the clerk: h.r. 4528, an act to make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation statutes and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 2-b of house resolution 1012, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on friday, august 3,

>> to give us thorough answers. although the administration has mishandled the family separations, it is also important

.ould expect for any child

>> in 2014, a single federal district court in florida dramatically expanded the scope -- decree bye applying it to undocumented immigrant children who arrived with their children, i more even in a move that the previous administration, the obama administration, opposed at the time that court case and decision was delivered. under this single interpretation, the federal government faces a choice, enforce law and separate families by releasing only the children after 20 days, or keep families together by engaging in the past administrations that and release policy. cruise, tillis, and i

wrote in an op-ed, neither of those options are a good choice. that is why we believe the best way to ensure this crisis never happens again is to repeal florida's agreement but only as it relates to the time limitations accompanied undocumented children. some of my colleagues claim that we would end all protections for minor children and just allow the government to detain families indefinitely. a true not interpretation. nothing could be further from the truth. no one on our side of the aisle wants to end the humane standards. if anything, given recent news reports, we are more than willing to statutorily enhance those protections. we also want to see families cap in federal custody.

we don't want to see families kept in federal custody indefinitely or for long periods of time. is going tomchenry testify, when families are placed on the detained docket, their cases are usually result in 40 days. in contrast, when families are released into the interior, they're given a notice to appear at a future immigration court toring was little incentive attend. that hearing occurs on average not 40 days but 700 days after their release, assuming they even show up. that is just the first hearing. according to the information provided to every single member of this committee during the closed door briefing, cases can take anywhere from seven to 10 years to complete. 80% of casesalmost ultimately denied.

it does not make sense to release families and hope that they will show up in the future court date where they will one and likely be denied the right to remain in this country. i will say this again, if families and children are going to be kept in federal custody, they must be kept in facilities where they will be treated humanely and with the basic the tea that all people, no matter what their immigration status is . unfortunately, recent media reporting i have seen suggest the federal government is failing miserably in the task that i just described. over the last few month, multiple news reports have surfaced scribing how illegal immigrant children and in the case of family units, their mothers have suffered unimaginable physical and

mental, and emotional and even custody.use while in obviously, that is unacceptable, and the american people expect better. we hear from constituents every weekend we are home. to be clear, this is not a new issue. some of the abuse dates back to at least 2012 and several of the most horrific incidents occurred in 2015 and 2016. now, i do not say that to imply this is all the obama administration's fault because it isn't. but clearly, there is a larger systemic issue that needs to be addressed. again, no one, no matter what their immigration status, should have to suffer such abuse. i am a consistent advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault.

i am troubled by these reports. that is why senator feinstein and i sent a letter to the s -- i saidgeneral say -- i should say homeland security and they should open an investigation. we also ask the inspectors general to look into practices, procedures, and policies in place regarding custody of the immigrant families and children, and to make recommendations, both -- to both of us and the agencies regarding potential improvement in these practices. also, i hope our government witnesses are prepared to answer questions regarding these andances -- incidents describe in detail steps that are being taken to ensure no person suffers more indignities

again and not of us on this committee, including this chairman, is going to accept anything less. we have a lot to cover today. i will now and it over to ranking member senator feinstein for opening remarks. contrary to custom, we are also going to have opportunities for short statements because there are gems of the ranking members. >> we are here today because the child administration has pursued what i believe -- the trump administration has pursued what i believe is a haphazard policy that fundamentally betrays american values. this administration has elected engaging in the systematic separation of immigrant children from their parents without any plan to reunite them.

we are now months into this crisis, we still don't know the official number of children who have been separated from their parents. i hope the administration officials present today finally outline the official total number of children separated, where they are, what the facilities are, and where they are that they are detained in, what the conditions are in those facilities, and the location of their parents. the little we have learned has come out of the case of the southern district of california, overseen by a judge. joint court a filing by the department of justice and the american civil liberties union from last 2551y, the numbers are children aged five to 17 taken from their parents at some

point. these children were required to be reunited by last friday, july 26, and government did not meet that deadline. 1442 of those children were reunited with their parents. 20 children, the government thought they separated from their parents turned out not to have been unaccompanied from the outset. alone in theremain united states because their parents have already been deported. shockingly, the government does not even know who or where the parents are 494 children. the governmentr did not track them in the first place. there was no effort to ensure that the government knew which children are longed to which parents and where they were

located. another 67 children were not reunified with their parents because of some red flag in their background. however, we don't know whether this flag had anything to do with the safety of their child and abuse or neglect allegation or rather some other reason that may be irrelevant to separating the child from his parent. these are only the children and families we know about. the new york times reported that the child administered -- trump administration may be using kids as hostages to get people to give up their asylum claims. they take the children and tell the parent if they agree to deport on their own, you can see your child at the airport.

if not, we will hold you for months. we don't know when you will see your child. it is not an exaggeration to say that the policies of president trump and attorney general jeff sessions me essentially orphan hundreds of immigrant children. in addition, the washington post reported over the weekend the customs and border protection was so unprepared to grapple with this crisis that president trump created that it called the separated families "deleted family units." when the customs and border patrol sent health and human services information about these deleted families, hhs had no way to track the children. files end, 12,000 case

had to be sorted by hand to determine which children had been separated in which children arrived in the united states without their parents. even worse are the stories we heard about the separations and the bad conditions in which they were held. facility inited a california where children did not have sufficient food or water and were forced to sleep on the cold concrete floor without a cot for a blanket. unfortunately, despite the bylic outcry and a rebuke the courts, the administration has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to put the welfare of children above its own hard-line views on immigration. ,herefore, we, the congress have a constitutional and moral obligation to intervene.

i have been working with senator tillis, on a bill that prohibits the separation of children from their families requires an ongoing reporting by and publictration reporting about what has occurred. the bill would also provide additional judges, lawyers, and resources to ensure that these families are treated humanely and not left ignored in facilities without proper sanitary conditions, food, water, that's, and blankets -- cots, and blankets to sleep on. i am hopeful that we are close to an agreement and that the bill could enjoy broad bipartisan support. mr. chairman, thank you for

holding this hearing. i hope the administration officials are ready today to give us the official figures henri unified children -- re-unified children and how it plans to ensure no further infringements occur on the constitutional rights of the parents and the child to be together. i look forward to the hearing and to the witnesses and working with my colleagues to get and acted quickly. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing to discuss this important and acted quickl. thank you very much. matter and one that directly impacts my state most of any in the country. of course, all of us are concerned about separation of families. it is ironic to me that last year alone there were 41,500 unaccompanied children who came across the border. we're not heard an outcry from our democratic colleagues about that, even though the new york

times had reported about 1500 of them who had been placed with sponsors are unaccounted for. under the pre-existing regime. i recently traveled to brownsville to get an idea of what the facts were on the ground because many of our colleagues are relying on what i would characterize as incorrect media reports about circumstances on the ground. at the same time, i spoke with a number of federal and local officials responsible for implementing government policy including manny padilla, who is my personal expert on this topic. border troll and all -- border havel and all officials been valuable in helping me to understand what is going on. i look forward to hearing additional testimony. i went to the facilities myself

that housed teenagers and younger children. i found that these facilities were well-managed as caseworkers, mental health professionals and teachers, .4-seven access to fresh food and water, daily education classes for school-aged children, obviously a stark contrast with what has been portrayed by some of our friends across the aisle in the media. one thing i have learned in my time in the senate, there are few things more complicated been immigration when it comes to public policy. often, rhetoric is so high and facts are mangled that the fundamental concept of wool of ule of laws and the government can determine who comes in to the country falls by the wayside. the fact that some disagree with those and have gone so far as to

,all for the abolition of ice doesn't alter the fact that these are the laws of the land that law enforcement officials are enforcing. they have been passed by anyress and signed president. they reflect the will of the american people. i would say that even while many people have been critical of the status quo at the border as we work together to unify families, the critics offer no plausible and workable alternative solution at all. i will talk about that in a moment. family separation at the border is not a new issue, nor is the adoption of a so-called zero-tolerance policy. a zero-tolerance policy means you are enforcing the law the congress has written and the president has signed. president bush adopted a similar policy and president obama

expanded it to more locations along the border because they realized the system of catch and release was an incentive for future illegal immigration into the country. families were separated under the obama administration because that is what the law required in a certain circumstances. a 300% increase of adults arriving at the border with small children claiming to be there parents and in that they are not why would they do that? figured a way to beat the system and that is why. despite our political differences, we all agree that the same standard of care and housing that apply to minors should apply to parents and accompanied miners crossing the border. we do have a solution. i am glad to hear what senator feinstein said about the bill that has been proposed, and i

hope they continue to work on that. we could pass that legislation today. it would allow parents and children to stay in a safe facility while they await court proceedings, and then move them to the front of the line to present their case before an immigration judge. if they are entitled to an immigration benefit, it would be awarded at that benefit. senator grassley has said the vast majority are released and told to reappear in the future and escape into the great american landscape. there are never to be heard from again. unfortunately, when we tried to bring this bill up and pass it previously, it was blocked, which is effectively a vote for catch and release. .he cartels keep winning this is their business model. they have filed a way to exploit the vulnerabilities in our laws and they're making millions of

dollars on the backs of migrants as a result. that is what the status quo offers, and it ought to be unacceptable to all of us. i look forward to hearing from the witnesses about the progress that has been made and how the administration is screening to make sureo try we don't put children in harm's way. maybe efforts to come up with a solution are not dead and we will be able to come up with a compassionate solution to the problem, which is to keep families together and enforce the law act and it can be passed by both houses and signed by the president without further delay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman for address thisty to hearing. this policy shows the extremes this administration will go to to punish families fleeing horrific gang and sexual violence and seeking refuge in the united states.

staff john chief of kelly bragged that forcibly separating children from their ,"rents is "a tough deterrent but the president of the pediatricsademy of calls it what it is, government sanctioned child abuse. incredibly, homeland security kirstjen nielsen claimed "we do not have a policy of separating the families at the border period." it was under her watch that 27 hundred children were separated from their parents and more than 700 children still have not been united with their families, including more than 400 whose parents were apparently deported and more than 90 whose parents cannot be located at all. what will become of these children and their parents?

calledder agents family "deleted family units." "deletedme of these family units," 7-eleven lost -- 711 lost common decency. the department of homeland security secretary kirstjen nielsen i'm asking to step down. immigration policy is more than a bureaucratic lapse in judgment. it is and was a cruel policy inconsistent with the bedrock values of this nation. in this administration has to accept responsibility. we can have border security without bullying. we can be safe without treating toddlers as terrorists. those who say the blame is on congress, let me remind them, the judgepolicy which

characterized as a chaotic circumstance of the government's own making. is a time there conversation with the other side of the aisle, the first thing they want to eliminate is the standard, which for 19 years has guided this nation through administrations of both political parties for the humanitarian treatment of unaccompanied children. it is the first thing those on the other side ask us to get rid of. it is the last thing we should get rid of. medical experts tell us that even short-term separations and detention can do permanent damage to a child. two weeks ago, congress received two of eachm criminal homeland security's own medical consultants. these medical doctors investigated ice family detention centers and here is what they concluded. "they pose a high risk of harm families." and their

these whistleblowers have told us what they saw. the trump administration claims they are concerned about what they derisively cause -- call catch and release, compared catching children to catching fish. tore are alternatives detention that are more secure, more humane, and use far less taxpayer money. it is not too late for this committee to rise up and step into the situation and to accept our legislative responsibility of oversight. we can change the situation very dramatically. senator feinstein's keep families together which expressly prohibits family separation. kids at which for provides unaccompanied children with legal representation and deportation seedings.

how embarrassing is it to our nation to think that there are courtrooms with infant children, toddlers, and pre-standing before judges with no knowledge of what is actually happening to them, their families, and their lives. that is not what america is all about. we need to pass the humane human of migrant children act which i've introduced, requiring eyes to prioritize the detention of those who actually pose a threat to national security or public safety, increasing funding for alternatives. we do not need internment camps again in american history. return the children and families indefinitely because we won't act and congress doesn't act at all. we need to offer eyes merit-based hiring of judges. i hope today's hearing is the start of a bipartisan effort for the trump administration to end

this crisis. it is the least that we can do for these deleted families and lost children. for senator feinstein, i want to introduce into the record of opposition to family separation from two doctors. , number two, amnesty international. number three, los angeles unified school district. number four, church world service. number five, the episcopal church. number six, chris polonsky and don abbott for bethany christian services. without objection, those will be put into the record. i will now introduce our witnesses, and after i introduced them, i will ask for you to stand because this is an oversight hearing and we will

swear each of the witnesses. oss was elected to the u.s. border patrol. in 2013, she became chief patrol agent, where she led 1200 employees. in 2015, she became deputy assistant commissioner for the office of professional responsibility. minister matthew was appointed assess -- associate for removal operations. in 2017, he began his career as a special agent with the former u.s. immigration assess -- and naturalization service.

leaves the identifying and arrest and removal of aliens who present a danger to national security or risk to public safety as well as those who enter the united states without documentation or otherwise and otherwise undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and border control efforts. commander, as he deputyed, was appointed director of children's programs and office of refugees resettlement. january 2017, in that capacity, he manages the unaccompanied alien children program, which provides care and custody of over 100,000 young people annually who are apprehended by the department of homeland security without an accompanying

parent. commander white advises the and the director of dhhs with unaccompanied children. mchenry was named director of the executive office for immigration review, january of this year. served as the deputy associate attorney general working on a variety of immigration related litigation matters and overseeing components reporting to the office of the associate attorney general. served asto 2016, he the alj of the office of andbility adjudication review and so security administration. prior to that. he worked for ice office of principal legal advisor.

, jennifer. higgins higgins, is associate director for refugee asylum and international operations director. she has served in the federal government for over 15 years, focusing on balancing the united states long-standing humanitarian with security mandate. she has served as chief of staff for the deputy secretary, advising dhs leadership on refugee immigration and national security operations while managing daily operations of the office of deputy secretary. would you folks please stand? do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god?

all have said affirmative. minutes andve five your entire statement will be put in the record. for the benefit of the committee , we will try to keep going and rotate chairmanship with either republican or democrat's, whoever is present, so we can finish. i would also ask that we have extended time for questions from five to seven minutes so we can move along and not have people go beyond the seven minutes. for you folks with five minutes each, would you proceed? >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of u.s. customs and border protection. as unified border agency, we are responsible for america's -- securing america's borders against all threats through

enhanced -- deploying security and facilitating the lawful flow of people and goods entering the united states. as the committee is aware, the u.s. department of justice instituted a zero-tolerance prosecution initiative on april 6, 2018. it reinforced what the united states border patrol has known for many years. consequences are most effective when delivered consistently and without delay. on may 5, 2018, the u.s. border patrol began increased referrals for prosecution of all amenable adults for violations of eight usc 13 a under this initiative. the law is not ambiguous. any alien that enters or attempts to enter the united states at a place other than a designated port of entry has committed a violation. throughout several decades, the limitedder patrol has

various enforcement operations and prosecution initiative as a means to deal with illegal entry. while increased the volume for prosecution, live always had a law enforcement miss you and -- mission and responsibility. i want to dispel the myth that prosecuting illegal border or separating children is unique to zero-tolerance or to this administration. to be clear, we are prosecuted adults who have crossed illegally with their children under prior administrations. as with any other law enforcement agency in this country, a parent who is prosecuted for a violation of law cannot bring their children .ith them into criminal custody on june 20, 20 18, immediately following the president's dxecutive order, cbp extende

and maintain family unit. of theng issuance executive order, cbp reunified over 500 children in our custody with parents. appearance are no longer being referred for prosecution under zero-tolerance, cbp will continue to prioritize the welfare of the children. separation may be required if the aaron's a danger to the child, have a series criminal history or have a communicable disease. going forward, implementation of the zero policy -- zero tolerance policy will be initiated for those who cross the border illegally. before taking questions, i want to clarify how they fit into the -- how cbp fits in. cbp conducts initial processing of illegal aliens in facilities designed to hold individuals for less than 72 hours. these are not long-term

detention facilities like those operated by our partners at immigrations and customs enforcement in the department of health and human services. hhsork closely with ice and to transfer individuals to their custody as expeditiously as possible. it is important to know the short-term holding facilities we operate meet the standards of surgeansport export policy and cbp complies with the legal requirements of the settlement agreement. our commitment to consistent and fair enforcement of the law is demonstrated on a daily basis by the integrity, unbiased factionalism, and compassion that the men and whether it of cbp -- women of cbp towards those we encounter. we do not leave our humanity behind when we report for duty. as acting chief of the border patrol, i cannot be prouder to represent the men and women who

dedicate their lives in support of cbp's mission. them.nored to work beside ultimately, border security is national security. enforcement of immigration law is a foundation of a secure border and a secure nation, and i look forward to continuing to work to the west -- with the committee for this. i look forward to your questions. chairman grassley, wreaking member feinstein, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the homeland and ensure the integrity of our nation's immigration system through enforcement of our countries immigration laws and in particular its roles and family reunification efforts. extremely complex, and in many cases outdated and full of loopholes. this makes it difficult for people to understand what ice does to protect the people of the country.

this is no more evident than around the zero-tolerance policy and the immigration crisis. today i would like to discuss the impact this policy and has had on ice operations and the tremendous effort and successes on the part of the dedicated women and men who performed with professionalism and -- and despite the false allegations and misinformation that a propagated by those who do not support the immigration laws passed by congress. led and haven insured national security and public safety. execute our immigration laws in such a way that limited resources will have a great 2017, on security and in ice arrested more than 27,000 aliens with criminal convictions and pending criminal charges. means we are, this

.oved 11,000 more criminals these aliens were responsible for the following convictions or charges. when and 76,000 dangerous drug offenses, 48,000 assault weapons, or than 11,000 offenses, 5000 sexual assault offenses, 2000 kidnapping offenses, in 1800 homicide offenses. in 2017 and 2018, nearly nine out of every 10 aliens arrested came to our attention after their arrest for a local, state, or federal criminal violation, with the vast majority criminal aliens. on april 6, 2018, the attorney general announced the zero policy-- zero-tolerance which customs and border protection preferred aliens arrested for illegally entering the country along the south best

-- southwest counties. cbp transfer these adults to the u.s. marshals service pending prosecution. when this occurred, adults became unavailable to provide care to the children they were traveling. the child without a parent or underguardian falls general laws and have to be transferred to health and human services within 72 hours. role is involved in transferring to dhhs. the district court for the seven district of california had a --ss action ordered reunification

of class members with children unlessd been separated the apparent affirmatively, knowingly had brain education. reunited children under five years old with eligible parents per the court order. under 5, 57hildren children were reunified and the remaining work in a little -- and eligible and could not be reunified because the pair was in criminal custody or removed. 2018, a report filed with u.s. district court, 1442 of the 2000 550 185 and above were identified as members were reunified with parents and none have been removed. theseurt order to reunite

families required ice to prioritize these reunions other over dressing needs, including the removal of those individuals with no right to remain. it required an unprecedented level of coordination to improve the temporary assignments. as field offices servicing reunification operated 24/7 to get reification with parents. it is important to note that the has led to aliens failing to appear for court hearings and failure to comply, but has incited smugglers to place children into the hands of adult strangers so they can pose as families and be released after crossing the border. would enablee laws dhs to maintain family unity throughout the immigration hearings. additionally, these individuals

if are removed and most are, it will out for the execution of these orders as opposed to simply adding to an already overwhelming fugitive docket of .ver 540,000 these changes are outlined in my written testimony. dhhs and ice are contaminating -- continuing to examine a permanent fix and it is essential. congress must act and update the laws that are prone to abuse. they need to provide ice with the funding to ensure the families can be kept together throughout their immigration proceedings. thank you again. i questions. chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee, it is my honor to appear on the behalf of the health and human services. i am a clinical social worker and a career officer in u.s.

public health service. i have served in hhs under three presidents. i am assigned to the office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response. i previously served as the deputy director of refugees resettlement for unaccompanied alien children's program as a senior career official. i believe there is a need for clarity on the services that hhs abides every day to unaccompanied children and its care. the quality of care provided by hhs for children is excellent. to agency takes any reports the contrary seriously and investigates appropriately. all children in our over 100 facilities receive medical, dental, and mental health care. most facilities are monitored at both state and federal levels, and the high standard of care for kids is the same for american children in licensed residential care settings across

the country. we provide the children ramming that includes education, a creation of outdoor sports, arts and crafts and physical activity . children in our facilities receive three meals a day as well as snacks. at all times, it hhs knows the names and locations of all children who are in care. two months, hhs has provided nearly 85 members of the house and senate and more than 50 media outlets with tours of our facilities. after touring our facilities, staff has commented on the quality care we provide. i know there has been frustration of late on congresses ability to act fast, our top priority is the children in our care. minimize strain, we require any visitors to

coordinate visits with us in advance. for yourthis committee assistance in the coordination of the many facility visits in the past few weeks. where these children are concerned, the on fortunate -- the unfortunate reality is this, the children have in many cases been targeted by gangs, they have been smuggled, and they have been trafficked. smugglers and traffickers arrange fraudulent parenting of child get children to allow them to enter the u.s. easily. risk foraren't high human trafficking in their own country. to the the journey here u.s. and also in our country. the senate has investigated this problem. the subcommittee helped uncover how in 2014 a number of children were placed in the hands of human traffickers who forced them to work everyday for 12 hours a day.

these were threatened with death if they didn't work. it is important to make sure we never repeat the mistakes of the past, which is why the number one priority is the safety of the children. that publicd attention has recently been focused primarily on separated children. most of the miners hhs is responsible crossed into the u.s. alone. in 2017, children were referred to our care from dhs. the average length of stay there in our care was 41 days. as of this morning, hhs has 11,316 miners in our care. overall, releases and the majority of our care are typically parents are close relatives. 9% of those children were released -- 49% were released to a parent.

10% released to a distant relative like a cousin or family friend. since the president's executive order, the secretary of hhs has erected all reasonable actions to comply with court orders including we education of members,with eligible which is parents from home they were separated by the department of homeland security and prioritize che -- child safety. i'm june 22, hhs secretary directed office of the assistant secretary for preparedness and response to help work with dhs and its operating divisions to reunified children with class members. the key steps in that plan for numberg custody include one, identifying the parents location. number two confirming no cause to doubt parentage. number three, reviewing criminal backgrounds and case management records to make sure there are no concerns about the child's

safety going to the parent. number four, interviewing the parent to confirm the parent wants to be unified with the child. if those checks establish eligibility, then we transport the child to the parent for family reunification. leadeffort required us to a management team and field teams of federal staff and contractors totaling more than 200 responses. hhs has completed the reunification process for those parents in ice detention who are eligible for reunification within the definition of the court. we know our work is not over. we continue to make all efforts in cooperation with organizations to work to identify another relative or appropriate sponsor who can quickly and safely take care of the child. we are undertaking this challenge of separating children in the best interest of the child standard which has been our mission since 2002 when hhs inherited the responsibility.

i want to close by thinking the women and men who work in the hhs facilities and care for children. their dedication ensures that aree children, many whom fleeing the violence, gangs, and severe poverty, and many less suffered trauma both at home and on the difficult journey to guarantee the kids get care, services, and safety. thank you for letting me speak today. i'm glad to take any questions. memberchairman, ranking feinstein, and other distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding the role in the current situation related to family reunification's. this is an important and sensitive subject and we welcome the opportunity to address it. the mission statement is to enforce the law and defend the interest of the united states according to the law, ensure public safety, to provide federal leadership in preventing

and controlling crime, to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all americans. the department's mission is exemplified by playing three roles relevant to the current situation. first, the department rigorously enforce his criminal laws passed by congress through the attorneys offices and in conjunction with the marshall service and bureau of prisons. it plays a crucial role in enforcing laws and seeking punishment for those guilty. it applies to immigration crimes and other categories of crimes. section 13 of executive order 1376 directed the attorney toeral to allocate resources ensure the border prosecutions enforcing immigration laws passed by congress are high priority of the department. on april 11, 2017, the attorney general issued a memorandum to federal prosecutors outlining

certain immigration offenses, including improper entry under the code as high priorities. on april 6, 2018, the attorney general issued another memorandum entitled zero-tolerance for offenses under eight 1325a. this directed a zero-tolerance policy and all offenses referred by prosecution under this the department of homeland security. the attorney general memo remains in force today and illegal or improper entry among other crimes remains a prosecution priority of the department. furthermore, the president restated the prior tatian -- prioritization under an executive order which also reiterated that the current policy is to rigorously enforce immigration laws passed by congress. the debarment of justice does not dictate what cases are referred for prosecution, nor does it maintain a general exemption from criminal

restitution for parent. the department has no operation or logistical role in the care or processing of aliens for removal, regardless whether they are adults or children. a role ines not play the reunification process. criminal proceedings are separate from simone -- civil proceedings. for a legal entry under zero-tolerance by itself does not foreclose an alien's ability to make a claim to remain in the united states. consequently, depending on the circumstances, he or she may make a claim or alternatively may elect to be removed from or voluntarily depart the united states. if an adult alien makes a claim to remain in the united states, that claim is directed to the department of homeland security. it may eventually be reviewed by an immigration judge in the executive office for immigration

review, which is the second role-played in the department. unaccompanied alien children will also have their cases heard by an immigration judge. the issue of family separation and reunification has reached , subject tocourts removal. consequently i may be limited in my ability to be a look to speak to current issues because they are in litigation or are directed to another agency. the department of justice recognizes the seriousness of the present situation and is advising about the department of homeland security and health and human services as they continue to abide by federal courts on these matters. the current system faces numerous challenges. added to these is the current situation regarding family separations and reunification. nevertheless is the formal title of executive order indicates,

according congress an opportunity to address family separation, department of justice stands ready to work with congress to enter challenges and improve existing laws to avoid reoccurrence of the present situation. i look forward to answering the committee's questions today. thank you. >> thank you. chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing alongside my colleagues from dhs, department of justice and department of health and human services. my name is jennifer higgins, associate director of the refugee asylum and international operations directorate at u.s. citizenship and immigration services. my testimony will focus on the role of uscis and the expedite all removal process, the primary framework in which we encounter families arriving at the southwest border. immigration and nationality act expedited removal of

individuals arriving in the united states without proper documentation. 2004, dhs expanded expedited removal to individuals apprehended within 100 miles of u.s. landlord or, within 14 -- u.s. land border or within 14 days of illegal entry. all placed within removal proceedings are subject to mandatory detention and prompt return to country of origin. however, if a single adult or family unit indicates to ice they have a fear of persecution, torture or return, the law requires these individuals be referred to uscis for assessment of protection concerns. it is commonly referred to as a credible fear screening. credible fear interviews are conducted by specially trained uscis officers. these officers comprise professional cadre within uscis dedicated full-time to the adjudication and screening of. protection claims they have diverse.

data protection claims. . attorneys, toal former immigration attorneys, from prior law enforcement officers the former social workers. despite the diverse backgrounds, they are all driven by the mission to provide this country's protection to those eligible while remaining fully focused on entering integrity of the mission and protecting our country against those who seek to do us harm. all officers conducting screenings are extensively trained in national security issues, country conditions, interview techniques, credibility determinations, fraud detection and u.s. and refugee asylum law. during the interview these officers question individuals about their identity, their fear of persecution or torture if returned to country of origin and whether there are circumstances that may make them and eligible for asylum.

uscis conducts security checks and critic biographic and biometric checks and ordinance with ice and other authorities if there is any reason to believe that an individual may have engaged in criminal activity or poses a security threat. under u.s. law, an individual establishes credible fear when he or she demonstrates there is significant possibility that he or she could establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal or release under the convention against torture. if the individual establishes credible fear, uscis places that individual in removal proceedings where he or she can seek asylum or other forms of relief before immigration judges. a positive credible fear screening determination by uscis does not confer any immigration status. it is simply a screening process, employed to identify individuals who may potentially merit protection, while the decision on asylum eligibility or other forms of relief for

such cases rests with an immigration judge. if uscis determines an individual does not have credible fear, he or she is subject to removal unless the individual requests an immigration judge review the screening determination. our role is limited but it is an important one. to screen those who qualify, screen out those who don't and protect the integrity of the process. uscis has more than 100 officers conducting credible fear screenings around the country, conducting on average, 350 to 400 interviews each day. in response to the president's executive order, we have deployed staff continuously to 10 major detention facilities in the border region including, two family residential centers in texas. oure fiscal year 2013, dedicated workforce has completed over 385,000 credible fear cases under the extremely short timeframe demanded by the expedited removal process.

our officers have demonstrated to demonstrate extraordinary commitment to the mission and u.s. immigration law, working tirelessly to keep pace with increasing by aims of credible fear requests while producing high-quality decisions. thank you again for the opportunity to explain the uscis role in the expedited removal process. i would be happy to answer questions. >> i have already said we will have seven minute rounds. i hope that members will stop at the end of seven minutes. you folks can answer the question, if the seven minutes have run out. i will start. your family residential center is referred to as places to keep children behind bars. this description seems to me in contrast to the law and the standards. what they require. ice family residential centers,

arey understanding, structured like communities with family, medical, recreation, dental offices, cafeterias, commissaries, a hearing room for judges to lawyers, give full attention to the claims of residents. i'm also concerned about recent reports of abuse. claimed thattimes migrant women were being sexually abused by guards, in custody. if that is true that is unacceptable. what steps does ice take to investigate and respond to all allegations of abuse at these centers? what steps does ice take to protect or prevent such abuses and punish offenders? let me also add this question. what steps are being taken by ice to ensure no undocumented immigrant families suffer from

forms of physical or mental abuse while in ice custody? >> thank you for your question. our family residential centers, as with all detention facilities, undergo a rigorous inspection process, oversight process. any allegations of abuse or wrongdoing occurring in any detention facility to include rc's is automatically reported to the joint intake center. that is reporting of allegations going directly to dhs, the inspector general. the office of inspector general has the ability to take any allegations or investigation and will do so if they feel evidence warrants an investigation. those they choose not to investigate could be investigated by ice, office of professional responsibility. in addition, normal oversight processes our facilities have

included the department of homeland security's civil crcl, the office of professional responsibility within ice. we are required to be inspected and meet licensing standards. we have detention service monitors that work for ice, that work for the custody management branch they go to facilities on a daily basis. we have officers in these facilities on a going basis. the bestrd to frc's, way to describe them is to be more like a summer camp. these individuals have access to money for seven food and water -- 24/7 food and water, educational opportunities, recreational opportunities, both structured and unstructured. courts,ll exercise classes. they have extensive medical, dental and mental health opportunities. many individuals, this is the first opportunity they had seen

a dentist is when they come to one of our frc's. when they leave, they leave with seven sets of clothing for each individual within the frc. while they are there they have access to pro bono legal opportunities. there is a legal orientation program there. there are many ngos that work in those facilities on a daily basis to provide assistance and support once they are released in the community. i'm very comfortable with the level of service and protection being provided in the frc's. video on the frc's, our website where one can go onto there and see the conditions of the frc's. >> you have given a thorough answer but i would like to provide a detailed report on what steps are being taken to practices tove protect immigrant families.

i hope you can say yes to that. >> yes, sir. >> i think your description would be what is required federal law. if you have not described things that are federal law or your own internal policies, give me an answer on that but i think you have kind of describe that, haven't you? --much of what i required much of what i described is required under federal law. ice has some of the most rigorous detention standards in the country, including other federal and state agencies. some are rooted in law, some and policy. hopetorneys are allowed i to confer with residents, and residents are allowed to make phone calls about their immigration cases? >> that is correct. >> still continuing with you, sir. many parents elect to be removed and leave their children behind. this is a difficult concept for me to understand, as a parent

and grandparent. the reality is that many undocumented migrants leave their children behind. some of my colleagues will say that ice is coercing these parents into leaving their children behind. a recent political article 75% of parentsas deported without their children did not give informed consent for that action. i would like to better understand how reunification options are explained. ice officers coercing parents to be deported, to leave their children behind as politico suggested? >> no. there is long-standing ice policies which dictate how reunification may occur for an individual being maintained and going for immigration process. if the adult is being detained, the child cannot be kept in that

same adult facility. there are times during the course of process during which the adult may be bonded out by an immigration judge or for a medical reason, where they will have the ability, if bonded out, to proceed to sponsor their of hhs, the normal procedures that they have. if that individual is held in custody during the immigration process and at the end of that ofprocess is ordered to be remd by an immigration judge, that individual will have the opportunity to request their child be removed with them to their home countries. we work closely with consulate officials, attorneys these individuals may have to facilitate that. a great many of these individuals do not wish to have their child return home with them. the reason most individuals have come here in the first place, is to get their children to the united states. many individuals pay their life savings to get their children into the united states. they pay smugglers, subjected

themselves and the children to a high level of risk and the journey north but once they have gotten a child here, many times to another parent in the country illegally or other relatives here illegally, a lot of times they will not want to take that child back with them and risk having to make the journey again. they have succeeded by getting their child here. as we have seen by the individuals arrested during the zero tolerance program, many are repeat offenders. they had been reported previously, they have criminal records in the united states. living here illegally, and removed. it is easier for them to try to leave their child here and then tried to reenter the country as a single adult. >> senator feinstein and then i will set out a minute. senator hatch will be after senator feinstein. >> thanks very much mr. chairman. i would like to have a conversation with you commander. >> yes ma'am.

>> this goes back to the year 2000, i happened to be watching television and i saw a young chinese girl, maybe 12 years old, before an immigration judge in seattle. she was manacled hand and foot, she could not understand the judge, the tears were pouring down her face. that was in the days when people were coming in in containers, some died, some survived, she was a survival. we did a bill called the unaccompanied alien child protection act of 2000 which and putldren out of ice them in hhs. the bill also provided for pro bono and legal help which did not make it into the final bill, which i am now told, was the homeland security act of 2002. has picked that up and done that part of a bill,

probably better than i did it. but i am happy to be her cosponsor. there is a long and emotional history. byas so struck this morning the fact that there are 11, 316 miners in care of hhs today. minors in care of hhs today. in my understanding, those , how didre down all of this happen? it appears to me when border patrol agents or separating families at the border, they did not adequately document the family units. to your knowledge, with the children you have, what kind of documentation do they bring with them when they are arrested or

across the border or go through a port of entry, wherever it is, that is helpful to you? >> thank you, senator. mechanism for referring , byild into the care of orr cbp, butency, typically it can also be ice, they have limited access to the i.t. system used iv program which is called the ac portal. they have the ability to refer to that portal and in the case of cbp, they can make a referral starting with their system. just say it like it is. do not worry about it. >> this is a novel situation. there have always been some typicallyarated,

because of serious criminal charges faced by the parents or other concerns. >> let me interrupt you. we had a briefing that senator grassley arranged for some of us. senator durbin and senator leahy were there. we were briefed. i thought the number was 50% to 20% -- 15% to 20% at the highest. >> that is approximately the recent number. prior to our recent reunification, it is a smaller proportion now. >> thank you. continue. the majority of children aren't in that category? >> correct. even at the point when we launched reunification efforts, 80% of the miners and care are traditional unaccompanied alien children. those who enter the united states without a parent or legal guardian, were apprehended without a parent or legal guardian separate from those who

were separated. how do you identify them? have you connect them with a parent. system iso me the unworkable or we would not be where we are today. >> the systems were not set up to have referrals include parent information. in some cases when the referral was made it was noted that the minor was separated and it may have had an alien number. what we have done is we had a data team look at ice, cbp and hhs data and scrubbed those systems against one another in order to identify the matching of parent the child. >> that alien number, when it olds with the child, how does the child have to be to have an alien number and how do they carry it with them? r is identified

with an alien number. >> how about a baby? >> a baby referred to us would also have an alien number. >> where would that alien number be on the baby? >> it would not be on the baby, it would be in the electronic referral of the child to our care. >> how do they connect? how does the electron referral -- electronic referral connect to a child eight months old? 24/7ferral is made to our 365 intake desk in orr which identifies the best bed for that child based on age and needs. is conveyedtion back to cbp and typically in the case of most order of branches, it would be ice that would bring that child to that location

designated. s> let's go to the 11,316 minor in care today. how many are under the age of five? >> i don't have that number with me. >> could you get that definitive number two us? >> absolutely. -- could you get that definitive number to us? >> absolutely. >> i have the numbers from doj. children in care from orr, 220, adult red flag from background check, 21, adult red flag from case file review, 46, adult released to the interior, 79 children, adults outside the u.s., 349. these are likely parents

deported and adult location under case file review, 94. is this filing correct? i can give you a copy of it if you want. >> that reflects the numbers at the time of the filing. >> are the correct numbers? >> they were at the time of the filing. they have changed subsequently. they are correct as of the date. >> i would like to get the changes. thank you very much. >> senator hatch. >> thank you mr. chairman. for convening this important meeting, this important hearing. we can all agree that the last several months have been a challenging time for immigration enforcement. the family separation crisis at the southern border has revealed significant problems with our immigration laws and the ways they are administered. the president did the right thing last month when he signed an executive order to put a halt

to the separation of parents and children who enter our country unlawfully. i read a letter to the attorney general, with a number of my colleagues asking for a halt to family separation. i will be following up this week with another letter requesting information about the administration three unification efforts and the barriers that remain for reuniting children with their parents. i hope we can avoid the urge to make this a political football. there are very strong feelings on all sides of this debate, as there should be. these are extremely important issues. finding a productive way forward requires cool heads and a willingness to compromise. andplaud chairman grassley sen. tillis: senator cruz, senator feinstein, senator leahy and so forth for their efforts on this front. i hope discussions will continue

so we can find a solution that is fair to families, responsive to humanitarian needs and consistent with our rule of law. make this question for the whole panel. in fact this is a question for whoever happens to have information on hand. i will take an estimate. what percentage of individuals who enter our country unlawfully are families with children? thank you for the question, senator. >> sure. >> right now approximately 25% of the individuals we apprehend are part of a family unit. another 15% of total apprehensions are unaccompanied children. that -- how has that percentage changed in recent years and if it has increased, what in your view is the cause of the increase? >> the numbers have been

increasing over the last few years. when werted in 2014, saw a large spike in both areas. 2010,rted to see rises in unaccompanied and 2013 but the biggest bike was 2014. there were many push and pull factors -- the biggest spike was 2014. there was many push and pull factors, the fact that family in beand children detained or do not make it to court within 20 days is certainly a pull factor that is leading to an increase in those numbers. doesthout new legislation, the administration have any so-called to resume catch and release policies for individuals caught entering our country unlawfully with children? do they have any other choice? anyone? reporter: if you're talking about -- >> if you're talking about

detaining family units or children, per as the florez agreement, they cannot be detained longer than 20 days. it is virtually impossible to have immigration hearings, the entire process which may include credible fear of you, be completed within 20 days. -- may include credible fear review, be completed within 20 days. it would be years down the road before they might have a hearing. to my understanding, part of the problem here is that the central district of california flores consenthe decree applies to accompanied and unaccompanied children. in your view, is that the best

reading of the flores decree -- do you think the central district got it right? if not, does the administration have any available evidence for appellate review? i understand the ninth circuit looked at the review. did the government seek cert? avenue inny available which the government might be able to seek? consent decree is not a typical subject for supreme court review, but this is a nationwide importance. i would appreciate it. >> the presidents executive order in june or earlier this year, among other things directed the department of justice to seek modification of the degree. the department did file something, the judge rejected that. we're still debating internally

what the next steps are what options we should take. >> we got to move forward on that, it seems to me. one other question. really heard a lot about alternatives to detention programs. the allegedly high success are thereates, reasons to think if we expand these programs, the percentage of participants who appear for removal proceedings will remain the same? are there reasons to think the percentage would decrease? how our participants selected for these programs -- how are participants selected for these programs? >> the detention program has proven fairly successful with regard to have individuals appear for appointments with ice and at hearings. however, the ultimate goal of the immigration enforcement continuum is the execution of the judge's order at the end of those immigration proceedings,

whether the individual goes to cas and gets a green card or whatever benefit, or when a judge orders the individual to be removed, that we are able to effectuate that removal. it is proven to be woefully unsuccessful in leading to removals. in fiscal year 2017, there was $183 million assigned to the atd program. that led to 2000 3400 removals. 200,034 removals. days,e length of stay, 40 plus $1600. if you have a process, which at the end of it the judge's order means nothing because the individual does not appear after receiving the order or continues to file frivolous appeals, we are spending taxpayer money. >> senator leahy. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

stranger and stranger as we hear this, i know the president's policy of systematically separating infants and toddlers from their families, seems to me to be a betrayal of american democrat.publican or i think that is why so many in this country stood up and said, that has to change. now we're trying to pick up that -- now we're trying to pick up the pieces, we have children separated from their families. being directed to separate families under the zero-tolerance policy, what instructions to the white house

or secretary of homeland security provide your agency for how to ensure every single separated child. i did with their parents? besk this -- separated child reunited with her parents? -- reunited with their parents? dhs secretary, 100% of the parents referred to prosecution. for kind of guidance did you have? >> thank you for your question, sir. under zero-tolerance the prosecution 100% for all amenable adults. it was not focused on anyone demographic. during the timeframe of the 45 days between may 5 and june 20, we referred approximately, we

apprehended approximately 42,000 individuals. >> did you have guidelines you had to follow? had you been given guidelines from the attorney general's office or the department of homeland security? >> in alignment with the and hererance from doj, on may 5 put out a memorandum. we began working with the department of justice to prosecute. >> was there specific guidance of what to do? >> i'm sorry sir in relation --? >> the separation of children. >> that is not an area that cbp deals with in that aspect. >> somebody does. >> we deal with the prosecution. as the commander said earlier, we have a system of record we import all information into to include alien number and any family members. we have juvenile coordinators. we work hand-in-hand with staff

at hhs. >> i know. i have heard the stories. >> and advice. >> -- and of ice. >> i have heard of one-year-old infants being before the judges. , um, they areup removed from their parents. there has to be some kind of system to ensure the children could be matched to their parents? >> this is where we are working closer with our partners at hhs and ice. the initiative was a prosecution initiative and our focus was prosecuting. >> i was a prosecutor. i have never known a zero-tolerance, any prosecutor wanted a zero-tolerance on anything because it doesn't work. there is not a one-size-fits-all. here is an easy way.

there is a really easy way to do it. cheese uses things like this to check parents and their children while they are there. there wasn't anything like this, right? >> we provide information on all family members through system of record e3 to hhs individuals. if we have a child they have an alien registration number given to them it's a new family members. in our system we track family members. >> why do we have separated children that they cannot find the parents? >> i would have to defer to my partners. my focus is on border security, the apprehensions, we have short-term holding facilities. >> anyone want to tell us why? >> at no time do we not know where any adults in ice custody were.

however, once an individual is no longer within ice custody, we do not track that individual, whether they are in the united states released on bond or deported to a foreign country. , you you have children don't know where the parents are? they could go years, maybe forever, before being reunited? commander? >> the system we are required by law to follow in hhs is that governed by the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act. until a judge ordered us to affect reunification's with parents in ice detention, all those parents in detention were while they were detained in eligible by law to service sponsors. to be clear, we always have a system in hhs, to find sponsors,

generally parents or close family members, for all the children in our care. >> and we have any children now in custody where we don't know where their parents are? >> there remain a few, where we do not know the location of the parents, particularly where the parents have removed or voluntarily departed the united states. we have a larger number of those. >> let me ask you another question. ice has a homeland security tip line, they have a call center in my home state. it has been traditionally focused on receiving tips on major crimes like terrorism and human trafficking. now, the tip line has changed. you can call it. i did. you have options. number one.

separate -- report suspected undocumented immigrants. may be your neighbor or someone working down the street. go all the way down to number four. report terrorism. go all the way down to number six. reporting crimes against children. number eight. report gang activity. does that seem like a great ordering of priorities? ice isou know, senator, divided into two operational components, homeland security investigations and removal operations. does.ot speak to it hsi >> answer the question. does that seem to you like a great priority, report your neighbor who might be an illegal immigrant? number eight, report gang

activity or number four, terrorism? on the face of it, does that seem like priorities are set straight? >> i cannot speak to it. i don't think it has anything to do with the relevancy of the information they are trying to report. i believe they get over 100,000 tips a year. is a way they can categorize tips so they know where to find them out. here.nk you all for being i want to start by thanking you for your service your country -- for your service to our country, and not only you but the people you represent. i know you do your best to enforce the laws congress writes and are passed into law a net is what you are doing today and that is what the people who work with you do. congressur fault that has been unable to come up with a more sensible system of

enforcing immigration laws. it is our responsibility, not yours. please convey our gratitude to the people you are representing. are the organizations that weapons, traffic in women and children for sex and forced labor and who smuggle economic migrants in the united states, are those one in the same organization or are they different? >> as you know senator, there are numerous different transnational criminal organizations. what we have seen over the last two years is they have spread out into doing more than just one thing. we have organizations that smuggle drugs and also illegal aliens across the border. they treat individuals like a

commodity, not like people. it is of great concern to us. the dangers of crossing our border, you know very well, it is very dangerous. this year along we have rescued over 2800 individuals and tragically we have lost at least 180. that does not include the individuals that parish on the dangerous route through mexico. >> the cartels and criminal organizations are commodity agnostic? >> i would say so. >> right now they are making millions of dollars under the status quo. if they can effectively circumvent our immigration enforcement or exploit on her abilities and our law and successfully place illegal immigrants in the united states and read thousands of dollars for each one, they are benefiting economically under

the status quo? >> yes sir. what if we decided to abolish ice. what would be the impact on our country? terms of public safety? >> the public safety impact would be huge, in addition to immigration enforcement radio, which arrested 127,000 individuals with criminal convictions last year. our homeland security branch does a significant amount of work with regard to drugs and narcotics, child predators, cybercrime. i would also say, you cannot have strong border security with a void in the interior. if an individual knows they can come to the country and try and try and try and eventually get past border patrol, and that there is no chance of any

enforcement being taken against them, you will never have border security. if you're getting rid of the interior forstmann arm -- interior enforcement arm, you want border patrol to make arrests and stop people there but once they get by border patrol, let them go. you're not against illegal entry, you are against attempted illegal entry. >> if ice was no longer in existence and no longer enforced our laws in the interior of the united states, for the primary victim of that be the minority communities in which many of these people operate? >> these minority communities are the primary victims now because these individuals are involved in gang activity and criminal activity and generally commit crimes against those in the same communities in which they reside. is familyprimary goal unification, which we all share, why not just keep the child with

the adult and enforce the law? >> senator, the issue there is settlementthe flores agreement and the determination wee by the courts in 2015, can no longer detain individuals longer than 20 days. no child, not just unaccompanied children. >> that means that if somebody violates our immigration laws by entering the country illegally, if they bring a child with them, you cannot detain them longer than 20 days? >> that is correct. >> you must release them and rely on their promise to reappear at some future date for a court hearing if they claim some immigration benefit like asylum? >> that is correct. what the settlement agreement has done is effectively imposed traditionally mandated catch and release for individuals that

have family units. >> that is the status quo in this congress acts? >> correct. -- unless congress acts? >> correct. >> let me ask you about the correlation between drug smugglers and human smuggling. the opioid crisis is wreaking terrible havoc on americans, both prescription drugs and drugn, which is the next of choice if you cannot get prescription drugs because it is cheaper and more available. the dea said 16,000 americans died of overdoses in 2017. 90% of that heroin comes from mexico, according to the dea. according to information i have received, the drug smugglers use the fact that border patrol and other law enforcement are tied up administering and seeing to the

needs of these children and family units as a way to distract border patrol from smuggling of heroin and other illegal drugs into the united states. is that correct? >> that has been my personal experience and it is certainly the experience that my men and women are having to deal with today. >> once again in addition to huge fees charged by these cartels to smuggle people in the united states, in addition to that they are also profiting by the poison that is being exported from places like mexico into the united states, killing americans as we speak? >> yes or. -- yes, sir. >> senator durbin. >> thank you mr. chairman. a judge appointed by a republican president george w. bush ordered the reunification of separated families. the practice of

separating families was implemented without any effective system or procedure for tracking the children, after they were separated from parents. the enabling communication between parents and communication after separation, reuniting the parents and children. " commander, your expertise as public health. were you consulted? was your agency consulted before the zero-tolerance policy was put into effect so that you could address the issues that the judge raised? >> senator, to be clear, my last 15, three was march weeks prior to the announcement. as of that date, neither i nor any staff reporting to me were advised of the impending zero-tolerance policy announcement. the factou aware of

that the zero-tolerance policy was going to be proposed? >> i was aware because i had been in discussions at that point for more than a year, of policies which could result in the separation of children from family units and their referral, however those were only policy discussions, as proposals. many proposals are discussed in federal branch agencies that never become policy. as of my last day in the role, when i would ask questions about family separation i was advised that was not the policy of the united states. >> you left when? >> march 15, 2018. >> this policy started in april? >> this is my understanding. >> might as well. two weeks before this was implemented you were told this was not the policy. you are not aware of any efforts to consolidate public health

professionals about the disposition of these children and the treatment of these children under this policy? >> i couldn't speak to whether there were or weren't i can only say there were none with me. >> i think the judge's observation is accurate based on what you have told us. it is hard to imagine, isn't it? the united states of america says we're going to start separating kids forcibly from their parents? are not going to set up a system of tracking those kids so we can find them are matching the backup, we're just going to separate them. 2700 children were separated. senator leahy and others, there were basic ways we could have kept track of children and parents in this age of computers and plastic bracelets. they did not do it. let me ask you a question if i might, about the parents and the situation. last thursday the administration stated in a court filing, parents of 431 separated children in hhs custody are not

and 90united states, cannot be located at all. they federal judge quoted "the government is at fault for losing several hundred parents in the process." according to secretary nielsen of the department of homeland security she said "all of these adults who left without their kids, left based on a decision to leave their children." you made a similar claim in our last briefing. last week, administration official told politico as many parents maye 431 have departed the united states without being given the option to take their kids with them. do you stand by your and secretary nelson statement and do you have documentation showing each parent made an informed decision to leave behind children? previously, it

has been long-standing ice holocene for parents -- ice policy for parents be removed from the country, to have that child go with them, should they choose to do so. that is a process that has been followed for many years. process, wehat cannot remove an individual to their home country without a travel document. if that parent wishes to take a child with them, we would work with that officer to help facilitate the issuance of travel documents. to get the document for that at all, those adults are interviewed. one question officers asked -- >> cut to the chase. is there a piece of paper saying that a parent abandon a child? ofre clearly must be a piece paper signed by that parent before our government would let that happen. is the documentation for what you claim? >> right now the form we're decision is anhe

aclu developed form approved by the court. >> i know you can get a yes or no. >> we are using a form developed by the aclu and approved by the court to document the decision. >> when did that start? >> i want to say, that form itself, was july 6. don't hold me on the date. prior to that, we utilize additional forms. >> you could produce documentation showing these parents, 431 parents abandoned their children voluntarily? >> we can go into each file and see the records, as well as the paper records and electronic records. thise premier case on involves a woman from the congo who i have met, whose daughter was separated from her by 2000 miles. she was basically bargained into giving up her rights to even claim asylum in this country if

she ever wanted to see her daughter again. that is what she faced. that is why her case continues to this day. let me ask one last thing. a former obama official made an observation, this relates to your testimony, about the diversion of resources from ice to this effort of reunifying children. here is what he said. "the beneficiaries of trumps policy are drug smugglers, coyotes and gang members, burning our resources on this family effort." i was last friday at the customs and border patrol with agents at o'hare, as they are sifting through millions of packages coming into the united states, trying to stop the flow of narcotics, fentanyl and other things coming into the country. my guess is, most americans would say to you and your agency, stop the drugs from

coming in here, stop the fentanyl for goodness sakes and stop separating kids from their families and spending your resources and personnel on that effort. wouldn't you agree? >> ice has two operational components. doing humanurity, trafficking and smuggling efforts is not involved in this effort. the reason we had to put additional resources to this effort was the result of the judge's order. >> it was the result of a creation of this policy by this president. zero-tolerance was not created by this judge. the separation of 2700 parents from the children is not a judge's decision. that was your agency's decision and the administration's decision. blame others if you wish but this started with someone in the white house with a bright idea that turned out to be a disaster. >> what i can tell you is that ice has long-standing policy for reunification of children and parents at time of removal.

what is changed as a result of the judge's order is that we needed a new process to facilitate reunification now and release parents from custody who would have otherwise been detained during the pending removal proceedings. that is what was different. >> senator from south carolina. >> let's see if we can organize our thoughts here. the current state of law in the united states is following "if you are unaccompanied minor and apprehended by the u.s. government, you can only be held 20 days." is that correct? >> no, sir, senator. an unaccompanied minor apprehended must be referred by dhs within 72 hours to the office of refugee resettlement in hhs. there is no time limit on how long that minor remains in or our care. it is a child welfare agency. >> what happens to the kids

within 72 hours? >> they receive service and care within our system and they are provided a clinician and case manager. >> do they go back to their home countries? >> some return. >> what percentage? reporter: i don't have that percentage. >> it seems to me that is important. is there a difference in the policy between mexico and canada? minors gopanied through the same at the canadian border at the mexican border? anif we apprehend unaccompanied juvenile from either mexico or canada, dependent upon the juvenile's ability, that they are old enough and have the ability to make a determination, they can be returned to mexico and or respectively canada. for any other unaccompanied children, they have to be put into proceedings. >> if you are a parent living in a bad spot, you can get your

child into the united states, chances are they stay here? >> yes. i don't have the exact number in front of me which we can get. 1.5% to number i saw, 2% return to their home countries. >> if you can get your kid here, you have a 98% chance they will stay in america, is that the number? >> unless they get involved in criminal activity where they come to our attention, generally yes. >> you get a family that is coming here to apply for asylum, we say, i'm sorry we cannot accept your application. they come in a legally -- they come in a legally, they cannot be held over 20 days? illegally, they cannot be held over 20 days? >> yes. >> you are a family unit,

chances are the kid will stay here. if you come as a family, you can only be held for 20 days? >> i would defer to my college in relation to what all ice has the ability to do. >> the maximum time we would be able to hold you was for 20 days. >> what percentage shows up to their hearings after 20 days? >> i don't have a number. >> how do we not have a number? >> it is a small percentage. >> why don't we know that? less than 10%? >> i would have to get back to you. >> does anybody know? reporter: in immigration -- >> in immigration courts we do not track -- >> timeout. you bring your family, get caught at the border, 20 days under the current law because of ores decision, you have to be released to somebody.

is that the law? parentsren who are with can be held in a dhs family -- >> what about the parents? do they have to be let out in 20 days? >> flores decision does not require that. >> what happens to the parents? >> if the parent is going to be held in ice custody, they would have to go to an adult detention facility and the child would have to go to hhs. >> does the parent have to be let out in 20 days? >> no, only if they are with their child. >> the best thing you could do -- this is bizarre -- you come here as a family unit. adults can be held until their hearing. they are not required to be let out by the decision? >> that is correct. >> what would you recommend we do about that? holdve us the authority to

the family as a family unit, during the pending of their immigration removal proceedings and at the conclusion of proceedings, if there granted benefit, they are released and go on to pursue benefit. if they are ordered to be removed, we detain them until removal. someat might dieter people from bringing their children here. >> i would say it would. >> what is the reason we have 11 million illegal immigrants in america? was the main magnet? -- what is the main magnet? the main reason? >> i could not say specifically. >> i will say something. the main reason is to find a job. does that make sense to you? yall are the experts. >> for the children we see -- >> i am talking about adults. does anyone disagree with that?

economicmagnet is opportunity in america versus where they come from? if we don't know i think that is the main reason to if you abolished ice, who would be the biggest winner? >> mothers. senator graham: and if you do not have e-verify, do you think you can ever fix this? >> no, sir. senator graham: you can build a high, they will go around as long as they can get a job. would you say that? >> there are many aspects to order security that impact it. graham: ok. senator grassley: senator whitehouse? i think youehouse:

were in the closed door briefing we had when i asked the previous panel what went wrong. answer one able to thing that went wrong in this calamity. weref our witnesses witnesses in that same proceeding, so i would like to ask the question now that people have had the chance to think about it a bit longer. i will go right across the long, as soon as possible. what went wrong here? dosir, we were directed to 100% prosecutions on amenable adults. the vast majority of the adults 85%rosecuted, approximately were single adults. senator whitehouse: is that a responsive answers my question? what went wrong? toit is our responsibility make the apprehensions and turn

individuals over to ice. so as far ashouse: you concerned, nothing went wrong? >> i -- osseouswhitehouse: the -- obvious solution is nothing went wrong -- -- >> enforcing the law. senator whitehouse: what went wrong? >> as we spoke last time, as i indicated, ice and hhs have long-standing procedures, some govern by law in the case of a hhs -- senator whitehouse: what went wrong? >> i am answering your question. icehe individual is in custody, there is a practice that is followed with regard to reunification procedure at the time of removal. senator whitehouse: what went

wrong? >> the children were separated from their parents and referred to unaccompanied aliens. senator whitehouse: what went wrong? >> i would have to do for my college. senator whitehouse: doesn't the doj have an interest in the consequences of the decision? >> we do not play an operational or logistical role. i would have to defer to my colleagues. senator whitehouse: you washed your hands of this one? >> i do not know if i would describe it this way -- senator whitehouse: what went wrong? >> our role and the process is a narrow one, although important. it is to be able to provide protection screening to individuals seeking asylum, so i would have to defer to my

colleagues on the logistics of the policies in place today. senator whitehouse: is the judge following the law in the orders that are being given to solve the reunification problem, mis-direction rate? -- mr. mchenry? it would not be appropriate for me to internet. youtor whitehouse: w cannot tell me -- >> we are abiding by the judge's orders. any comment would be inappropriate. is therehitehouse: anything that would have prevented real organizations from going through the process that the judge has been forced to undertake to prepare for this? you did it afterwards and the judge told you. couldn't you have done it beforehand if there had been an implementation period? >> senator, we were able to

effect that you reunification of minor with their parents. because the judge ordered us to not follow the trafficking victims protection reauthorization act, we could not have done that about him ordering us to do that. we were prevented by statute. senator whitehouse: was that foreseeable? >> what? senator whitehouse: the consequences of following that act? tothe uac program exist reunify them with sponsors in this country. reunification with those in ice detention is not constitent with statute. what was thet, debut heard of attorney general sessions' april 6 decision to record zero-tolerance?senator

i became aware on april 6. >> i would say on or about that state. senator whitehouse: mr. white him you said march 22 -- >> that is right, i left on the 15th of march and became aware of the announcement of the zero-tolerance policy on television on the sixth of april. house: i assume you knew that this was going to take place before april 6? >> we were advised it was going to be a possibility. senator whitehouse: when were you notified that this decision would be taken? >> only a few days before it came out, so on or about april 6. higgins?hitehouse: ms. but in it was announced, would note our director has

indicated that he was asked to make a recommendation once the decision to made -- was made to prosecute. senator whitehouse: mr. white, i have a few seconds left, how many cases are will wear of of separated children, separated pursuant to this policy, in which it turned out there were fraudulent care -- claims of parentage and there was in fact no family relation between that child and the person claiming heritage or family relation? circum-i do not have that number with me, but we are all aware of those cases. total number, the we have identified it include minors separated prior to and subsequent do the announcement of the zero tolerance policy. we have a number who are

determined to be fraudulent parents. that did occur, and that is an endemic risk -- senator whitehouse: may i have the number if you have a chance? did you get it to me? >> the secretary for legislation will take that. senator whitehouse: is that a good enough answer? [indiscernible] senator whitehouse: i'm not sure. i just asked a question at a hearing, and i am asked to put it in writing to another person. i would like to have a commitment here. i think that is appropriate in a senate hearing. the samerassley: question would be appreciated, if you could respond each person separately. senator whitehouse: so you will get me the answer? thank you. senator grassley: senator tellis? llis: i'm trying

to figure out if i can get these normals number lies -- normalized. answer thatting the rest suits the narrative. can you explain to me again, one, the number of children who have not been yet reunified with her parents? >> yes, sir. : and i want to talk about the reasons why. >> of the children in our care, at the time of the judge's decision who were determined to have been separated or we had indications of separation based 1961 -- excuse, me -- 1992 of those as of this day are no longer in care.

559 remain in care. 559 are theis: number of children who may be able to be reunified with her parents present information you have that have not yet? >> that would include both those who we have not yet reunified, but maybe eligible for reification, such as the remaining miners who might have parents that have been released into the interior or the remaining wants that might have parents who have returned to home country, but it also will include minors who remain in care who were determined not to be eligible to be reunified with her parents -- : because ofis circumstances related to their parents? >> it would be based on either. if we had doubt that they were the parents and we were in the that byof determining objective standards, but more often we identified a safety risk to the child. ice would be based on

summaries that we were provided of background checks. for example, specific parent who were excluded included those who had prior convictions for criminal child abuse. those with prior convictions for exportations, for crimes such as rape, murder, and kidnapping. criminal history by itself per se is not necessarily a bar to reification, but a history that demonstrates a threat to a child, that his written these be among the reasons that a person thed be eligible based on determination, that there are doubts as to the actual parentage or doubt to the safety of the child based on criminal history, or the child making a state to their mental health clinician that the parent had abused them or they had otherwise been harmed. so in the way:

that your response -- maybe it was her opening statement -- to the oor care that these children are a part of -- it is up to this same standards we would have for any child, a u.s. citizen, and the reunified with their parents as to the care and safety of the child. is that being applied similarly? >> the standards that we are required to meet are not as high as the standards for tdpra. i can give examples. consider ordered us to parentage. in the ordinary course, we have to establish parentage, typically by birth certificates that are verified by the consulate of the home country. that is an example. it takes longer to reunify children with parents in the

ordinary process that was permitted under the time frame. senator tillis: we have made progress on some language here, working with senator feinstein and others on the other side of the aisle, to try to figure out a way to get reunification done. mr. mchenry, we had talked about authorizations for judges up to an aggregate of 700, a ratio of so attorneys to each judge we have the right kind of resources to support clearing the docket. we have talked about making sure we have standards for family detentions that are up to the level of quality we want versus the tent cities or other things that people would lead you to believe we would stand up to house families. those are things we have found agreement on, we have a different opinion about how we would have to have language that

tailors the application of -- to the population of children whose parents are in detention. some say you do not need that language. what would you say to that, that you would not need that clarification to be able to keep the family unit together pending processing to the adjudication process? not having seen the exact language, it would be difficult comments. i would say any language that allows or requires us to release those parents prior to the completion of the removal proceedings is going to exacerbate the existing situation -- senator tillis: we were talking about the opposite to allow the children to be with the parents over the 20-day detention period, and the docket is around 40 to 60 days if we prioritize families. we are trying to get clarity for that segment of the population. is that what the apartment needs to keep these families together?

>> it is difficult to speak on any piece of legislation. what we have seen in our experiences, if there is a way that that family, if there is a time frame, 20 or 40 days, if that family is able to delay their process, which requires them to be released prior to the determination and culmination of that process, and that will happen. we have seen appeals on individuals that are here for 10, 12 years, filing frivolous appeal because there is no reason not to. senator tillis: final question i have. the alien identifier, it sounds we have a disconnect where some think we separate these children and we are not tried to do our best in the documentation to keep these family units identified in either electronic or paper records. -- chief, you said you try to link whoever comes

or whoever is apprehended together together, and it sounded like through the process over to aj just that there is identifying information to find that you did the people who are apprehended initially at the border. did i hear that right? >> yes, sir. when we ever had somebody, each individual is given an alien registration number. within our system of record, agents go winur and identify family members related to those individuals and both the narrative of what is called a form i213 and make reference to those we can go back and look at the alien registration of the specific individual and find out who else is associated with them. that includes members beyond just parental, and parental or legal guardian are the only ones that we would refer -- or that

we would be making -- how will i say? -- separating the family unit. aunts,me with cousins, those types of cases. senator tillis: it may be slightly more sophisticated than the chuck e. cheese model in terms of identifying people and families were apprehended? anybody disagree without? best with that? >> neither these information systems nor these programs were specifically built to effect rina vacations of children -- reunification's of children in ice custody. this had to be a novel process does this is not how these programs were designed. senator grassley: senator flow chart -- senator? uchar: there is

nothing about this that seems normal. i have kids in my state that were separated from their parents. i was at the border and met with a number of families, including a mom who was fleeing an abusive husband in honduras, separated from her 10-year-old son, thought she never would see her son again, but because of the court order and the work of people who have been pushing this issue, she did see him again. and he said he knew he would always see his mom again and gave her a hug. i was also to buy something that i do not think it's gotten enough attention to them that is the response to this coldhearted policy from the american people. sister norma running that operation with charities, the thousands of volunteers, americans from all over the country who have gone down there and volunteered, the diapers,

food, clothes, everything we have secret i hope it is not lost. but despite this policy which was an honest mistake of americans have responded, and not just people in this building. my first question is that, at the time of last week's second for theder deadline administration to reunite families that had been separated 17 had kids ages 5 not been reunited with their parents, likely because they were deported. we had one like that in minnesota. i want to address the issues involved in locating carrots who have already been deported to central american countries. other parents may feel they need to relocate in a different part of their countries to escape violence after they had been deported.

how is the administration working to replace -- to address these challenges if these kids that we want to find their parents at the back? we have ones like that. indicated in the prior question, since this is a subject of the ongoing litigation, i cannot provide any different details until such time as that becomes a part of the record. lobuchar: commander white, i'm concerned about what efforts have been made to make sure that sibling groups sit together. aving appeared taken way is traumatic, but losing a sibling is terrifying. a girl was taken to floor was detained in texas. in placehas a policy regarding sibling groups, and can you provide that policy to the committee? >> yes, ma'am.

it is the policy of oor to keep sibling groups together whenever it is possible to do so. i do not know the specific case you are talking about. i am stay little surprise because except when there is a health care issue, it is very, very rare that we would see sibling groups separated -- char: it was a 15-year-old girl. >> that case surprises me. thee is a policy, unlike policies and procedures, it is a public facing online, it is consistent with the best interest of the child to keep sibling groups together whenever possible, and that is generally a priority in placement of children. uchar: i was deeply troubled by sessions' decision to overturn a silent protections in the case that helped victims

of domestic violence seeking asylum in the u.s. majors one of our mak focuses, and we would have immigrant victims, where perpetrators would deliberately i ambecause they could say going to report you if you do not have sex with me i will report you if you go to the police with the fact that i'm beating you up every day. that is why this is so important when you look at this issue. after sessions decided to review cedent, ident -=- pre sent a letter urging the administration to preserve these critical protections. since then, i have seen the need for the protections. i mentioned the case early on of the 10-year-old kid separated from his mom who had fled an abusive partner. many survivors of domestic violence have taken risk by seeking asylum in our country.

what can you say about the need to ensure that those seeking asylum have the opportunity to make claims for release? >> thank you. officersote that our educate each case on a case-by-case basis based on the facts. there were part to ensure they are abiding by all statutes, regulations, and precedent decisions. there is nothing in that that prohibits someone from seeking asylum. withfficers are tasked making sure they are reviewing all relevant evidence and making the case-by-case -- char: what are the indications of overturning the precedent? >> it is too early to tell. senator: you think it will make it more difficult for those assignments secures to get that asylum? >> it is difficult to say, and

there are a number of reasons for that. it is quite possible that individuals who would no longer particular -- as a particular social group might qualify under one of the other protected grounds for in the incredible -- grounds. no nexus is regard. senator: but the screening process has changed? >> our process has not changed. address individuals and make case-by-case decisions. itator: you do not think will make differences at all that the attorney general reverse his decision? >> is difficult to predict because integrals may qualify -- because individuals may qualify under other grounds. office: was your involved in the decision to overturn this precedent? >> i personally was not

involved. dhs was party to the litigation and provided a briefing, but i suspect our doj colleague might be able to talk about who was consulted. dhs is a party to every proceeding with a representative of customs enforcement in removal proceedings. i could not speak to whether i insulted or not. ice consulted or not. will try to get to the bottom of that, because this apology change was unprecedented and unnecessary, just like the policy of separating the kids. thank you. senator grassley: senator booker? rono:or hin

them a: it has clear that the government has no kind. commander white says if the judge had not ordered to read, it would happen because these anddren were made orphans are then in hhs custody. presumably they had no parents. not forcedif he had the mitigation, it would not be happening. what is the plan for these children once they were separated from the parents? ice has a policy that facilitate unification of a parent and a child at the time of removal. that has been our policy and that would have been the process we have followed prior to this order. senator: even without the judge's border, you would have proceeded to reunify as

appropriate t 3000 children? >> at the end of that process them if they had been ordered removed by an immigration judge, the individual would have had the right to take that child with them should they choose -- senator: excuse me. what you did was you separated the children from their parents before any kind of process even began. thederstand that once process, if appropriate, you would reunify the children with parents, but at first that was not contemplated. what i get is what was happening separating of their children from their parents, they were immediately deemed unaccompanied children, sent to hhs under the normal process would have tried to find

sponsors for someone to take care of those children, some 11,000 children. that thevery clear administration had no plans to reunify these children and as so required by the courts. it was also testified that homeland security's family residential centers are like summer camps. i would like to know if all panel numbers are familiar with home insecurity's frc's? >> i do not have -- i have not been to one of the frc's. >> i have never visited a family residential center. i would have to ti different my colleagues. >> i have never been to an frc. >> i have been to both.

these are described as family residential centers, and i would ask this of you, would you send your children to these centers? ms. higgins? i think in general practice people would be free to move about. i can't tell you the centers i saw did have schools -- senator: and you would send your child to these centers? >> that is a difficult question to answer. it is difficult to put myself in the position of an individual who takes a dangerous journey in which their child can be harmed -- let alone whether or -- senator: summer camps. would you send your child to frc's? >> we're missing the point. these individuals are there

because they have broken a law. there has to be a process -- they are there for violation of title 8 of the u.s. nationality act. illegal entry is a criminal and civil violation. therein those frc's are because they have broken the law. senator: my understand under zero-tolerance, these are no longer civil proceedings, but criminal proceedings. civil proceedings, but at the conclusion of that process, once the individual came in ice custody, they would go through administrative proceedings. senator: i'm confused. >> the integral is being prosecuted for criminal violation of illegal entry. senator: and everybody would be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding. is that correct? >> that is correct. senator: thank you.

i know that there are a number of children -- the last report from the court that this is a proceeding before in this report just this month. at that time there were 711 children who were deemed ineligible for a number of children, it120 was because these parents waived reification. because their parents had already been deported. didn't the court tell the administration find these 431 deported parents and reify them with children? there are limits to what i can think about it because it is currently in court -- senator: wasn't the administration telling you to find the parents of these children? >> we're actively making an effort to find them. senator: how many have you found? >> i do not have the number we

have contacted yet, although we can provide it -- senator: it is pretty challenging what you have deported them and we do not know where they were deported to come maybe they were not necessarily deported to the same place. regarding the parents who waved their reunification with the ere these done knowingly? did some parents know that they were waving the right? there were language issues. i want to know whether we can be assured that these were knowing waivers by their children -- friday parents? -- by their parents? let me clarify because there are two different things being discussed, and one is the written waiver process as

discussed prior to a parent leaving the united states. hhs is separate from the process that we did face-to-face interviews with parents to determine if they wanted unification. have made this journey to deliver their children here because that is the desperate last act of a parent trying to take a child out of some of the most dangerous places to raise a child in the world. honduras has the highest youth murder rate in the world for any country not actively at war. although it might be unfathomable to understand why someone when presented with the opportunity might say no, it is unfathomable until you have walked in his parents' shoes. because we knew some parents say they did not wish to be unified, they wished the child to stay and be unified with my sister or whatever, then interviews to ask the parents, do you want your child to come to you?

most of the parents that yet. some parents said no, and when he said no, we asked them to complete a standard form called a letter of designation, which is a way a parent expresses a preference for who they would like their child to go to, usually a close family member. senator: these represent if they were knowingly waived because of the circumstances, i understand that. because of the attorney certains decision that kinds of files in the countries will no longer be considered as arguments,ir asylum commander white, you said they come from these perfect conditions. that is no longer deemed an appropriate factor, ms. higgins. that is all i have say. >> before i recognize senator cruz, ms. higgins, i have a quick question. would you send your child 300 miles with a group of people to

traffickers,, drug or human traffickers over a a 3000 mile journey? ms. higgins: it is hard for me to put myself in that situation. thank you to each of the witnesses. thank you for the work you do. these are challenging times for our country, and the work you do, particularly border patrol agents and agents of ice, is difficult,. it is important i will say in particular to the ice officers, i want to personally thank the men and women that you served with, who risk their lives each and every day to keep their country sacred and the political environment we are in, there are some in washington who have taken to , and onnd attacking ice

behalf of 28 million texans, let me thank you for the work you do. >> on behalf of the men and women of ice, i think. senator: i would express the same to portal. i have spent time with your agents, and they are heroes, who put their lives on the line on a regular basis. >> thank you, senator, and on behalf of our men and women, i thank you. firstr: ms. provost, several months of 2017 we saw a significant decrease in illegal immigration. decrease has, that essentially evaporated in 2018. why do you believe it was at the numbers went down so dramatically, roughly a 70% decrease, in the first several

months of 2017, and why have they begun increasing again now? >> senator, in my personal opinion, i believe that the numbers did go down initially when the new administration came in to office, and discussions about border security became front and center. in regard to the numbers now going up and we are currently at 22% higher compared to this time point, oncet some individuals see whether or not we do act and are hard on immigration, hard line on immigration, at some point in time they start coming here, and they stick to their family members and other things. those are factors as well as many push factors from the countries they come from. ll factors,umerous pu

whether economic war the fact port decisions impact. those numbers started creeping back up on us. senator: there has been discussion of children coming illegally and children being detained, but children also coming through human traffickers, as the men and women on this panel no. this is not a new -- -- know. this is not a new problem. we have seen thousands of children coming for a great many years. to, when kids are brought into this country by human traffickers, what kind of treatment do they get in the jernigan and what kind of abuse are they potentially subject to in the process of coming here illegally? >> it is a very treacherous trip

they are making. there are numerous factors that impact. the transnational criminal organizations treat all people like commodities. it is about money, not about the care of those individuals. we apprehend large groups both in deplorables conditions as well as riding in tractor-trailers, which we know just a year, year and half ago, we had that tragedy. put atndividuals are risk day in and day out that is what happens once they are along the border, not to mention the trip up. abuse,re cases of rape, of all different types of things that are happening to these illegal aliens that are making a trip to the country. senator: as you know, there is widespread agreement in congress on both sides of the political aisle that families should not

be separated, that the best place for children is with their parents, with their moms and dads. at the same time, i believe it is imperative we also enforce the law, and we should not be adopting policies that effectively mandate catch and toease does that only serves attract more people here illegally and to ensure that even more children will be subject to the abuse, to the horrific treatment that human traffickers subject them to. i have introduced legislation that would mandate families stay together, and at the same time would enforce the law and prevent a return to the policies of catch and release. we are engaged in ongoing negotiations with senate democrats to see if there will behindrtisan agreement that legislative effort. i am hopeful and optimistic. can you share your thoughts

about the consequences of catch and release and what it does to levels of illegal immigration? chief'snk going to the point, you saw that initial dip when there was concern that the laws of this country would be rigorously enforced. what the smugglers and illegal aliens learn was new pull that exist that facilitate this process and forces us to release these individuals shortly after apprehension had not change because they need congressional action to do so. senator: and can you in your answer discuss the implications, the conferences of the flores consent decree and how that constrains your abilities? >> the biggest issues, is when we have a family held together, the flores decision which was

then reinterpreted by the judge in 2016 and applied -- the uac requirements the family detention, even though it did not exist in 1997, it requires us to release those individuals within 20 days of taking them into custody, and we cannot effectuate the entire immigration hearing process, asylum process within that 20-day period. as a result, we have no choice but to release these individuals into communities, and most times we do not see them again. senator: thanks. senator: i cannot agree with your statement more that the administration has mishandled family separation and i would say you sit here now in the middle of a humanitarian crisis largely of the trump administration's creation.

the zero-tolerance policy as led to the separation of thousands of children, including infants and toddlers from their parents, and has intentionally inflicted untold amounts of human suffering. as a father and a person of faith, i find this policy unconscionable, and the administration's effort so far to reunite children with their families sadly inadequate. i'm frustrated despite repeated a broad rangess of senators and men and women can we have not been able to get accurate information about the process and about where we stand. first, mr. chairman, senator langford and i have joined with a dozen colleagues, 14 members, seven republicans, seven democrats him to request information. this is a letter we are sending andhe attorney general, others, asking for basic details and regular updates. what artifacts?

how many children? what ages? detained?ng t could each of the five of you say yes or no -- are you committed to getting timely responses to congress in response to broad and bipartisan request for 11 information about information?nt >> senator i will take this back and we work on getting that information to you. senator: thank you. >> yes, sir, absolutely. senator: thank you. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. senator: there are reports that people seeking asylum are giving up their legal claims, and a

council testified that there are dozens of it individuals interviewed who felt they were coerced into relinquishing their right or were unaware they had done so, some who were adamant that the paper they had signed was one that allowed them to choose to be reunited with their children when effective form they signed had the opposite effect. could you produce to me and my staff copies of the forms that ice has been given to parents over the last three months? >> we have the form that was part of the case that the aclu developed and approved by the court. we could get your copy. senator: that would be helping because there are a lot of stories, assertions on both sides, that these folks were well informed and they were making a responsible decision to leave their children here, and there is disturbing reporting

the case.pposite is our parents given the opportunity to consult with her lawyer and children because -- before they sign a form waiting their rights? >> as her part in the case and utilizing the form, there is a 48-hour time wherein the individual is allowed to contact a attorney, they may contact the aclu. we have signs that advise them of that right allows individuals were not members of the class to make that contact if they so desire. senator: are they able to contact their children? >> they do have contact with their children. whether they choose to do so at this time and ask their child their opinion, i cannot speak to that, but they have contact with her children when they are in our facilities. senator: one of my concerns is there is a report that suggests children and parents who are byarated in some cases

thousands of miles to not have a chance to communicate before parents are forced to return to the country of origin, leaving the children the wilderness as to what happened to their parents. is that the case? >> let me know for small what we do to -- first of all what we do, and what we do with children to cope with the situation. is givenld in oor care a chance to call family members either in the united states or in home country. they are a lot a minimum of two phone calls a week, and many children get more. terrance who are currently in detention status are harder to call in some cases that people who have a cell phone because they are at liberty, but there has been strong collaboration between ice and it is just to do that. interviewedams parents. part of what they did, they also

contactomote telephonic between parent and child vendor -- child then. the second part of your question is important, which is in the middle of this our children of every age, from infancy up until the day before their 18th birthday. every child in her care has a mental health initiative there client to clinician ratio. part of what we are leveraging and the fact this is a program designed to support children who have experienced trauma is we are getting the mental health support also to cope with uncertainties of this situation for those who have been separated. senator: thank you. a few more things. joineds langford and i senators bennett and collins in a letter urging the administration to work with the faith community proactively to

reunify families. i am concerned that faith-based groups that are willing and able for thede support unification are given little or no notice before being asked to provide support to hundreds of families. these are organizations that stand ready to help. can you give the more information, more timely information, about when and where families will be released so they can get the support services that will allow them to make the post trauma transitions you're talking about? >> the specific release these is actually ice, but the compressed timeframe required by the court required us first to do something we of never done before, which is reunification of minors with parents and ice decision. we achieved that would eligible minors. this had the effect of meaning children and parents were being reunify. for is why those who were

the people on my team were working 20 47. -- 24/7. for the two ngo's that were working with ice to provide safe entry into communities, we did what we could to the silicate giving that timeframe to provide that assistance. this is a consequence of the size and speed of the severed. senator: i will say that the entire process is a consequence of the childhood -- trump administration everybody a cool policy of intentionally separating families without a plan for reuniting them i appreciate the hard work you've gone through to comply with the court order, but it seems clear to me from what i have heard that there was not sufficient not given in advance to what would happen in terms of reuniting children and their parents were this policy reversed. this is the third immigration

crisis that has been created by this administration. andtravel ban, daca, zero-tolerance. that we can move to resolve the underlying legal and framework issues that make immigration such a difficult issue for all of us. they can. senator grassley: senator booker? senator booker: i'm grateful the panel is here and it meant a lot of folks who work under you, and i have addresses amount of respect for the service that they had given to the country. but i have concerns about the policies that we have, a lot of them stemming from white house, that have caused a lot of harm and do not represent who we are or our best values for i went down to texas recently, in the first thing i did after landing around midnight was to drive to the port of entry nearby, and i crossed over into mexico,

walking in the dark, the length of the bridge across the rio grande into mexico. as soon as i got there, the mexican officials were warning me about the danger of going further into the community. i am a big guy. .ut they were concerned that was not my intention to go to the community. toeally came back around walk back in and see how people who were looking to present themselves for asylum were greeted. i was surprised because as and as i got there, instead of being at the point of entry, there were folks, agents who were stationed right there at the middle of the bridge, right on the border, and i had a conversation with me. they did not recognize me as a senator, but i had a conversation about why they were posted there, what they were doing, and they told me they were turning away people that were presenting themselves for

asylum. again, into that community that i was told it was dangerous. their job was to prevent asylum seekers from presenting themselves in the legal manner that our laws state they are allowed to do. they warned me about my safety, which surprised me. you're turning away children, mothers, back into that community that you say is not safe for me. i wondered about that. it really was difficult for me as an american to see us turning away people trying to seek asylum from being evaluated in a systematic process that i thought existed, and instead pushed back into a dangerous environment. we have gone over these reports of seeking asylum at ports and entries being turned away, and it is not clear why. is it a space issue? i had conversations with folks who talk to me about the issue of having enough space. i am wondering, and all her

processes, about how we are prioritizing such that it could reflect our values and keep us safe. -- ie in my committees live in an inner-city, a predominately african-american city. i have had shootings on my street in the last two years. i am concerned about what is happening in my country, of what i worry about is that folks who pose no threat whatsoever that we are not figuring out a way to get our resources focused on our values. safety first and making sure we create legal processes, and the fact that we are turning people way pushes more people into breaking the law and getting chewed up under this is in ways that we do not want to. it is a moral question about prioritization. why questions for quick, first of all, i am wondering and maybe you can answer this, are you

coordinating with customs border patrol to prioritize using beds and resources so that if there are resources available for legal asylum-seekers, instead of using the beds to lock up people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens? >> we manage a diverse portfolio of beds. we have our family residential center some adult detention centers. we have a center in san antonio that manages those beds. we have a center in d.c. that beds manage those hb -- senator: i'm talking about the prioritization. you have a lot of people that do not pose a threat. ice data shows, they describe more than half of the population in ice custody are posing zero community safety risk according to the national immigrant

justice center. it seems to me that -- >> a lot of those individuals are subject to mandatory detentions centers. senator: i have very little more time. you are saying some of them are asylum-seekers. my question is, if you're working with cdp, can't we he doing more to make sure that there are more beds available for asylum-seekers? >> we're looking to expand our bed capacity. full.between 97% and 99% we would need the funding to do that. senator: is great because that is a policy issue. i agent have her undocumentedt 4000 immigrants.

those are a lot of resources of people who pose no threat. the concerns of my republican and democratic colleagues about people who are posing threats or people who are trained to come here to the legal means who are being turned away and often end thereing to the system, has got to be a better way to prioritize it, and i question what you and i congress' help wi th. if that is the case, i am gung ho to help out with that. but as senator leahy said can you call your tip line, and that professional priorities. he said the very first thing they want to do is report on your neighbor. suspectedr reporting undocumented immigrants. the very first thing, you have to go pretty far down, terrorism is number 4. i think that should be number one. reporting crimes against children was 6. gang activities was number 8. as a guy who lives in the city

with a lot of undocumented immigration, which we see across america, your prioritization seems to create this fear. the people in my state are afraid to report crimes. this prioritization seems problematic. ice should be in the business of catching criminals, catching criminals, not purging american report on their neighbors for possible civil immigration offenses. it is this prioritization that is disturbing because i think -- and i have seen this with the drug war in america -- we have literally tens of thousands of people locked up right now in this country for low-level drug crimes, many of them doing things that two of the last three presidents admitted doing. i am done up, but i want to ask you last question -- can't you do a better job prioritizing people that are threatening our country as opposed to locking up

so many people that have posed zero threat? can't you re-examine your prioritization that even your tip line can encourage americans to make a safer and not continue to round up people that take resources away from that really dangerous situations? cantor grassley: i hope you give a short inter-. >> i would do my best. nine out of every 10 people we arrest has a criminal conviction or has been charged in a criminal offense. the aggregate number of criminals has risen for the past two years. we do prioritize. at that same point, when we encounter individuals here unlawfully during the course of our enforcement actions, prioritizing those threats, we will not turn a blind eye to them. the others we arrest are those who have had their day in court, and are fugitives, or somebody who has been previously arrested

and deported that has returned to the country, which is a felony. 92% of the people we arrested last year fell into those categories. it will be speculation because i do not know the tip line. we have been working with the tip want to prioritizing the types of calls that come in and the group that has been doing this one enforcement. they are doing that so they can move those cases for referral, because they had responsibility. i will find out. does that is true them why his own data show that these people don't pose any threat whatsoever. it does not some like you're prioritizing but you are creating more safety hazards and fear among immigrant communities to report crimes. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, thank you for your

patience in being here and thank you for the service of the many men and women who diligently seek to enforce our laws. let me ask this panel -- who here thinks zero-tolerance has been a success? just raise your hand. that the family separation policy has been a success? raise your hand. who here can tell me who is responsible, which public official, which member of this administration is responsible for zero-tolerance and family separation? can anyone tell me? who is responsible? nobody knows? for zero-tolerance

prosecution policy memorandum was issued by the attorney general. so the official responsible for zero-tolerance is the attorney general of the united acting presumably with the approval of the president, correct question mark >> he is the one who issued the memorandum. it's an extension of an earlier memorandum he issued in 2017. did any member of this panel say to anyone maybe this is not such a good idea? commander? >> during the deliberative process of the previous year, we raised a number of concerns in the program about any policy that would result in family separation. = due to concerns we had about the best interest of the child about whether that would be operationally supportable with the bed capacity we have. >> i will translate that into

what i would call layman's language. you told the administration that kids would suffer. as a result. that pain would be inflicted, correct? >> separation of children from their parents until -- would show significant result of trauma to children. child,traumatic for any i say that as a parent of four children. >> there is no question that separation of children from parents until significant potential for traumatic injury to the child. >> would i be correct in assuming the answer to you was, in effect, that's the whole purpose of the policy to inflict pain so as to deter asylum-seekers from coming here, correct? sir, we were advised that

family separation was not the policy. >> family separation just happened to result from zero without anybody knowing in advance even though you raised the concern, correct? concerns abouted the effect on children as well is the effect on the program. >> and what was the answer? >> at no time during the time i was involved was there an actual of familyouncement separation. it was just a discussion of future possible consequences. >> so there was an awareness that would be the consequence. you raised it. >> i did raise it. >> i'm asking again, what was the answer? thate answer received is family separation was not a policy. there was no policy that would result in family separation. >> it was a consequence of the

policy but not the policy. >> i was advised that there was no policy which would result in separation of children from family units. >> are you satisfied with the amount of care and counseling that is being provided to these to deal with the tron a and the pain of their separation from their parents? >> yes. care eachen in ora have a mental health clinician. >> i know that. are you satisfied that they are dueiving sufficient care or believe that maybe those clinicians are overworked or overburdened and there should be more? >> i believe the children are receiving sufficient care. >> let me ask whether anyone here has authority to end the decision judge jeeves

that the settlement should be continued? does anyone here have that authority? >> the department of justice makes the litigation decision but i personally would not have that authority. commit to me that there will be reconsideration of the department's decision thatflores should be sustained question mar? >> the department is considering its options. what are the number of children under five who have been reunified? >> i don't have that number with me, i'm sorry. >> is that lesson the full number of 2 that were separated? >> some miners were not eligible

for reunification. >> do you know the number question mark >> i don't know the number but we haven't and can provide it. , how manye 431 total eventually of them do you expect will be reunified? -- you arerefueling referring to the miners who have been removed from the united states? >> is there any process to reunify them? >> there's no way i can say what number the we are working on strategy to affect reunification. a number of parents may elect that their children remain in the united states. >> when parents are put in detention facilities, are they permitted to retain their telephone? their cell phone? >> not at the facility itself, no. >> how do children refer parents? >> i can speak to our

capabilities at the detention facilities. --mander white spoke with spoke very well about the process they utilize. the individuals are allowed phone calls during the course of their detention. we have a contractor that provides low-cost if not free calls once an individual is booked.they get a free five-minute call the mystically or internationally. we have worked closely with commander quite's people during the course of this process to ensure that communication occurs in a routine and regular basis. they help facilitate that can occasion. >> i will finish because my time has expired but i just want to totalat there is now consensus on both sides of the aisle that this zero tyler and's desk this zero-tolerance and family separation policy and it had been a policy as you indicated, it was clearly foreseeable as a consequence of

zero-tolerance. it was part and parcel of the policy to inflict pain so as to deter asylum-seekers from coming to this country. we have it at the highest level himselfgeneral callie and other top officials indicated that deterrence was an objective. constitutes kidnapping or child abuse. but ultimately, i hope, there is a lesson here but right now, there seems to be no prospect for reunifying many of the children who are still separated from their parents and i welcome any response either now or in writing depending whether the chairman -- >> do it in writing, senator harris. >> thank you, mr. chairman, it is clear the folks before us now

are not the shot callers. orders. following they are carrying out a policy that was not of their own making. i was heartened that when senator blumenthal asked the question of eliciting anyone to raise their hand in dissent of this policy that was about separating children from their families, none raised their hands. that being said, i think we need to call this policy what it is. it is a policy that is about the united states government committing a human rights violation. i will repeat what i have said weeks ago. those who created this policy and implemented it including secretary nelson should step down because this has been a policy that has not only retell like -- not only havocd have a -- wreaked but it will cause the children harm and damage. that being said, commander

white, as of today, what is the current number of parents outside the country who are separated from their children and have yet to be reunified? don't give me the number 431 because that was the number from last thursday. 'am, we don't have the parents but we have the children. i will talk about the number of children who have their parents departed. 81 of those children have been discharged. 429 children remain in care whose parents have departed the united states. >> and what is the deadline by which we are and that you are going to reunify those children with their parents question mark is there a deadline in place? >> my team is working to affect reunification's. >> is there a deadline in place? >> we don't necessarily have a deadline in place.

three different district courts are involved in what we can and must do. >> don't you believe that we should be held accountable to all means necessary are put in place to ensure that these children are reunified with their parents and there should be a deadline set to make the urgency clear to all involved? is absolutely my heartfelt conviction that we must reunify those children with their parents, yes. >> will you commit to creating a deadline by which that will happen? >> the deadlines will be imposed by courts and we will execute them. my preferred deadline for my team is absolutely as quickly as humanly possible. >> are you saying you don't have the authority to create a deadline? i couldaying that if have reunified all those children with their parents by yesterday, it would be done. we are operating -- we work within the world of what is

operationally achievable. >> are you under a consent decree? by the court? >> i will have to defer to doj to clarify our legal situation. >> what effort is the government making to provide phone contact while they are in these facilities. >> as we indicated, for the we work to our care, provide them with unimpeded access with phones to contact their parents. >> is it a policy that they are not to be charged to make these phone calls question mark you are aware there is an expense associated with those calls? who pays that expense? mimonors - whether those nors have been separated, those calls are paid for by the

congress. >> what about the calls the parents make to their children, who pays for those calls? >> that they are in one of the facilities that has access to our free platform, than those calls are at no cost to the individuals. will havee individual a minor cost associated with that called the pending for the individual is calling. calls to family members and emergency calls are not charged. calls to facilities or transferring are not charged. - have you visited the la mes i have been there and i have been told that the calls those parents would make to their children are free. however, when i set with the mothers at those detention facility's and asked them, i

found that they are being charged $.85 per minute for those phone calls. i further found out when visiting that detention facility that when does parents are there and perform labor such as cleaning toilets or doing laundry, there paid one dollar per day. are you familiar with that policy? or practice? individuals in ice custody are eligible to apply and work in a voluntary .ork program i it's not mandatory but many choose to do so to pass the time while they await their hearing or removal. >> you think people voluntarily clean toilets to pass their time? >> we have a large number of individuals within our custody that volunteer to work on the work detail. >> to clean toilets? is that what you are saying? >> i don't know every task they are assigned but is voluntary. >> are you familiar with the practice at that detention --ility to pay the to attend

the d10 one dollar per day for labor performed in that facility? >> i'm not the mayor with that facility. i can find out when i get back. >> please do and report back to this committee. how many pregnant women have been detained since january in any facility being run by your agency? have -- i can give you the fiscal number year to date as of july 21. that's 1395. >> what is the policy in terms of transferring them to a less restrictive facility if there is such a policy based on the term they are in their pregnancy and particular you around the tribe -- the third trimester, is there a policy? policy was changed last year to comply with the president's executive orders. the only effective change is no

given our pregnant women the option of release. we look at it on a case-by-case legislation. >> that was the previous policy? >> it would be less restrictive. the number of pregnant detainees we have right now is not vastly larger than the last two years. >> but the conditions by which they are detained are vastly different. >> we are using the same detention facilities we were using in 2015. it's no longer a presumption -- >> that's correct. >> i've heard at least two cases where women were going into labor while they were in detention. are you family with those cases? >> i am not. >> what protocol has been promulgated for women going into labor while i your detention facilities? by they being accompanied

ice officers to a hospital or is the anticipation is that they will give birth in a detention facility and in -- and do you have policies in place of them being shackled? >> our policy with regard to , we do not shackle women in active labor. >> what is active labor mean? >> they are in labor. if they are six months pregnant and not in labor, that would not be active labor. >> is there a policy requiring pregnant women being shackled if they are not in active labor? >> there are times when individuals being transported would need to be handcuffed for their own safety as well as the safety of they officers, absolutely. >> if you can follow up on the number of women in their third trimester or currently housed in your attention facility, i would appreciate that. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> before i say meeting adjourned, thank you all very much for participating. we hopefully answered a lot of questions. you will probably get questions in writing. some of you have received them orally already. fore will be one week members to submit questions so hopefully you'll get the answers back just as soon as you can. we thank you very much for your participation and your authority you have. meeting adjourned. host[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> a look at some of our live coverage later today on c-span -- at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span, another senate judiciary committee hearing on the federal courts looks at the structure of the federal court system and potential ways to restructure it. that starts at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. at 7:00 p.m. eastern live on c-span2, president trump hold a campaign rally in tempo, florida antis, outgoing

governor rick scott is running for the senate. that care on c-span2 and i come at a hearing the just ended on border security and families coming to the united states, you can see that in its entirety starting at 9:30 p.m. eastern. supreme court nominee bret kavanaugh continues to meet with senators on capitol hill. follow the confirmation process on c-span leading to the senate confirmation hearings and the vote. watch live on c-span, watch anytime on www.c-span.org or listen with the free c-span radio app. up next, former presidents bill clinton and george w. bush sit down for an interview at the clinton presidential center in little rock, arkansas. they discuss immigration, education and u.s. foreign aid -- toeviate policy alleviate disease. [applause] >>