter -- justice kennedy: well, this gets back somewhat to justice alito's hypothetical about arranging the

meeting, and we and we can up the ante to see how close the meeting came to be an "official act." but i take it that at some point your position is that a governmental that an "official act" must be the exercise of governmental power. is that your position? mr. francisco: well, your honor, it's either making a decision on an exercise of governmental power, trying to influence it, as in the birdsall case, where the defendants there were trying to persuade the grant of clemency. but if you're simply setting up a meeting so that somebody can appeal to the independent judgment of an independent decision maker and you're not trying to put your thumb on the scale of the outcome of that meeting, then that simple referral can't possibly be official action. after all, government officials refer friends and benefactors to staff members all the time in order to avoid taking official action. justice ginsburg: do you do you

concede that there is sufficient evidence in this record -- let's say we accept your argument about the charge being insufficient. but this could go back, and a jury could be asked, did the governor try to influence a decision on the part of the medical faculties? mr. francisco: your honor, we don't concede there was sufficient evidence. but regardless, we also argue that the jury was improperly instructed on this, which, justice sotomayor, goes to the point, i think, you were making. if the jury was improperly instructed, then you don't actually assume all of the evidence in favor of the government. the question then becomes, would a properly instructed juror have been required to convict? here, even if the jury completely agreed with us, and they very well may have, under these erroneous instructions they still would have been required to convict, because under these instructions, simply referring somebody to a meeting without trying to influence the outcome of that meeting constitutes official governmental action. justice roberts: well, suppose arranging a meeting could be official government action, if that were your job.

in other words, you're not just a secretary, but your job was to manage the governor's schedule. you decided who met with him, you decided when, and that that's your job. that's so anything that individual does, i suppose, would be an official act. mr. francisco: i think that's possible, chief justice. of course, in this case we don't have anything like that. we simply have referrals to meetings with other officials so that, at best, the alleged bribe payor here, jonnie williams, can try to persuade them to his cause. justice kagan: well, can i follow up on that? because what you just suggested, right, is that you could suppose that there were a scheduler for a governor or for the president or whatever, and that scheduler was selling meetings. so you would think that's part of her job? and if i just understood you correctly, that falls within the statute? mr. francisco: no, your honor. i think that would be a very close case. that would be a very close case, because at the end of the day, if you're not actually making a governmental decision or influencing the outcome of an actual governmental decision, i

think you -- and, chief justice, you might actually be violating a lot of other laws, including the separate provision in section 201 that prohibits you from undertaking any act in violation of your official duties in exchan monge for, or 5 u.s.c. 7353, which prohibits you from taking anything from anyone whose interests could be affected by the performance or nonperformance of your duties. but i think that the line has to be, and the only line that comes out through the cases is, you're actually either making a decision on because of the government, or you're urging someone else to do so. you're trying to pushing them in a certain direction. justice breyer: it seems to me when you say "urging" now, wait. see, i can go back to a lot of different commission, the brown commission, the senate s1, the language of the statute, and i read "official action," something quite similar to the statute here, "a decision, opinion, recommendation, judgment, vote, or other conduct," perhaps other similar

conduct," involving an exercise of discretion." so in this case, the official action we're talking about is giving money to a group of people in the university to conduct a study. now, the governor didn't do that. but a person who tries to influence an official action and is also in the government is also guilty. but wait. that's the indian case. mr. francisco: yes, you're correct. justice breyer: but wait. the word "influence" is too broad, because every day of the week politicians write on behalf of constituents letters to different parts of the government, saying, will you please look at the case of mrs. so and so who was evicted last week? and that's so common, you can't pick that up. but then you use the word "urge."

that's not exactly a legal word. and what i'm looking for is a set of words that will describe in both sides' positions what we should write as the words that describe the criminal activity involved in talking to or influencing the person who does create the official act, like give a pardon. mr. francisco: right. justice breyer: like award a contract, like vote, like et cetera. now, those are the words that i can't find, and i'd appreciate your opinion. mr. francisco: sure, your honor. and i think that the answer is that what district courts have to do is understand the general rule, which i think at some level has to be an attempt to influence, and then flesh it out in a way that's appropriate to the facts of the case. justice breyer: you want to use "attempt to influence"? it my goodness. letters go by the dozens over to the secretary of hud, to the secretary of hhs, to the

secretary or the assistant secretaries, and they say, my constituent smith has a matter before you that has been pending for 18 months, we would appreciate it if you would review that and take action. and then the elected official says to smith, i did my best on this. and smith thinks, good, he's used his influence. mr. francisco: right. justice breyer: a crime? my goodness. mr. francisco: absolutely not, your honor. justice breyer: all right, fine. mr. francisco: absolutely not. justice breyer: you say "absolutely not." that's what i thought that you would say. mr. francisco: and i think that -- justice breyer: so i want to know but the words you used were "attempt to influence." and so though i don't think that's the right word, and i want to know what the right words are -- mr. francisco: sure. justice breyer: in the instruction that the judge is going to give. not in your case -- mr. francisco: mm-hmm. justice breyer: but in general. mr. francisco: well, can i give you an example from another case that, although i do think instructions are generally tailored to the case, an example -- justice breyer: of course they are. but you have to have the standard that will distinguish

the urger -- mr. francisco: sure. justice breyer: from the one who does it criminally and the one who doesn't. mr. francisco: and in the ring case, i thought that judge huvelle had some very useful instructions -- justice breyer: mm-hmm. mr. francisco: where she wrote and this is at page 1083 of the joint appendix 4 "therefore, 'official action' includes the exercise of both formal official influence, such as the legislature's vote on legislation, and informal official influence, such as a legislature's behind-the-scenes influence on other public officials in the legislative or executive branches." justice breyer: well, there we have it. there we have it. all these letters going over, saying, please look at mrs. smith's eviction notice. mr. francisco: and -- justice breyer: mrs. smith, who, by the way, took me to lunch last week. [laughter] mr. francisco: and i completely agree, your honor, which is why in our proposed instruction -- justice breyer: that won't do it. the one you just read won't do it. mr. francisco: well, and that's why in our proposed instructions, i think it needs to be tailored further to the facts of the ce. so in our case we went on to say merely arranging a meeting, attending an event, hosting a reception, or making a speech

are not standing alone "official acts." either you use it -- justice breyer: all right. so you use that. the key to the word in there is "merely." mr. francisco: yes, your honor. justice breyer: because sometimes it could. mr. francisco: yes, your honor. justice breyer: and somebody might have the embarrassing question, merely when it can or merely when it can't. give me a little enlightenment. mr. francisco: your honor, i think that the answer is, if the evidence shows that there was and i hate to go back to the word that i know you don't like here, but if the evidence shows that there really wasn't attempt an attempt to try to push the separate decision maker that you're supposedly trying to influence one way or another, but you really are just sending it over for a meeting, and that independent decision maker is left to their independent judgment, then you haven't crossed that line. but if -- justice kagan: mr. -- justice ginsburg: the word the word that justice breyer is concerned about comes from birdsall, with intent to influence their "official action."

so we can hardly fault the district judge for using in ring the same words that this court used in birdsall. mr. francisco: i agree, your honor. i thought that judge huvelle did a very good attempt at defining, because she actually went further than what i just read to you, justice breyer. she continues along the lines that we proposed in our instructions that, quote, "mere favoritism as evidenced by a public official's willingness to take a lobbyist's telephone call or to meet with the lobbyist, is not an 'official act.'" so i think that the idea is, your honor i understand, justice breyer, that influence itself doesn't totally solve the problem. but what district court judges do is they then explain to the jury what they mean by influence, and influence is not -- justice kennedy: where can we find the best definition, in your view, of an "official act"? mr. francisco: your honor, i think that the best definition of an "official act" is essentially the one that i tried to articulate at the outset. you need you need to either make a decision on behalf of the government, or try in some way to use your influence to pressure or urge or persuade or cajole someone else who has

governmental power to make a decision on an action. justice kennedy: well, i -- justice kagan: can i -- justice kennedy: i agree with justice breyer. i just don't see the limiting principle in the second part. mr. francisco: your honor, i think in many in some cases, i think the limiting principle might be difficult, it's not a perfect and precise formulation. but i think in this case it's a particularly easy principle, because here the jury wasn't given any instruction on the line at all. so justice breyer, in your hypothetical, sending that letter over is an "official act" under the instructions as given and under the theory pushed by the solicitor general's office in this case because it is the action -- justice kennedy: i'm not sure i'm not sure that's right. it seemed to me the "official act" is exercise of governmental power to require citizens to do or not to do something, or to shape the law that can that governs their conduct.

mr. francisco: i completely agree with you, justice kennedy. justice kennedy: under your view, under the hypotheticals that have been thrown around, the janitor who gets the bottle of beer in order to clean your classroom first, i mean, is that is that a governmental act? mr. francisco: certainly not in my view, but the government -- justice kennedy: well, what's the difference? mr. francisco: the difference is, one is you're exercising power on behalf of the government as a whole. so the janitor, for example, if he's buying if he's using government money to buy janitorial supplies and engaging in government contracting, that's an exercise of governmental power. if you're simply cleaning out a classroom, i don't think you're exercising government power. so, too, when you simply send somebody to another official for an independent and objective decision by that official, but you don't try to put your thumb on the scales of that decision, you haven't crossed the line. and i think it's very important in a criminal statute like this, because if you really do think that a referral, just simply making a referral, is "official action" that crosses the line into bribery, i think you do have some very serious vagueness concerns with the hobbs act and on a services question -- justice kagan: can i ask -- justice roberts: sure, sure.

it depends on who's making the referral or the call, right? in justice breyer's hypothetical, if it's a congressperson calling somebody and saying, could you look into this matter for my constituent, the person should look at it, i suppose, and then and that's one thing. if it's the president who calls and says, i want you to look at this matter for my constituent, that might exercise considerably more influence. mr. francisco: two things, your honor. first, you still do need to tell the jury that that's what they have to find. and here, the jury was never told in any way, shape or form that they had to find an attempt to influence. so i think that is sufficient, in and of itself, to, at the very least, require a new trial here. under these instructions, as the government itself seems to agree, any action within the range of official duties constitutes official governmental action. so justice kennedy, in the letter being sent over from a senator, since that is within the range of official duties, that counts under the government's formulation, and under the jury instruction as given, since it is, after all, a settled practice of officials to send these kinds of letters. that's why it was incumbent upon the district court to draw some kind of limit. and here, the jury could well have agreed with us that even though he was the governor of

the state, mr. chief justice, he did not try to influence the actual decision. he simply made the same type of referral that he made day in and day out during this administration where he simply sent a constituent to the appropriate official -- justice kagan: mr. francisco -- mr. francisco: to exercise appropriate judgment. justice kagan: if you said something before, and i might have misunderstood you. but do you think that of the five listed "official acts," do you think none of them meet the standards that you're suggesting, or do you think some of them do and some of them don't? mr. francisco: two answers. first of all, we don't think that any of them meet the standard. justice kagan: ok. so let me -- mr. francisco: but secondly -- justice kagan: go ahead, please. mr. francisco: but secondly, the jury could have agreed with us on that, given the evidence we put further. and therefore, the erroneous instruction was critical to this case, because even if they had agreed with us, they would have been required to convict under that erroneous instruction since take the healthcare leaders reception. they could have concluded that that was an "official act" and that was the only basis to convict, and they could have agreed with our evidence on everything --

justice kagan: ok. that that might be right. it might be that that you still have a winning argument even if some of the five are fine. but if we could just focus on them for a bit. i mean, for example, the third one -- justice kennedy: they're at page 60 of the -- justice kagan: the 6091. justice kennedy: middle of the appendix. justice kagan: contacting other government officials to influence virginia state researchers to initiate clinical studies. so that's the one that seems to me to really fall within your own definition. do you disagree with that? mr. francisco: your honor, i don't. and if they had actually proved what was said in the indictment in the case, i think that this would be a we'd be making a different argument here. but the problem is, they didn't prove that governor mcdonnell tried to encourage anybody. the one -- justice kagan: so on something like that, your argument is a sufficiency argument? mr. francisco: yes, your honor. justice kagan: rather than this was this is not an "official act"? mr. francisco: and, yes, your honor. to be clear, we have two separate arguments here. one is on the jury instructions

where our argument is that even if they agreed with all of our view of the facts, they still would have been required to convict, given these erroneous jury instructions. and secondly, our second argument is the sufficiency argument. even a properly instructed jury, in our view, could not have concluded that governor mcdonnell crossed that line. justice kennedy: well, just to be clear, you said at the outset you don't think any of these are "official acts," but then i thought i heard you say that, third, contacting other government officials as part of an effort to encourage state research is not an "official act"? mr. francisco: that's the indictment, your honor. if they had actually proved what was -- justice kennedy: what was justice kagan is asking, is that an "official act"? mr. francisco: if it actually -- justice kagan: if it's true, but -- mr. francisco: if he had tried to encouraged them to do it, yes. if they had proved that he had tried to encourage them to do that, that would have been an "official act." our argument is that, first, the jury was never properly instructed on that question, and second, he never did in fact urge university researchers to do anything. and if i could just conclude, before reserving the remainder of my time for rebuttal, at the one event where he actually had direct contact with the university researchers, justice kagan, this was the luncheon

held at the mansion. the all of the witnesses who were there actually testified as to two things with respect to the governor. first, he simply asked neutral questions that didn't try to push the researchers' decisions one way or another. and secondly, the one time jonnie williams asked him for something, support before tobacco commission funding, he gave jonnie williams a very polite no. mr. chief justice, if i could reserve my time. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. dreeben. mr. dreeben: thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, petitioner seeks a categorical carveout from the concept of an "official act" for things like meetings, phone calls, events, that, in his view, do not further or advance or attempt to influence a particular government action, but simply provide somebody with access to the government. justice roberts: well, he's not the only one. one there's an extraordinary document in this case, and that's the amicus brief filed by former white house counsel to president obama, former white

house counsel to president george w. bush, former white house counsel to president clinton, former white house counsel to george h.w. bush, former white house counsel to president reagan. and they say, quoting their brief, that "if this decision is upheld, it will cripple the ability of elected officials to fulfill their role in our representative democracy." now, i think it's extraordinary that those people agree on anything. [laughter] justice roberts: but to agree on something as sensitive as this and to be willing to put their names on something that says this cannot be prosecuted conduct. i think is extraordinary. mr. dreeben: it may be extraordinary, mr. chief justice, but that doesn't make it correct. [laughter] i think it rests on several fundamental misconceptions about what government actually does. and i think it's important to pause and look at the implications of what petitioner's pay-to-play theory of government really is, that people can pay for access, that they can be charged to have a meeting or have a direction made

to another government official to take the meeting. it would mean, in effect, that if somebody came to me and said, you know, i know you're having a lot of college tuition issues. we can help you with that. the criminal division is not giving us a meeting on whether to appeal a case. just call them and see if you can get them to take the meeting. and i don't know -- justice roberts: you're -- justice kennedy: i don't know -- justice roberts: it's somebody in the government whose client comes to them and says, we'd really like the solicitor general's office to file a brief in our case. and then that person calls you up and says, can you meet with so and so? all he wants to do is sit down with you and persuade you why you should file a brief supporting his case. mr. dreeben: but getting in the door, mr. chief justice, is one of the absolutely critical things. justice roberts: so is your answer, yes, that that's a felony? mr. dreeben: if somebody pays me -- justice roberts: no, no. that's the quid that's the quid side of it. mr. dreeben: yes. justice roberts: i'm talking about the pro side in the quid pro quo. mr. dreeben: taking a meeting, yes, i think taking a meeting is

absolutely government action. justice kennedy: so if so if the president gives special access to high-dollar donors to have meetings with government officials, that is a felony? mr. dreeben: certainly not, justice kennedy. and i -- justice kennedy: why certainly not? mr. dreeben: because the critical issue there is whether the government can prove a quid pro quo. and now we're moving into the realm of campaign contributions, where this court has given very strict guidance about when a jury -- justice breyer: it's not a campaign contribution. what it is, is he takes him to lunch, and an expensive lunch at that, ok? because the quid side is not limited. the government has argued continuously that in for a penny, in for a pound, ok? so we don't have the limitation on the quid side. we have a possible limitation in frame of mind. and now we're looking to the quo side. and you want to remove any limitation there, ok? now, why do i think that's a problem?

two very fundamental reasons. and it's not because i'm in favor of dishonest behavior. i'm against it. and we have just listed some that is dishonest. my problem is the criminal law as the weapon to cure it. and if the criminal law is the weapon that goes as far as you want, there are two serious problems. one, political figures will not know what they're supposed to do and what they're not supposed to do, and that's a general vagueness problem. and the second is, i'd call it a separation of powers problem. the department of justice in the executive branch becomes the ultimate arbiter of how public officials are behaving in the united states, state, local, and national. and as you describe it, for better or for worse, it puts at risk behavior that is common, particularly when the quid is a lunch or a baseball ticket, throughout this country.

now, suddenly, to give that kind of power to a criminal prosecutor, who is virtually uncontrollable, is dangerous in the separation of powers since. so in my mind, right in this case, nothing to do with this petitioner, nothing to do with him, but in this case, is as fundamental a real separation of powers problem as i've seen. and i'm not quite certain what the words are. they won't be perfect. they will leave some dishonest conduct unprosecuted. they won't be perfect. they will put some politicians at risk. but i'm searching for those words because, as i said, this is a very basic separation of powers problem for me. mr. dreeben: so -- justice breyer: i appreciate your help on what the right words are, and i'll tell you right now if those words are

going to say when a person has lunch and then writes over to the antitrust division and says, i'd like you to meet with my constituent who has just been evicted from her house, you know, if that's going to criminalize that behavior, i'm not buying into that, i don't think. so i want some words that will help with what i see as knotty and complicated and difficult and basic a problem as i can think of. mr. dreeben: justice breyer, let me first argue the position that i came here to argue, which is that "official action" is not limited by some arbitrary litmus test that was proposed by petitioner that would exclude things that he calls "access." i don't think that that's the right way to look at it. i think that the right way to look at this statute is to recognize that it has multiple elements. we're talking about multiple statutes. but the bribery offense has very similar elements. you first have to decide whether someone is engaging in an "official act."

merely going to lunch is not engaging in an "official act." there are opportunities to engage -- justice breyer: no, no one said it is. the lunch with the chateau lafite wine happens to be the quid, and that's worth, like, a -- $1000, or $500, anyway. i don't go to those restaurants anymore. [laughter] mr. dreeben: justice breyer -- justice breyer: but you understand that -- mr. dreeben: i don't i don't go -- justice breyer: side. it's the other side of the equation. mr. dreeben: i understand, justice breyer. but what i would think it would be helpful for the court if i could lay out the multiple elements that are at issue here because "official act" does not have to do all the work. you do have to have somebody engaged in their official capacity. you then have to have something

that they do within their range of official duties, which going to lunch is not going to be. third, you need a quid pro quo, which means that the government is going to have to show that the person allowed themselves to be influenced in their conduct by the thing of value that they received, which is to say that somebody is basically saying, i'm going to make a referral over to another agency for you only if you buy me lunch. that is not honorable behavior, and there are -- justice breyer: of course, it isn't. mr. dreeben: many regulations that carve out permissible gift situations and create the fourth element issue that i think is an important protection, which is mens rea. justice kennedy: but the problem is, and as you set forth in your brief correctly, you can imply an agreement over time. you can imply a contract over time. and if the lunch takes place first and there's no precondition on the lunch, but after the lunch there is wink, wink, nod, nod, and the contact takes place, it's clear in the standard criminal law that there is a conspiracy there. mr. dreeben: so i agree with you -- justice kennedy: we're in agreement. mr. dreeben: i do agree with you, justice kennedy. i think that's exactly the position that your honor's opinion in evans, the separate concurrence, explained as a proper means of administering the quid pro quo requirement as an intent to issue in a criminal case. there is a very critical protection here.

it's a requirement of showing something beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. and if you have ordinary conduct that's fully disclosed and in accordance with regulations which do strictly limit when people can receive free lunches -- justice alito: i don't see what the relevance of those regulations is. you say you say there were certain safe harbors created by federal regulations. those apply to federal employees and federal officers. what do they have to do with a governor of a state or a state employee? mr. dreeben: well, they don't, justice alito. this case has been litigated on the submission that section 201 informed the meeting of "official action" for purposes of the hobbs act and the honest services statute. and as a result, the parties have engaged very heavily on the effect on federal officials. and i think that justice breyer's question was primarily directed at them. i do think that there are different issues that arise with respect to state officials, but the mens rea requirements that i've been talking about are going to be fully applicable -- justice breyer: yeah, but how but you're asking -- justice kennedy: but then this doesn't answer justice breyer's

basic question and ours. you're going to tell the senators, the officials with the lunches, that, don't worry. the jury has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's tough. [laughter] mr. dreeben: well -- justice kennedy: that was your answer. that was your answer. mr. dreeben: justice kennedy, i do think that the requirements of the criminal law in proving something by beyond a reasonable doubt are a substantial -- justice breyer: what is it they're trying to prove? now, of course, this is a state case, not a federal case. it's a state official it's a federal law but a state official. i don't know. i've only been peripherally involved in political campaigns, but my peripheral convinces me that a candidate will go out and he'll have lunch with hundreds of people, hundreds. everybody wants to give him lunch. great. and he wants to meet as many people as possible. he wants to be friendly. he might receive a raincoat. he might receive all kinds of things.

and at some point, it becomes very dishonest. mr. dreeben: so -- justice breyer: but that's a matter for campaign laws. wait. now, i've also been involved in the justice department. and we would receive many, many letters in the antitrust division. have you looked into such and such? i know perfectly well that that senator just wants to go back to the constituent and say, see, i did my best. that's all. now, you're saying to the jury, take those facts i just gave you, and you look into the state of mind, the state of mind of which the amounts being given will be somewhat indicative, of which the nature of the letter will be somewhat indicative, of whether he writes in personal writing at the bottom will be somewhat indicative, and we're going to let you 12 people work out what was really in that senator's mind. i say that is a recipe for giving the department of justice and the prosecutors enormous power over elected officials who are not necessarily behaving honestly.

and i am looking for the line. i am looking for the line that will control the shift of power that i fear without allowing too much honesty through this law. you know, other laws exist on the other side. mr. dreeben: well, justice -- justice breyer: that that's what i want your view on. mr. dreeben: justice breyer, i'm going to push back, because i think that the line that petitioner has urged is one that is a recipe for corruption, not a recipe for drawing a safe harbor for public officials. what he has basically urged the court to hold is that paying for access, if somebody does not put a thumb on the scale of decision if i, for example, tell the criminal division, take the meeting, make whatever recommendation is in your best judgment, just take the meeting, i can take money for that. and i think the message that would be sent, if this court put its imprimatur on a scheme of government in which public officials were not committing bribery when all they did was arrange meetings with other

governmental officials, without putting, in his metaphorical way, a thumb on the scales of the ultimate decision, would send a terrible message to citizens. what -- justice alito: well, what i think we're looking for is some limiting principle. now, you started to say something about campaign contributions -- mr. dreeben: correct. justice alito: and i know that this case doesn't involve campaign contributions. but certainly a campaign contribution can be the quid, can it not? mr. dreeben: certainly. justice alito: all right. well, gaining access by making campaign contributions is an everyday occurrence. and maybe it's a bad thing, but it's very widespread. how does it how does that play out? mr. dreeben: so, justice alito, gaining access and ingratiation and gratitude as a result of campaign contributions is not a crime. when it's done as a quid pro quo, it is. and that is not the -- justice breyer: that's -- mr. dreeben: that is not the -- justice breyer: that's what i want, your view. mr. dreeben: that is not my view, justice breyer. justice breyer: but, i mean -- justice alito: mr. dreeben, if i could just follow up on that.

if a senator writes to a federal agency and says, this union or this company is, you know, critical to the economy of my state, and, by the way, he doesn't say this, but, by the way, they are the biggest contributors to his campaign would you please meet with them? what would not make that a crime? the fact that the jury might not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason why he was urging this meeting was because these people, this entity, happened to be a very big supporter? that would be the only thing separating lawful from unlawful conduct there? mr. dreeben: well, let me say two things in response to that. first, this court has addressed that very issue in the mccormick case. and it is established that merely taking favorable action at or around the time of the receipt of campaign contributions is not sufficient to show a quid pro quo and is not a crime. nobody doubts that if there's a quid pro quo for a vote, something that i think mr. francisco is prepared to concede is "official action," although i'm not sure why since it

doesn't personally exercise sovereign power if a legislator casts vote as a dissenting vote from a majority action. but nobody disputes that that is a crime. therefore, this court has already carved out evidentiary and instructional safeguards that prevent against a jury inferring a quid pro quo merely from the coincidence of timing. but i want to come back to something that is even more fundamental, and that is the role of the first amendment in this case. because petitioner has sought to wrap himself in the mantle of the first amendment, probably because the gifts that he received have nothing to do with the first amendment, they have to do with personal loans and luxury goods. this is not a case about campaign contributions. but when campaign contributions are at issue, he relies very heavily on citizens united while ignoring a critical piece of citizens united. this court, in citizens united, looked back to the circumstances that prompted the federal election campaign act in 1972,

and those involve circumstances that were delineated in the buckley decision in the court of appeals. and the court specifically cited to those practices. and what were those practices? they involved the american milk producers paying $2 million in campaign contributions, spread out among a variety of committees, to get a meeting at the white house. that's all they did. they said, in order to gain a meeting with white house officials on price supports, they paid that money. other corporate executives testified that paying money was a calling card, something that would get us in the door and make our point of view heard. and this court said, on page 356 of the citizens united opinion, "the practices buckley noted would be covered by the bribery laws, ceg 18 u.s.c. 201, if a quid pro quo arrangement were proved." now, of course, it's very difficult to prove a quid pro quo arrangement, and that's why there are campaign finance limitations on contributions to candidates. but the court had no doubt that paying for access was a criminal violation. and so --

justice roberts: so -- mr. dreeben: and that's what -- justice roberts: if you have a governor whose priority is jobs for his state, and there's a ceo who's thinking about locating a plant in his state, but he can only do it, he says, if he gets tax credits from the state. so the governor is talking to him, and he says, look, why don't you come down to my, you know, trout stream and we'll go fishing and we'll talk about this. and the governor does that. he has a nice day fishing for trout, and they talk about whether they can get tax credits, deferred taxes if the ceo opens his plant in the state. now, is that a felony, because he's -- mr. dreeben: i -- justice roberts: accepted an afternoon of trout fishing, and he discussed official business at that time? mr. dreeben: i don't think so, mr. chief justice, but if you change the hypothetical and said instead of an afternoon of trout fitting-- fishing, i'll fly you

out to hawaii and you and your family can have a vacation, and during that time we can go over my policy -- justice roberts: but i thought i didn't think the government put any weight on the amount of the quid, in other words, you know ok. i don't know how much an afternoon of trout fishing is worth, but i gather you get you can be charged for that and pay for it. i thought that didn't matter. i thought it was whether he was engaged in an "official act" under circumstances in which a jury could find he did it because of the gift. mr. dreeben: yes. justice roberts: and so if all he's doing is talking about ways to get jobs for virginia, and he's talking with the person who's going to make that decision from the private sector, based in part on whether or not he gets, you know, tax credits, it would seem to me that under your definition, that governor is guilty of a felony. mr. dreeben: i'm not sure that he is guilty of a felony. but the reason why i changed the hypothetical to involve a larger quid is because the implications of carving something out from "official action" mean that it can be sold, and that it's lawful to be sold. and when you change the trout fishing to a trip to hawaii, it becomes more nefarious, and the message that it sends to citizens is -- justice breyer: but that's the

point. you see, what exactly what the chief justice asked. what's the lower limit, in the government's opinion, on the quid? what? what if you're going to say $10,000, ok, i feel quite differently about this. if you will say an afternoon of trout fishing or etc., then i feel quite differently. it's pretty hard to see the conduct being honest if you exempt the campaign contributions and put it up somewhere. but i didn't think that was the government's position. mr. dreeben: it's not the government's -- justice breyer: what is the government's position what you tell me i'm wrong, in for a penny, in for a pound. you tell me right now it is not the government's position that the trout fishing afternoon is sufficient to be a quid. if you say that, i'll feel differently about the case. [laughter] mr. dreeben: it's tempting, justice breyer, but i'm not going to -- justice breyer: exactly. mr. dreeben: exempt from the

corruption laws -- justice breyer: ok. mr. dreeben: certain types of quids, but -- justice breyer: but now -- mr. dreeben: justice breyer, you do need to run this through all the elements of the offense. i think what petitioner is saying, and i think some of the court's hypotheticals are suggesting the only thing that really you could possibly do to remedy this issue is to shrink the definition of "official action" with no textual basis in 201, nor really, i think, any common sense basis in the way that government actually operates -- justice breyer: you tell me that's why i asked you at the beginning. and you in order to be you say you're going to push back, and then you complained about their definition. if i thought their definition was so perfect, i wouldn't have asked you. and it's exactly you do you tell me how to do this. and i'm not you say it sends a terrible message. i'm not in the business of sending messages in a case like this. i'm in the business of trying to figure out the structure of the government. and that's part of separation of powers, and i expressed my concern. mr. dreeben: so i think -- justice breyer: i dissented in citizens united, so whatever that said there, but -- [laughter]

justice breyer: but the point is the one i raised at the beginning that every single one of us has raised. we're worried about because like any other organization, the prosecutors too can be overly zealous. that can happen. and so we need some protection on both sides, even though the line won't be perfect. and it will fail to catch some crooks. and it will i mean, i understand that. and i want to know your view. and it doesn't even it helps a little, but not a lot, to say, well, meetings. mr. dreeben: so -- justice breyer: that's too specific. i want to know what your view is as to the language we write in discussing the line. mr. dreeben: well, i don't think you and i agree on where the line should be, justice breyer. so i can't write language that is going to satisfy you. you weren't even satisfied with petitioner's language, which requires that there be influence on some other governmental decision. you suggested you thought that was too broad. justice breyer: no, no, no. well, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

mr. dreeben: you did suggest it. justice breyer: i did -- [laughter] mr. dreeben: i think that it's too narrow. i think that if the court is going to reject the government's submission, which is that when the governor calls his secretary of health and says, take the meeting with my benefactor, he doesn't disclose it's his benefactor. take the meeting so that that person can have the preferential opportunity that other citizens who do not pay will have to make his case before you. i think that is "official action." petitioner says it's not "official action" unless he further sends the message, which i think on the facts of this case was sent, he's trying to influence the ultimate outcome. if the court is going to reject the government's position in this case, then i think that a fallback position for the government is when you have an indisputed "official action," such as will the universities of virginia study a particular product, or will the tobacco commission fund it, then when a public official takes action to direct that decision, to

influence that decision, or to advance his benefactor's interests with respect to that decision, that constitutes the crime of bribery. justice roberts: there is -- mr. dreeben: now -- justice roberts: given the difficulty that we're having in settling on what these words in the statute mean, there is a an argument in the petitioner's brief that you have responded to in yours that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. mr. dreeben: i do not think it is unconstitutionally vague. first of all, we're talking here about multiple statutes. we're talking about hobbs act extortion, which this court has previously construed in both mccormick and evans to be perfectly valid upon the proof of a quid pro quo when the official asserts that his action will be controlled by a thing of value that he has received. and now we're talking about the question of what constitutes "official action" for the purposes of a common law crime that goes back centuries and was

incorporated into the hobbs act. we're also talking about the honest services statute, which this court in skilling just six years ago determined could be construed -- justice roberts: well, yeah, "could be construed." i mean, there were, what, three votes to find it unconstitutional? and the others say, well, no, because you can narrow it in this way to the core definition of bribery. and now maybe the experience we've had here, and the difficulty of coming up with clear enough instructions suggests that the caution the court showed at that point was ill advised. mr. dreeben: well, i think it would be absolutely stunning if this court said that bribery and corruption laws, which have been on the books since the beginning of this nation, and have been consistently enacted by congress to combat both federal, state, and local corruption -- justice kennedy: would it be -- justice roberts: and -- justice kennedy: absolutely stunning to say that the government has given us no workable standard? mr. dreeben: well, we have given you a workable standard. it's the standard that comes from this court's 1914 decision in birdsall, where the court said that things that government

officials do under a bribery statute much like this are covered as official action, and they're not limited to things that -- justice kennedy: perhaps what you're talking about is how evil the conspiracy is. it's not evil to fish or to have a bottle of wine, but it is evil if you up the ante. is that is that what you're saying? mr. dreeben: i think what i'm trying to say, justice kennedy, is that it's going to be extremely difficult for anyone to really believe that you could buy a governor's position on a multimillion-dollar tax support for an afternoon of trout fishing. and that's why those cases don't get brought. no one thinks about them. it's not really even clear there is a quid pro quo for -- justice kagan: can i ask you a narrower question, mr. dreeben? so, one of the "official acts" here i'll just read it to you. it's allowing jonnie williams to invite individuals important to star scientific's business to exclusive events at the governor's mansion. mr. dreeben: yes. justice kagan: so that's essentially hosting a party and allowing mr. williams to invite some people.

and why does that why is that an "official act," in your view? mr. dreeben: so, justice kagan, it wasn't hosting an official party. we're talking about here two events. one was a product launch hosted at the governor's mansion where the governor is basically giving his credibility to a brand-new product. and the invitations were critical to jonnie williams' plan to sign up the universities to do the studies. he got to pick -- justice kagan: so here's, i guess i mean, i guess, my this -- the "official act," the statute, the definition, i mean, requires that there be some particular matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy, correct? mr. dreeben: yes. justice kagan: and if i understand the theory of this case, the matter, suit, cause, proceeding, or controversy here is the attempt to get the university of virginia to do clinical studies of this product, is that correct? mr. dreeben: it's narrower than our whole scope of the charge, but it's essentially correct. justice kagan: that's the gravamen of the thing? mr. dreeben: correct. justice kagan: so if you had

just if the indictment, and then the instructions that were based on the indictment, had said the "official act" is getting the university of virginia to do clinical studies, right, that reads very differently from the way this indictment was structured. because what this indictment does is it takes a lot of different pieces of evidence that might relate to that "official act" and charges them as "official acts" themselves, so that the party becomes an "official act" or calling somebody just to talk about the product becomes an "official act." do you see what i mean? i mean, you know, this might have been perfectly chargeable and instructable, but i guess i'm troubled by these particular charges and instructions, which seems to make every piece of evidence that you had an "official act," rather than just saying the "official act" was

the, was the attempt to get the university of virginia to do something that they wouldn't have done otherwise. mr. dreeben: so, justice kagan, what the crime was here was the governor accepting things of value in return for being influenced and taking "official actions" to legitimize, promote, and secure research studies for anatabloc and star's products. that's at supplemental ja 14. it then alleges that he would do this as opportunities arose in the course of his official actions. and because he's the governor and he has a tremendous amount of influence throughout the government, he appoints all the board of visitors of vcu and uva. he sets the budget. they know that he's an important guy. he has lots of opportunities to do this in different ways over time. and if you look at the pattern of what he did, directing people to meet with star's representatives, arranging events at the mansion in which star could bring together its chosen guest list, the doctors who it wanted to influence with

the star people who were trying to influence it, the governor is taking every step he can do short of saying to uva, do the studies, which his chief counsel told him would be inappropriate and wasn't going to do. so, i think that if you look at the indictment the way that it's actually structured, it talks about a person who, as opportunities arose, was going to engage in "official acts." this is a theory of corruption that justice sotomayor's opinion in ganim in the second circuit validated, and it was cited in skilling as a perfectly valid theory of corruption. and, therefore, the individual "official acts" really form a composite window into petitioner's mind. did he intend to allow his official conduct to be controlled by the things of value that he received? and taking them all together, even if the court has trouble with any individual one, they allowed a rational jury to inference that, indeed, he did.

and the only way that petitioner could win, if you agree with me on the sufficiency issue, is if you conclude that jury instructions must exempt certain types of official actions, like directing your secretary of health to take a meeting, which is a very kind of significant event in the life of a cabinet member and a governor, or hosting an event at the mansion, can't possibly count, because it somehow should be viewed as social, when, in fact, what the governor is doing is allowing his benefactor to get all the people in the room who he wants to influence to do the studies. so in my view, there was nothing wrong if i can complete the sentence, in the way that the indictment structured the crime in this case. the "official acts" were exemplary. they were proved, and the jury could properly find them. thank you. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. francisco, five minutes remaining. mr. francisco: thank you, mr. chief justice. i have three basic points i would like to make. first, i'd like to start out with the government's argument that a lot of the problems with its theory are solved by the quid pro quo requirement. well, in fact, the gratuity statute, the federal gratuity

statute, has the exact same "official act" requirement, but no quid pro quo requirement at all. so, what that means is that if you take somebody to a fancy lunch with a i can't remember the name of the bottle of wine you mentioned, justice breyer, but if you took them to that to thank them for referring you to a meeting with a midlevel staffer, even if there was no suggestion at all that you were going to do anything other than call that staffer and say, hey, can you take a meeting with this guy, hear him out, and exercise your independent judgment, that would be a violation of the federal gratuity statute. and, indeed, under the government's broad theory that anything within the range of official duties counts, that means that if you took the person out to that lunch as thanks for giving you a tour of the capitol building, you would likewise have violated the federal gratuity statute, because there, there is no quid pro quo requirement at all. point two, justice breyer -- justice sotomayor: there is a difference between someone saying, thank you for a decision you made independent of the gift that's the sun growers case and

someone buying you an expensive lunch and saying, i'm paying for this lunch, but make sure i get a tour. you don't see the difference? mr. francisco: not under the federal gratuity statute, your honor, because the federal gratuity statute is meant to prohibit thanking somebody for giving you an "official act." and so if an "official act" is, in fact, a tour of the capitol building or a meeting with a staffer, then you have, in fact, violated the federal gratuity statute when you take them to lunch as a thanks for that particular act. second point, justice breyer, in trying to figure out the right verbal formulation, the first point i'd like to make is, if we can't figure out a proper verbal formulation, then i think there are some very serious vagueness problems with the statute -- justice breyer: it's birdsall. justice sotomayor: you -- justice breyer: it's birdsall. look, i can i've read the brown commission report.

i've read the model penal code. i've read all these efforts to get language. and i've looked at the present statute. and i think i can limit that because the statute, itself, seems to cover things like voting and contracts, et cetera. but it's also true that a person who tries to influence those things has committed bribery. i think that's correct. mr. francisco: and -- justice breyer: now, my problem is with birdsall and how do we write those words so that they do catch people who are doing this dishonest thing without, as i've said five times, allowing the government the freedom to go and do these ridiculous cases. mr. francisco: and i think the d.c. circuit's en banc decision -- justice breyer: not saying this is a ridiculous one, by the way. [laughter] mr. francisco: understood, your honor. i think that the right answer, you start out with the d.c. circuit's decision in valdes. you look at that listing of words -- justice breyer: uh-huh. mr. francisco: question, matter, suit, cause proceeding. and those are actual decisions that the government makes, the government as a whole, as a sovereign. and then you say, are you making a decision on that, if you're the final decision maker, or if you're not the final decision maker, but because of your official power, you have the

ability and the authority to influence other decision makers, then you're are you doing that? here are two fundamental -- justice ginsburg: what do you say to mr. dreeben's argument that if we read this statute as you are urging, then every government official can say, you want to have a meeting? pay me a thousand dollars. the corruption that's inherent in the position that says it's ok to facilitate a meeting, it's ok to say, i'll do it for you if you pay me a thousand dollars. that's your view, that that would be ok? mr. francisco: your honor, and, frankly, this was leading to my third point, which is, if there is absolutely no way that if there's no indicia that you're actually trying to influence the outcome, and it really is just a meeting, yes. but that reflects the fact that these broad and vague statutes are not comprehensive codes of ethical conduct. there are lots of other statutes that would prohibit precisely

what you are suggesting, justice o'connor, and you don't have to interpret -- justice ginsburg: that hasn't happened in quite some time. [laughter] mr. francisco: justice ginsburg. i am very, very, very sorry. [laughter] mr. francisco: justice ginsburg, my apologies. there are lots of other statutes that would prohibit that precise conduct, and you don't need to take statutes like the hobbs act and honest services statute. justice kagan: well, what would -- mr. francisco, just take mr. dreeben's own example, which is the example of somebody he's running a business, and he's taking $5,000 at a pop every time he arranges a meeting with the criminal division for somebody. mr. francisco: sure. there is a statute that prohibits supplementing your public salary with private money. so if you're essentially taking outside money for the performance of your official duties, that's illegal. that was discussed in the sun-diamond case. there is another statute that that prohibits you from doing any taking anything from anybody whose interests could be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of your duties. so that's another one.

it would prohibit that would prohibit it. there is another provision of this bribery statute that prohibits you from taking any action, not just "official action" but any action in violation of your official duties. so i think that might -- justice sotomayor: why aren't they any less vague? mr. francisco: excuse me? justice sotomayor: why aren't they any less vague? and what you're saying is that holding a meeting, taking a phone call, having a party is not illegal, that that is something that you're entitled to do. so why would all those statutes be any less -- mr. francisco: they may well be in certain circumstances, but i think that the ones that are simply saying for example, the civil service statutes that simply say, you can't take anything from anybody who is a covered person. that's not vague. it just says that you can't take anything from anybody who is in your job. most federal government officials are very familiar with that. that's why you really just don't

take gifts from anyone. the problem here is that we had a state regime that was much less stringent than the federal regime, and the government wanted to use the open-ended hobbs act and honest services statute to fill that gap in what they perceived is the state law. i would respectfully submit that that is an inappropriate use of federal power. thank you, mr. chief justice. justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. dreeben, could i invite you to return to the lectern? our records reflect that this was your 100th oral argument before the court. you are the second person to reach that rare milestone this century. i distinctly recall your first argument in january of 1989. throughout your career, you have consistently advocated positions on behalf of the united states in an exemplary manner. on behalf of the court, i extend to you our appreciation for the many years of advocacy and dedicated service during your tenure in the solicitor general's office and as an officer of this court. we look forward to hearing from you many more times. thank you. the case is submitted. mr. dreeben: thank you.

announcer: our grand prize winner from oklahoma. olivia heard, a 10th grader in high school, wants presidential candidates to discuss the federal debt in her video titled, "up to our necks." >> the united states has $18 trillion in debt. so, how exactly does america get up to its neck in debt? every year, a budget is formed. sums of thearge

federal money, discretionary spending. in 2015, it receive $1.1 trillion. the second section is mandatory spending, which has received 4.5 trillion dollars. lastly, there is the interest on the federal debt, which received $229 billion. this all totaled a whopping $3.8 trillion. now, in order to pay for these things, the government has to taken money somehow. and this is how the budget works. you have revenue and expense. in other words, money you taken money you put out. in the case of the u.s. government, revenue is created through taxation. when the amount of money taken enter taxes doesn't equal the amount put out there spending, we have a deficit. in order to make up for the deficit, the government sells treasury bonds. this is essentially a loan from a third party. this sounds like a sweet deal , until you realize we actually

have to pay these people back. borrowing can be a temporary solution to an unbalanced budget, but it is the cause of a greater problem. the national debt is the sum total of all past deficits and represents all of the money to future generations, my generation, is going to have to pay back. dear candidates, i would like to know how you, if elected president, would deal with the debt crisis that our nation is facing today. sincerely, olivia. >> growth. >> very serious debt crisis has to be solved through shared sacrifice. >> we have tremendous cutting to do. >> the train wreck that is the federal balance sheet, the only way it gets fixed is if there is growth. >> the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations in this country have also got to play a role in deficit reduction. >> hundreds of billions of dollars is going to be saved in

terms of running government. see, there is can no shortage of ideas for potential solutions. but if ideas are in dime a dozen, why do we still have these problems? nancy pelosi claims there are no more cuts to make. i don't think the coverage is quite bare. i see them for amounts of ways in discretionary spending on. take the arts, for example. the national endowment for the arts receives over $100 million of federal spending per year. their budget requests the 2016 total of $149.949 million. million we $149 don't have to spare. now, i am an art kid in every sense of the word. i have every color of beret imaginable. but i do think this is one area where we can safely cut down federal spending. >> right now -- would you say

you are still making a difference in the community without government money? >> definitely. and even the arts organizations that we represent have in doing so for decades. they have been making it on their own. today, we would solely rely on the generosity of our foundation. an individual support. olivia: my community is living proof that the government is not an essential component in keeping the arts alive. so, if you still think there is no room to cut, you need to think again. oh, hello, there. the budget plan that president barack obama proposed for 2016 included spending appropriations totaling $4.1 trillion. now, past revenues would only equal $3.5 trillion.

no, that can't be right. i spent a long time trying to wrap my head around the reason why the budget the president would set a budget plan over budget. apparently, no one else sees the flaw in the logic. because over the last 50 years, we have run a deficit. for all but five years. since the idea of the debt ceiling was first created in 1917, it has been raised nearly 150 times. so, what exactly is the point of a budget and a debt ceiling if we are going to keep going over budget and raising the debt ceiling? now, i may be misinterpreting the facts. but i'm pretty sure that is called being irresponsible.

as i gain knowledge and understanding about the debt crisis from working on this project, i decided for myself of that the only solution was to make drastic spending cuts across the board. in fact, i was so sure about my solution that i decided to approach presidential candidate senator rubio and ask him about it directly. what will you, if elected, would be willing to sacrifice in order to regain control of government spending? senator rubio: it is not about sacrifice, as much as it is about making ranges to medicare and social security for future generations. we can leave it exactly the way it is for people who are retired now and about to retire, but for younger americans like myself and you and the people watching this, the program will work differently. instead of retiring at 67,

i will have to retire at 68. that will bring the debt under control. olivia: after talking to senator rubio, i realized it's not that simple. when i heard him say it is not so much about sacrifice, that was the first time i considered maybe i don't have all the answers. i thought we were up to our neck. we are in way over our head. this is why i want the federal debt to be discussed in the presidential campaign. i don't know how to fix it. but america needs a leader who does. so, candidates, the ball is in your court. ♪ announcer: to watch all of the prize-winning documentaries and year's student camden competition, visit student cam.rog. org.

>> we will discuss the strategy towards isis and the role of allies in the region. thethe founder and ceo of network will be talking about is future in the bernie sanders campaign, after a loss this week. he will discuss what the candidate means for the brexit movement. will talk usavin to preview the white house correspondents dinner, how it evolved from a humble affair to a nearly week-long celebration of celebrations and parties. a film inside washington's wildest week. watch saturday morning. join the discussion. hours every24

week and. this saturday at new eastern, book tv as coverage from the san antonio book festival. among the topics for the u.s. mexico border, featuring the rise of bicycle, the the borderland empire. women and the politics of marriage, featuring rebecca's book on the rise of an independent nation. violent crime in the 19th century, featuring a book on the disembodied torso, a tale of race, sex, and violence in america. and ronald reagan, featuring a book about his life. and sunday at noon eastern, we are live with author will hagood to discuss his books on the river, the life of adam clayton powell/ and the life of

semi-davis junior. and the life and times of sugar ray robinson. and a book about thurgood marshall and the supreme court that change the nation. he will take your calls and answer questions from noon to 3 p.m. eastern. sunday evening at nine eastern on afterwards, america online founder looks at what is next for america, and entrepreneurs vision of america. he discusses how to navigate the ever-changing digital age. he is joined by congressman john delaney of maryland. >> people need to think about how they can think about their own jobs in a world where there is more of a definition of where the work has changed. 34% of people are in the freelance economy, and some call it the flexible economy, the nature of work has changed. there are positive and negative, that will continue to develop in a third way.

how do you position yourself? wasockey, wayne gretzky great because he did not focus on where it was going, but where it would be going. maybe they can position themselves and prepare their families for that future that is going to unfold the next 15 or 20 years. tv.org,r: go to book for the complete schedule. >> the folger shakespeare library recently marked the 400 anniversary of his death, through personal stories. later, there was a discussion on his life with shakespeare scholars. this is two hours and 15 minutes. ♪ michael: hello, and welcome to the wonder of will live. i'm michael witmore, director of