for the source of that tape, who felt that the tape could put them at risk for being identified and fired. but the source ultimately agreed --allow me and pro-public of pro publica to publish it. the u.s.mexico and government immigration policy, sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. next, government officials just -- testify on border security and immigration policy for migrant families coming to the united states. they spoke last week in front of the senate judiciary committee. it is three hours.

>> i want to thank our government witnesses for being here today, and everybody is welcome. i am glad we have a lot of interest in this issue, and there has been several weeks or at least three months, i guess. originally this hearing was solely going to be focused on our annual oversight of the u.s. immigration and customs enforcement. however, it quickly became evident that more oversight of the administration's entire family separation and .eunification effort was needed so i expanded the hearing to

provide oversight for that specific issue, as well as just ice. in april this year, attorney general sessions announced a zero-tolerance policy at the southwest border. this policy directed fred herbal -- federal prosecutors to enforce our long-standing immigration laws and prosecute all individuals who crossed the border against our laws. laws on thehen the books are enforced, it protects not only american citizens but those seeking shelter and protected here, as well. remember, the attorney general plummeted this policy after the department of homeland security increase in03 % people crossing the border 203%st our laws, and that was between march 2017 and march

2018. from februaryease this year to march of this year, the largest month-to-month increase since 2011. policyorney general's and simple,entioned enforcing border security laws so that people would stop migrating illegally. we must remember that the border's security also affects our national security. however, like many well-intentioned policies, these -- there were unintended consequences as a result of the administration's zero-tolerance policy with more than 12 500 undocumented immigrant children being separated from their parents. as of last thursday, 1442 of

those children have been reunited directly with their parents. an additional 378 have been released to other individuals under appropriate circumstances. however, almost one third of the children, approximately 711, are still in government custody and are not able to be reunited with their parents. some were in eligible for reification with their families for legitimate reasons. according to the administration, 120 were in eligible because their parents waived the right to reunify. 67 were not released because of what the bureaucracy called red flags, including child abuse and serious felonies that were raised during background checks.

of course, some adults were found to have not been related to the children with whom they were traveling over the last five months. 314%al authorities saw a increase in adults and children arriving at the border claiming to be a family unit. of course, this is a dangerous situation. any policy we have that encourages the perilous practice i just described, that policy ought to be at that -- re-advised immediately. no child should be subjected to sexual assault, extreme heat, and also criminal behavior by smugglers or traffickers seeking to make a buck on behalf of the most vulnerable. now 431 children, the largest

number of 711, who have not been reunified were an eligible because their parents had already been deported. the administration claims that all of these parents elected to be deported without their children, but public reports indicate that many of them may have not made an informed choice to leave their children behind. some of these reports suggest that these parents were not thesented information in language that they could even understand. so i am disturbed by these allegations, and i hope our witnesses are prepared to give us the row answers. although the in the industry give us through answers are to although the administration has mishandled the family separations, it is also important to remember that this institution deserves its fair

share of blame. for years, congress has failed to take the single simple step, one simple step, that could have prevented the family separations that we now decry. we are feeling the consent decree. as a result of 1997 and years of , theation, the settlement floor's case, when the u.s. government first entered into that consent decree, it was a much-needed step towards ensuring the humane and dignified treatment of an unaccompanied, undocumented immigrant children, children often thousands of miles from their parents. this settlement agreement provided the undocumented immigrant children without their

parents could only be kept in federal custody for a maximum of 20 days. it required the government to treat these children humanely and ensure the type of quality care we would expect for any child. whether that child is documented or otherwise, undocumented or otherwise, and we should expect them to receive the fair treatment. republican,crat or would disagree with that principle, i would hope. however, in 2014, in addition to the decree, california expanded the scope of that consent decree by applying it to undocumented immigrant children ao arrive with their parents, move that even the previous administration, many the obama administration, opposed at the

time the court case decision was delivered. under this single interpretation, the federal choice,nt faces a stark enforce the law and separate families by releasing only the children after 20 days or keep families together by engaging in the past administration's catch and release policies. and i cruz, tillis, wrote on sunday that neither of those options are good choices. that is why we we believe the best way to make sure this crisis never happens again is to repeal that decree agreement but only as it relates to the time and limitations governing accompanied undocumented immigrant children. some of my colleagues claim that we would end all protections for minor children and just allow the government to detain families indefinitely.

so that is not a true interpretation. in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. no one on our side of the aisle wants to end the heat -- humane standards of care. if anything, given recent news reports, we are more than willing to statutorily enhance those protections. we also want to see families kept in federal custody -- we do not want to see families kept in federal custody indefinitely or even long periods of time. as director mchenry is going to testify, when families are placed on the detained docket, their cases are usually result -- resolved in 40 days. in contrast, when families are released into the interior, they're given a notice to appear at a future immigration court hearing with little incentive to attend.

that hearing occurs, on average, not 40 days, but 700 days, after they are released, assuming they even show up. and 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. still almost 80% of the asylum ceases are ultimately denied. it just does not make sense then to release families in mass and hope that they will show up to a future court date where they will more than likely be denied the right to remain in this country. but, and 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 people,gnity that all no matter what their immigration status is.

i've seen reports that the government is failing miserably in the task that i just described. over the last few months, news reports have surfaced describing how illegal immigrant children and in the case of family units, their mothers, have suffered unimaginable physical, mental, emotional, and even sexual abuse in federal custody. 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 inspectors generals -- i should say homeland security and they -- and health and human services asking them to open an investigation. we also ask the inspectors general to look into practices, procedures, and policies in place regarding custody of the illegal immigrant families and children, and to make recommendations, 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 incidents and 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. according to custom, we are also going to have opportunities for short statements because there -- they are chairman and ranking

members. >> we are here today because the trump administration has pursued what i believe is a deeply immoral and haphazard policy that fundamentally betrays american values. this administration has elected to engage in the systematic separation of immigrant children from their parents without any plan to reunite them. even though 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. according to the joint court filing by the department of justice and the american civil liberties union from last friday, the numbers are 2551 children aged 5-17 taken from their parents at some point. these children were required to be reunited by last friday, july 26, and the government did not meet that deadline. only 1,442 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. 431 children remain alone in the

united states because their parents have already been deported. shockingly, the government does not even know who or where the parents are for 94 children. this makes clear the government did not track them in the first place. there was no effort to ensure that the government knew which children belonged 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 trump administration may be quote usingeople by kids as hostages to get people to give up their asylum claims. ". end quote. 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 may 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. in the end, 12,000 case files had to be sorted by hand to determine which children had been separated and 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. my staff visited a facility in california where children did not have sufficient food or water and were forced to sleep on the cold concrete floor

without a cot or a blanket. unfortunately, despite the public outcry and a rebuke by the courts, the administration has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to put the welfare of children above its own hard-line views on immigration. therefore, we, the congress, have a constitutional and moral obligation to intervene. i have been working with senator s on a narrow bill that prohibits the separation of children from their families , requires an ongoing reporting by the administration and public 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, cots, and blankets to sleep on. the bill is straightforward and limited to address the current crisis. 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 of 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 legislation and acted quickly. quickly.ation enacted

thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding this hearing to discuss this important 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 have not heard an outcry from our democratic colleagues about that, even though the new york times had reported about 1,500 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 rio grande valley y chief manny padilla, who is my personal expert on this topic. border patrol and all officials have been valuable in helping me to understand what is going on. i look forward to hearing additional testimony. i toured two of the facilities myself that housed teenagers and younger children. i found that these facilities were well-managed with caseworkers, mental health teachers, 24/7nd 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

-- than immigration when it comes to public policy. often, rhetoric is so high and facts are mangled that the fundamental concept of rule of imperitive that the government can determine who comes in to the country falls by the wayside. the fact that some disagree with those laws and have gone so far as to call 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 congress and signed by the president. 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 certain circumstances. we have seen a 300% increase of adults arriving at the border with small children claiming to be their parents and in that they are not why would they do that? they 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.

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. the 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 individuals to try to make sure 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 the opportunity for an opening statement and to address this 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. white house chief of staff john kelly bragged that forcibly separating children from their parents is "a tough deterrent," but the president of the american academy of pediatrics called this policy what it is, government sanctioned child abuse. incredibly, homeland security kirstjen nielsen claimed "we do not have a policy of separating

families at the border, period." it was under her watch that 2,700 children were separated from their parents and more than 700 children still have not been reunited 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? who border agents sadly called "deleted family units." in the name of these "deleted family units," 711 lost children and common decency, i am calling on the architect of this

humanitarian disaster, 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. someone 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, this is a policy which the judge characterized as a chaotic circumstance of the government's own making. every time there is a 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 a letter from two of each -- from two of the department of 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 to children and their families." these whistleblowers have told us what they saw. the trump administration claims they are concerned about what they derisively call catch and release, compared catching children to catching fish. there are alternatives to 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. pass senator feinstein's keep families together act which expressly prohibits family separation. pass the fair day for court for kids at which provides unaccompanied children with legal representation in deportation seedings. how embarrassing is it to our nation to think that there are courtrooms with infant children, toddlers and preteens 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 treatment of migrant children act which i've introduced, requiring ice to prioritize the detention of those who actually pose a threat to national security or public safety, increasing funding for

alternatives for detention. we do not need internment camps again in american history. to intern the children and families indefinitely because we won't act and congress doesn't act at all. we need to authorize merit-based hiring of judges. i hope today's hearing is the start of a bipartisan effort for -- to confront the administration and 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 letters of opposition to family separation from two doctors. also, 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 donna abbott for bethany christian services. without objection, those will be put into the record. i will now introduce our witnesses, and after i introduce them, i will ask for you to stand because this is an oversight hearing and we will swear each of the witnesses. in 2016, ms. provoss was selected as a deputy chief of the u.s. border patrol. patrolered the border january 8, 1995. 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. mr. matthew abends was appointed associate for removal operations for eyes. february 2017, he began his career as a special agent with the former u.s. immigration and naturalization service. he leads er oh in its mission to arrest or remove 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 undermine the integrity of our immigration laws and border control efforts. jonathan white, commander, as he is titled, was appointed deputy director of children's programs

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 director of ori and the director of dhhs with unaccompanied children. director james mchenry was named director of the executive office for immigration review, january of this year. judge mchenry 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. from 2014 to 2016, he served as the alj of the office of disability adjudication and review and social security administration. prior to that, he worked for ice office of principal legal advisor. lastly, ms. higgins, jennifer 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 tradition with its national 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. you folks have five minutes and your entire statement will be put in the record. for the benefit of the committee, since he have a vote at 12:15, we will try to keep going and rotate chairmanship with either republican or democrats, 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 america's unified border agency, we are responsible for securing america's borders against all threats through deploying a multilayered risk based approach and enhanced 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 25a 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 u.s. border patrol has limited -- has implemented various enforcement operations and prosecution initiatives as a means to deal with illegal entry. while the zero-tolerance increased the volume for prosecution, we have always had a law enforcement mission and responsibility to enforce the law. i want to dispel the myth that prosecuting illegal border crossings or separating children is unique to zero-tolerance or to this administration.

to be clear, we have 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 with them into criminal custody. on june 20, 2018, immediately following the president's executive order, cbp extended -- suspended prosecution of adults in family units and maintained family unity. following issuance of the executive order, cbp reunified over 500 children in our custody with parents. although parents 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 adult poses a danger to the child, have a series criminal history or have a communicable disease. going forward, implementation of

the zero tolerance policy will focus on prosecution of single adults who cross the border. before taking questions, i want to clarify 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. we work closely with ice and hhs 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 cbp transport escort surge 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 -- unbiased professionalism and compassion that the men and 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. i'm honored to work beside them. 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 with the committee for this. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and i look forward to your questions. >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, and distinguished members of the

committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to mission to 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. our laws are 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. nowhere is this more evident than around the zero-tolerance policy and the immigration crisis. today i would like to discuss the impact this policy 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 dignity despite the false allegations and misinformation that a propagated by those who do not support the immigration laws passed by congress.

ice's efforts are led and have insured national security and public safety. officers execute our immigration laws in such a way that limited resources will have a great impact on public safety and border security. in 2017, ice arrested more than 127,000 aliens with criminal convictions and pending criminal charges. in real terms, this means we are 11,000emoved more than more criminals than 2016. these aliens were responsible for the following convictions or charges. 76,000 dangerous drug offenses, 48,000 assault offenses, more than 11,000 weapons offenses, 5,000 sexual assault offenses, 2000 kidnapping offenses, in and 1800 homicide offenses. in fact, 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-tolerance policy for improper entry which customs and border protection preferred aliens arrested for illegally entering the country along the southwest border for prosecution. in accordance with standard practice for agencies who erect people committing federal crimes, cbp transferred these adults to the u.s. marshals service pending prosecution. when this occurred, these adults became unavailable to provide care to the children they were traveling. the child without a parent or legal guardian falls under federal law that requires transfer to health and human services within 72 hours.

ice's role is limited to transferring from custody to dhhs. the district court for the seven district of california had a class action suit in which the court ordered reunification of class members with children that have been separated, unless the parent affirmatively, knowingly -- hhs and dhhs reunited children under five years old with eligible parents per the court order. of the 103 children under 5 years old, 57 children were reunified and the remaining and eligible could not be reunified

because the parent was in criminal custody or had been removed. as of july 26, 2018, a report filed with u.s. district court, 1,442 of the 2,551 children aged 5 and above were identified as members were reunified with parents and none have been removed. the court order to reunite these families in an expedited timeframe required ice to prioritize these reunions other -- over other pressing needs including the removal of those , individuals with no right to remain. it required an unprecedented level of coordination to improve -- include the temporary assignment to the ice center. the field offices servicing as reunification operated 24/7 to efficiently reunite children with parents. it is important to note that the

mandatelaws effectively the release into communities in the united states. this practice has led to aliens failing to appear for court hearings and failure to comply, with removal orders 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. amending these laws would enable dhs to maintain family unity throughout the immigration hearings. if these individuals are ordered removed, as most are, it will allow for execution of these orders as opposed to simply adding to an already overwhelming fugitive docket of over 540,000. these changes are outlined in my written testimony. dhhs and ice are 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 welcome your questions. >> chairman grassley, ranking member feinstein, members of the committee, it is my honor to appear on the behalf of the department of 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 provides every day to unaccompanied children in its care. the quality of care provided by

hhs for children is excellent. the agency takes any reports to 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, 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 programming that includes education, recreational activities such as 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. in the last 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, both members and staff have commented on the quality care we provide. i know there has been frustration of late on congress's ability to act fast, our top priority is the children in our care. in an effort to minimize strain, we continue the policy began in the last administration to require any visitors to coordinate visits with us in advance. we thank this committee for your assistance in the coordination of the many facility visits in the past few weeks. where these children are concerned, the unfortunate reality is this, the children we serve every day in this program have in many cases been targeted by gangs, they have been smuggled, and they have been trafficked. smugglers and traffickers arrange fraudulent claims of parentage of a child to allow

someone to enter the united states more easily. the children we serve are at high risk for human trafficking in their own country. on the journey here to the 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 children 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 children in our care. we understand that public attention has recently been focused primarily on separated children. most of the minors for whom hhs is responsible crossed into the u.s. alone. in 2017, 40,810 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 minors in our care. overall, releases and the -- we release the majority of children in our care to sponsors typically parents are close , relatives. in 2017, 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 directed hhs to take all reasonable actions to comply with court orders, including reunification of children with edge of -- eligible family members which is parents from home they were separated by the department of homeland security and prioritize child safety. on june 22, hhs secretary directed office of the assistant

secretary for preparedness and response to help work with dhs and its operating divisions to reunify children with class members. the key steps in that plan for reunifying children and parents in custody include number 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. this effort required us to lead a 55 member incident management team and field teams of federal staff and contractors totaling more than 200 responders. 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 our partners to reunify parent and child whenever possible and when not possible, 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 thanking the women and men who work in the hhs facilities and care for children. their dedication ensures that these children, many whom are fleeing the violence, gangs, and severe poverty, and many less -- many of whom have 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. >> mr. chairman, ranking member feinstein, and other distinguished members of the

committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding the department of justices 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 against threats 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 enforces the criminal laws passed by congress through the attorneys offices and in conjunction with the marshall service and bureau of prisons. the department plays a crucial role in enforcing laws and seeking punishment for those

guilty of unlawful behavior. less to applies no immigration crimes been to other categories of crimes. section 13 of executive order 1376 directed the attorney general to allocate resources to 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 usc 1325a. this directed a zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under this by 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 prioritization of prosecuting illegal entry crimes under an executive order which also reiterated that the current policy is to rigorously enforce immigration laws passed by congress. the department of justice does not dictate what cases are referred for prosecution, nor does it maintain a general exemption from criminal prosecution for parents. the department has no operational or logistical role in the care or processing of aliens for removal, regardless whether they are adults or children. it also does not play a role in the reunification process. criminal proceedings are separate from civil proceedings. prosecution for illegal 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. as the claim progresses, 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 the courts. the department of justice has a third role as a litigator providing representations to those agencies that provide care for aliens subject to removal. i may be limited in my ability to speak to certain issues today, either because they are currently in litigation or more

properly directed to another agency. the department of justice recognizes the seriousness of the present situation and is advising both the department of homeland security and health and human services that they can continue to abide by any members . the current immigration system faces numerous legal and logistical challenges. added to them is the situation regarding family situation chip -- family separations. affording congress an opportunity to address family separation, it department of justice stands ready to improve existing laws. i look forward to answering the committee's questions. >> thank you, chairman grassley, feinstein and ranking members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

my name is jennifer higgins. i am the associate director of refugee asylum and international operations directorate. my testimony will focus on the role of the expedited removal process. that is the primary framework in which we encounter families arriving at the southwest border. the immigration and nationality act generally requires that expedited removal of individuals arriving in the united states without proper documentation. in 2004, dhs expanded expedited removal to individuals apprehended within 100 miles of the u.s. land border. and within 14 days of illegal entry. all individuals placed in these proceedings are subject to mandatory detention and promptly -- prompt return to their countries of origin. however, a single adult or family unit indicates that they have a fear of persecution,

torture or return, the law requires that these individuals be referred to our department for an assessment of their protection concerns. this is referred to as a credible fear screening. credible fear interviews are conducted by specially trained uscis officers. these officers comprise a professional cadre dedicated full-time to the adjudication and screening of protection claims. they have diverse educational and employment backgrounds from military veterans to peace corps volunteers. former ice trial attorneys to former nonprofit immigration attorneys. from prior law enforcement officers to former social workers. despite their diverse backgrounds, they are all driven by the mission, to provide this country's protection to those who are eligible while remaining fully focused on ensuring the integrity of the mission and protecting our country against those who seek to do us harm. all officers conducting credible fear screenings are extensively

trained in national security issues, country conditions, interview techniques, credibility determination, fraud detection and refugee and asylum law. during the credible fear interview these officers , question individuals about their identity, their fear of persecution or torture and whether there are any circumstances that may make them ineligible for asylum. uscis conducts checks. including biographic and biometric checks and coordinates with ice and other law enforcement 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 a credible fear when he or she demonstrates that there is a significant possibility that he or she could establish eligibility for asylum or withholding removal or relief under the convention against torture. if the individual establishes a credible fear, uscis places them

into removal proceedings, where he or she can seek asylum or other forms of relief before an immigration judge. therefore, a credible fear screening does not confer any immigration status. it is a screening process employed to identify individuals who may potentially merit protection. while decisions on asylum eligibility rests with an immigration judge, if we determine that an individual does not have a credible fear he , or she is subject to removal. unless the individual requests that an immigration judge review the screening determination. our role is limited but it is an important one. to screen in 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 or 400 interviews each day in response to the president's executive orders we have deployed our , staff continuously to 10 major detention facilities. residentialo detention centers in texas. since 2013, our dedicated workforce has completed over 385,000 credible fear cases under the extremely short timeframe demanded by that process. our officers have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate extraordinary commitment to the mission and u.s. immigration law. working tirelessly along side to keep pace with increasing volumes of credible fear requests while providing 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 your questions. >> i have already said we will have seven minute rounds and i

hope members will stop at the end of seven minutes, but you folks can answer the question if the seven minutes have run out. your family residential center is referred to as a place to keep children behind bars. this description seems to be in contrast to the law and the standards. what they require. ice family residential centers to my understanding our structured like communities with family residence, recreation, medical and dental offices, cafeterias, commissaries, even a hearing room for judges and lawyers for judges to give full attention to the claims of residents. i am concerned about recent reports of abuse, the new york times claimed that migrant women were being sexually abused by guards while in custody. if true, that is unacceptable, as i said in my opening statement.

what steps does ice take to investigate and respond to all allegations of abuse at these centers? what steps does ice take to prevent such abuse and punish offenders? let me also add this question. what steps are being taken by ice to make sure that no undocumented immigrant families suffer from forms of physical or mental abuse while in ice custody? >> thank you for the question. >> our residential centers, as with all of our detention facilities undergo a very rigorous inspection process and oversight process. any allegations of abuse or wrongdoing that occurs in any detention facility to include the frc is automatically reported to our joint intake center.

that is for reporting of allegations that go directly to dhs and also the inspector general. the inspector general has the ability to take any of those allegations for investigation and will do so if they feel there is evidence to warrant such an investigation. those that they choose not to investigate can be investigated by ice as a professional responsibility. in addition to that, the normal oversight processes at our detention facilities include the department of homeland security's crcl. we have the office of detention oversight. we are required to be inspected and meet licensing standards. we had detention service monitors that work for ice and work for our management branch that go to these facilities on a daily basis. we have officers in these facilities on a daily basis. with regard to the frc, i think the best way to describe the frc is more like a summer camp.

these individuals have access to 24/7 food and water. they have educational opportunities. they have recreational opportunities, both structured as well as unstructured. there are basketball court, exercise classes, there are soccer fields that we put in there. they have extensive medical, dental and mental health opportunities. many of these individuals, this is the first time they had ever seen a dentist. it is when they come to one of our frc's. when they leave, they leave there with seven sets of clothing for each individual that was in that frc. while they are there they have all sorts of access to pro bono legal opportunities. there is a legal orientation program that is there. there are many ngos that work in those facilities on a daily basis to provide them assistance and support. once they are released into the community. i am very comfortable with the level of service and protection that is being provided.

i believe that there is video on our website. one can go on to there and see the conditions. >> i think you have given a pretty thorough answer but i would like to have you commit to provide a detailed report on taken on any alleged abusive practices of undocumented families. i hope you would say yes to that. >> yes, sir. >> i think your description would be what is required by federal law if you haven't described things that are required by federal law or your own internal policies, give me an answer on that. i think you kind of described that. >> much of what i described is required under federal law. a lot of these are standard. ice actually has some of the most rigorous detention standards in the country. that includes other state

agencies for our detention facilities. >> attorneys i hope are allowed to confer with residents. and residents are allowed to make >> yes, that is correct. senator grassley: still continuing, you mentioned that many parents elect to be removed and leave their children behind. is a difficult concept for me to understand as a parent and grandparent. but the reality is, many undocumented migrants to leave their children behind. ice islleagues say --rcing parents is coercing isis coercing parents to leave their children behind. parents deported without their children did not give informed consent of that action. i would like to better

understand how reunification options are explained. our ice officers coercing parents to be deported and leave their children behind? >> no. there is long-standing policy that dictates how reunification may occur as an individual's main taint -- as an individual is detained. be kepty, a child can't in the same facility. there are times where the adult may be bonded out. the medical reason, perhaps, where they have the ability to proceed to sponsor their child out of hhs. if that individual is held in and at the end of the process, is ordered removed by an immigration judge, that individual will have the opportunity to request their

child be removed from them. we work with the attorneys these individuals may have to help facilitate that. a great number of individuals do not wish to have their child return home with them. the reason individuals have come in the first places to get their children to the united states. many have spent their life savings to get their children to the united states. smugglers,me of -- criminal organizations, they subject themselves and their children to risk. when they get that child to sometimes another parent here illegally, they will not want to take that child back with them and risk having to make that journey again. they have succeeded by getting their child here. thee have seen with individuals arrested during the zero tolerance program, many are repeat offenders. they have criminal histories in the u.s..

they were caught, arrested, and removed. to try to reenter illegally as a single adult as opposed to with the child. grassley: senator feinstein and senator hatch will be after senator feinstein. senator feinstein: i would like to have a conversation with you, commander. thexperience goes back to year 2000 when i happened to be watching television and i saw a young chinese girl before an immigration judge in seattle. 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.

bill called the unaccompanied alien child protection act of 2000 which took children out of ice and put them in hhs. the duo also provided for some pro bono and legal help which ,id not make it the final bill which i am now told, was the homeland security act of 2002. senator hirono 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. and so there is a long and emotional history. i was so struck this morning by the fact that there are 11,316 minors in care of hhs today. it is clear that we have a huge problem.

, thosenderstanding numbers are down, too, somewhat. how did 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 cross the border or go through a port of entry, wherever it is, that is helpful to you? >> thank you, senator. so, the mechanism for referring a child into the care of orr, by a dhs agency, typically cbp, but it can also be ice, they have limited access to the i.t.

system which is called the uac 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. senator feinstein: just say it like it is. do not worry about it. >> this is a novel situation. there have always been some minors separated, typically because of serious criminal charges faced by the parents or other concerns. senator feinstein. let me interrupt you. feinstein: 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 15% to 20% at the highest. >> that is approximately the recent number. it has been about 15% to 20%. prior to our recent reunification, it is a smaller proportion now.

senator feinstein: 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. senator feinstein: how do you identify them? how do you connect them with a parent? it seems to me the system is 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 to child. senator feinstein: stop for a minute. that alien number, when it comes with the child, how old does the child have to be to have an alien number and how do they carry it with them? >> every minor is identified with an alien number. it is unique identifier of any person in the immigration law enforcement. senator feinstein: how about a baby? >> a baby referred to us would also have an alien number. senator feinstein: 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. senator feinstein: how do they connect? how does the electronic referral connect to a child eight months

old? >> referral is made to our 24/7 365 intake desk in orr which identifies the best bed for that child based on age and needs. that information is conveyed 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. senator feinstein: let's go to the 11,316 minors in care today. how many are under the age of five? >> i don't have that number with me.

senator feinstein: could you get that definitive number two us? >> absolutely. senator feinstein. i have the numbers from doj. -- senator feinstein: i have the numbers from doj. children in care from orr, parent waive 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. feinstein: are they correct numbers?

>> they were at the time of the filing. they have changed subsequently. they are correct as of the date. senator feinstein: i would like to get the changes. thank you very much. >> senator hatch. 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.

i applaud chairman grassley and 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. let me just 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. >> how is 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. this started in 2014, when we saw a large spike in both areas. we started to see rises in 2010, 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 units and children in be 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. >> without new legislation, does the administration have any choice but to resume so-called catch and release policies for individuals caught entering our country unlawfully with children? do they have any other choice? anyone? >> 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 has ruled the flores consent 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? is there any available avenue in which the government might be able to seek? the 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 decree. 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. we have heard a lot about alternatives to detention programs. the allegedly high success, are there 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 200,034 removals. average length of stay, 40 days,

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 values, republican or democrat. 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 t -- now we're trying to pick up the pieces, we have children separated from their families. prior to 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? -- reunited with their parents? dhs secretary, 100% of the parents referred to prosecution.

for kind of guidance did you have? -- what kind of guidance did you have? >> thank you for your question, sir. under zero-tolerance the guidance was 100% prosecution for all amenable adults. it was not focused on anyone -- on any one 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 zero-tolerance from doj, and her 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 of ice. >> i have heard of one-year-old infants being before the judges. almost kafka.p -- up.pick them they are 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. chuck e. 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. >> if you have children, you 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. reports a 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?

>> as you know, senator, ice is divided into two operational components, homeland security investigations and removal operations. i cannot speak to it hsi does. we can get you information. >> 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. >> thank you all for being here. 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. is not your fault that congress 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 smuggle drugs, 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 -- our full 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. >> if our primary goal is family unification, which we all share, why not just keep the child with the adult and enforce the law? >> senator, the issue there is that under the flores settlement agreement and the determination made by the courts in 2015, we 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 heroin, which is the next drug 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. so, 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, sir. >> senator durbin. >> thank you mr. chairman. on june 26, a judge appointed by a republican president george w. bush ordered the reunification of separated families. the concluded "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 day at orr was march 15, three 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. >> were you aware of the fact 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 them back find them are matching them back up with their parents. 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 in the united states, and 90 cannot be located at all. on friday, 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 as 350 of the 431 parents may 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? >> as indicated 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. as part of that process, we 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 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? there clearly must be a piece of 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 utilizing per the decision is an 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. >> the premier case on this 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. homeland security, doing human

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? do unaccompanied minors go through the same at the canadian border at the mexican border? >> if we apprehend an 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. the last number i saw, 1.5% to 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.

senator graham: 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 illegally, they cannot be held over 20 days? >> yes. a family unit cannot be held longer than 20 days. senator graham: 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? is that correct? >> 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. senator graham: what percentage shows up to their hearings after 20 days? >> i don't have a number. senator graham: 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. senator graham: does anybody know? >> we don't track divisions or distinctions made -- senator graham: you bring your family, you get caught at the border. you have to be released to somebody. is that the law? children who are with their parents can be held in a dhs -- senator graham: what about the parents? do they have to be let out in 20 days? >> the floor is decision does not require that. senator graham: what happens to the parents? going to berent is held in ice custody, they would

have to go to an adult detention facility and the child would go to hhs. senator graham: do the parents have to be let out in 20 days? >> no. only with their child. senator graham: this is bizarre. you come as a family unit. can be held until they are hearing. they are not required to be let out. what would you recommend we do about this? >> give us the authority to have a family during the immigration removal proceedings. at the conclusion, if they are granted immigration benefits, they are released. or we detain them until time of removal. senator graham: that might deter some people from bringing their children here. >> i would say that it would. senator graham: what is the main reason we have 11 million illegal immigrants in america?

what brings them here? what is the magnet? numerous push and pull factors. senator graham: the main reason. the main reason most people come here is to find a job. does that make sense to you? you all are the experts. >> for the children we have seen -- senator graham: i'm talking about adults. does anybody disagree that the main magnet is economic opportunity? don't know that, how are we going to solve the problem? i think that is the main reason. if you abolished ice, who would be the biggest winner? >> smugglers. senator graham: and if you don't have to verify who gets a job, can you fix this? >> no, sir. senator graham: you can build a

wall 100 miles high, people will go over it or around it if they get a job in america. there are many aspects to border security and many factors that impact. senator graham: ok. thanks. whitehouse. chairman,itehouse: you were probably in the closed door briefing that we had when i asked the previous panel of witnesses what went wrong. two of our witnesses, people of had a chance to think about it a little bit longer. as simply as possible, what went wrong here?

>> we were directed to do 100% prosecutions on amenable adults. of adults,jority approximately 85% for single adults. -- were single adults. senator whitehouse: is that an answer to my question? what went wrong? >> it is our responsibility to make the apprehensions and turn people over to ice. senator whitehouse: as far as you are concerned, nothing went wrong. >> i'm not saying that. senator whitehouse: you are not saying anything went wrong. our responsibility is the border security aspect of it. senator whitehouse: what went wrong? ands i indicated, both ice

policieslong-standing and procedures policies and procedures to dictate how reunifications occur. i am answering your question. there is a standard practice they follow. if the individual is in custody, there is a standard practice that is followed. what wentitehouse: wrong? >> the children were separated and referred to as unaccompanied when in fact they were accompanied. the would defer to responses given by my colleagues. thetor whitehouse: doesn't doj have an interest in the consequences of the decision the attorney general made? >> we don't play an operational or logistical role.

i would have to defer to my colleagues responses. senator whitehouse: you wash your hands of this one? >> i would not describe it as that. we advise them appropriately. senator whitehouse: what went wrong? a narrow one, to provide protections to individuals seeking asylum in this country. i would have to defer to my colleagues. senator whitehouse: is the judge ordersng the law in the being given to solve the reunification problem? mr. mchenry? >> it would not be appropriate for me to answer. senator whitehouse: you can't even tell me if the judge is following the law? >> we advise the clients to follow the orders. any further comment on it would

be an appropriate litigation is ongoing. is therehitehouse: anything that would have tovented your organizations repare for this? you did it afterwards when the judge told you, couldn't you ? ve done it beforehand able to affect the reunification of a large number working in partnership with ice toause the judge ordered us not follow the trafficking victims reauthorization act. we could not have done that without him ordering us to do that. senator whitehouse: was that foreseeable? the consequences of following that act?

program exists to protect children and unify them with sponsors in this country. is notnification consistent with statute until we receive the order from the judge. when was thehouse: first date you heard of the sessions directed to require zero-tolerance? on aprilt became aware 6. senator whitehouse: when did you become aware of the april 6 decision? >> on or about that date. senator whitehouse: you said march 22 before you left. 15 ofleft orr on the march. i became aware of the announcement on the six of april. senator whitehouse: i assume you

knew that this was going to take place before april 6. >> we were advised it might be a possibility in case it had operational impact. senator whitehouse: when were you first notified that the decision was taken? >> on or about april 6. i found out when the decision was announced, but our director has indicated he was asked to make an indication was the decision was made to prosecute illegal border crossings. i have a fewhouse: seconds left. how many cases are you aware of of separated children, pursuant to this policy in which it turned out that there were fraudulent claims and there was, andact, no family relation

the person claiming parentage or family relation? that number with me but we are aware of a number of those cases. the total number we have identified of separated miners including -- subsequent to the zero-tolerance policy, the judges order does not between this. i don't have with meaty number determined to be fraudulent parents. that did occur and it is an endemic risk. senator whitehouse: i know you don't have it now, but can you get the number to me as a question for the record? >> i am sure we will take that back for action. senator whitehouse: is that a good enough answer? question and i would

like to have a commitment here to get an answer. i think that is appropriate in a senate hearing. be appreciated if you respond to each person separately. senator whitehouse: you will get me the answer, thank you. tillis: thank you for the hard work that you do. to hit these numbers normalized. a few heard numbers from to a few thousand. people will walk away accepting the answer that best suits the narrative. can you explain the number of children that have not been reunified with their parents?

>> yes, sir. senator tillis: i want to talk about the reasons why. 2551 children that to have beened separated or we had indications of separation based on our , 1992 of those are no longer in orr care. 559 remain in orr care. 559 are theis: may beof children who reunified based on the information you have but have not yet? >> that would include those that we have not yet and who may be eligible for reunification, such as the remaining miners that have parents released to the interior or miners that may have parents have returned to home

country. and some that remain who were determined not to be eligible for reunification. senator tillis: because of the circumstances related to their parents? >> it would be based on either -- we aredoubt that in the process of determining that by objective standards. and more often, and identified safety risk to the child. 'ss would be based on ice summary of fingerprint check. ,arents excluded in spaces those with prior convictions for child abuse, or child exploitation. as rape, murder, and kidnapping. criminal history by itself is not a bar to reunification.

but if it clearly demonstrates a real threat to a child, that is. these would be among the reasons a person would be ineligible. these be among the reasons that a person would be eligible based on the 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 statement to their mental health clinician that the parent had abused them or they had otherwise been harmed. sen. tillis: so in the way that your response -- maybe it was an 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 under court order to meet are not as high as the standards for tdpra. i can give examples. the court ordered us to consider putative parentage as 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. why it takes longer to reunify children with parents in the ordinary process that was permitted under the time frame. sen. 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 2.5 attorneys to each judge so 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. mr. alvez, 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 comment. 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 -- sen. 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 after frivolous appeals because there is no reason not to. sen. 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. are we not doing -- chief, you said you try to link whoever comes together, or whoever is apprehended together, and it sounded like through the process over to hhs 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 apprehend somebody, each individual is given an alien registration number. within our system of record,

which is e3, our agents go win 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. they come with cousins, aunts, those types of cases. sen. tillis: it may be slightly more sophisticated than the chuck e. cheese model in terms of identifying people and families who were apprehended?

anybody disagree with that? >> neither these information systems nor these programs were specifically built to effect reunifications of children in ice custody. this had to be a novel process because this is not how these programs were designed. sen. grassley: senator klobuchar? sen. klobuchar: 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, who said 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 court-order deadline for the administration to reunite families that had been separated some 711 kids ages 5 to 17 had 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. -- locating parents 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 address these challenges if these kids that we want to find their parents at the back? we have ones like that. >> as 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. sen. klobuchar: commander white, i'm concerned about what efforts have been made to make sure that

sibling groups sit together. having a parent taken a way is traumatic, but losing a sibling is terrifying. a girl was taken to floor was detained in texas. -- a girl was taken to florida while her brother was detained in texas. does hhs has a policy in place 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 have to say, i'm a little surprised because except when there is a health care issue, it is very, very rare that we would

see sibling groups separated -- sen. klobuchar: it was a 15-year-old girl. >> that case surprises me. there is a policy, unlike the 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. sen. klobuchar: 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. -- i was deeply troubled by sessions' decision to overturn key assylum protections in the case that helped victims of domestic violence seeking asylum in the u.s. this is one of our major focuses, and we would have immigrant victims, where perpetrators would deliberately prey because they could say i am 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 the precedent, i 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. i would note that our officers ajudicate each case on a case-by-case basis based on the facts. they are required to ensure they are abiding by all statutes, regulations, and precedent decisions. there is nothing in that that prohibits someone from seeking

asylum. our officers are tasked with making sure they are reviewing all relevant evidence and making the case-by-case -- sen. klobuchar: what are the implications of overturning the precedent? >> it is too early to tell. sen. klobuchar: 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 a number of individuals would no longer qualify as a particular social group that might qualify under one of the other protected grounds.

no nexus is required. sen. klobuchar: but the screening process has changed? >> our process has not changed. our officers address individuals and make case-by-case decisions. senator klobuchar: you do not think it will make differences at all that the attorney general reversed his decision? >> it is difficult to predict because individuals may qualify under other grounds. sen. klobuchar: was your office involved in the decision to overturn this precedent? >> i personally was not involved. i understand that the 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. >> the dhs is a party to every immigration proceeding with a representative of customs enforcement in removal proceedings. i could not speak to whether ice was consulted or not.

sen. klobuchar: i will try to put this in writing at the end and 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. sen. grassley: senator booker? pardon me, senator hirono. sen. hirono: it has them a clear that the government has no kind. commander white says if the judge had not ordered to read, it would happen because these children were made orphans and are then in hhs custody. presumably they had no parents. the judge, if he had not forced

the reunification, it would not be happening. what is the plan for these children once they were separated from the parents? >> again, ice has a policy that facilitates 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 would have followed prior to this judge's order. sen. hirono: even without the judge's border, you would have proceeded to reunify as appropriate 3000 children? >> at the end of that process 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 --

sen. hirono: excuse me. what you did was you separated the children from their parents before any kind of process even began. i understand that once the process, if appropriate, you would reunify the children with parents, but at first that was not what was contemplated. what i get is what was happening was with the separating of their children from their parents, they were immediately deemed unaccompanied children, sent to health and human services, where where health and human services, under the normal process would have tried to find sponsors for someone to take care of those children, some 11,000 children. so it is very clear that the 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 whether all of the panel members are familiar with home security'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 defer to my colleague from ice. >> i have never been to an frc. >> i have been to both. sen. hirono: since 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

i saw did, as described, have schools -- sen. hirono: 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 -- sen. hirono: these were deemed "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 --

sen. hirono: they have broken the law, only because of the presiden'ts zero tolerance-- >> no, ma'am. they are there for violation of title 8 of the u.s. nationality act. illegal entry is a criminal and civil violation. those in those frc's are there because they have broken the law. sen. hirono: 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. sen. hirono: i'm confused. >> the integral is being prosecuted for criminal violation of illegal entry. sen. hirono: and everybody would be prosecuted in a criminal proceeding. is that correct? >> that is correct. sen. hirono: 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 reasons, but 120 children, it was because these parents waived

reunification. so 431 were because their parents had already been deported. didn't the court tell the administration find these 431 deported parents and reify them with children? >> although there are limits to what i can think about it because it is currently in court -- sen. hirono: wasn't the administration telling you to find the parents of these children? >> we're actively making an effort to find them. yes, ma'am. sen. hirono: how many have you found? >> i do not have the number we have contacted yet, although we can provide it -- sen. hirono: 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 children, were 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 parents? is there something you can show us that says they fully understood what was happening before they signed waivers? >> 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. that is separate from the hhs process that we did face-to-face interviews with parents to determine if they wanted unification. many parents 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 on earthy 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 would say, no, 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 said yes. some parents said no, and when they 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. sen. hirono: these represent if they were knowingly waived because of the circumstances, i understand that. because of the attorney general's decision that certain kinds of files in the countries will no longer be considered as part of their asylum arguments,

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 for you. would you send your child 300 miles with a group of people to include gangs, drug traffickers, or human traffickers over a 3000 mile journey? ms. higgins: it is hard for me to put myself in that situation. sen. cruz: 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, the 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 vilifying and attacking ice, and on 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. i thank you. sen. cruz: 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. sen. cruz: ms. provost, first several months of 2017 we saw a significant decrease in illegal immigration. unfortunately, that decrease has 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 last year, at some point, once 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. there are numerous pull factors, some of which we have discussed today as well, whether economic or the fact that port decisions impact that. those numbers started creeping back up on us. sen. cruz: 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 know, this is not a new problem. we have seen thousands of children coming for a great many years. let me ask you, when kids are brought into this country by human traffickers, what kind of treatment do they get in the journey, 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 stash houses in deplorable conditions as well as riding in tractor-trailer trucks, which we know in san antonio just a year, year and half ago, we had that tragedy.

these individuals are put at risk day in and day out that is what happens once they are along the border, not to mention the trip up. there are cases of rape, abuse, of all different types of things that are happening to these illegal aliens that are making a trip to the country. sen. cruz: 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, that we should not be adopting policies that effectively mandate catch and release because that only serves to 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 be bipartisan agreement behind that legislative effort. i am hopeful and optimistic. mr. albots, can you share your thoughts about the consequences of catch and release and what it does to levels of illegal immigration? >> i think going to the chief's point, you saw that initial dip when there was concern that the laws of this country would be rigorously enforced.

unfortunately, 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. sen. cruz: mr. albence, 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 from 1997 and 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

out into the communities, and most times we do not see them again. sen. cruz: thanks. >> 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 increases across a broad range 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, to request information. this is a letter we are sending to the attorney general, and others, asking for basic details and regular updates. on, what artifacts? -- on, what are the facts? how many children? what ages? where are they being detained? 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 requests for relevant information? >> senator, i will take this back and we work on getting that information to you.

sen. coons: thank you. >> yes, sir, absolutely. sen. coons: thank you. commander white? >> yes. sen. coons: ma'am? >> yes. sen. coons: 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 certainly get you a copy of that one. sen. coons: 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 that the opposite is the case. are parents given the opportunity to consult with her lawyer and children 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. sen coons: 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. sen. coons: one of my concerns is there is a report that suggests children and parents who are separated in some cases by 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? >> first of all, what we do, and what we do with children to cope with the situation. every child in oor care is given a chance to call family members either in the united states or in home country. they are allowed a minimum of two phone calls a week, and many children get more. parents 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. our field teams interviewed parents. part of what they did, they also would promote telephonic contact between parent and 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 is a 12 to 1 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. sen. coons: thank you. a few more things. senators langford and i joined 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 to provide support for the 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 them 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 case is actually ice's, 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.

that is why those who were for the people on my team were working 24/7. 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. sen. coons: i will say that the entire process is a consequence of the trump administration's 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. the travel ban, daca, and zero-tolerance. it is my hope that we can move to resolve the underlying legal and framework issues that make immigration such a difficult issue for all of us. thank you, mr. chairman. sen. grassley: senator booker?

sen. 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. but they were concerned. "cuidado, esta peligroso." that was not my intention to go to the community. i really came back around to

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, in all of our processes, about how we are prioritizing such that it could reflect our values and keep us safe. i 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 away 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.

my questions, real 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 helps manage those beds -- senator booker: 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 booker: 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. we're between 97% and 99% full. we would need the funding to do that. senator booker: that is great because that is a policy issue. i worry that i agent have her arrested about 4000 undocumented immigrants. those are a lot of resources of going after 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

as a senator leahy said, you call your tip line. press one first of or -- for reporting suspected undocumented immigrants. you have to go pretty far down. terrorism is number four. i think it should be number one. reporting crimes against children, number 6. reporting gang activity is down at number eight. a guy who lives in a city with a lot of undocumented immigrants -- now you are encouraging people to report crimes. ice should be in the business of catching criminals. encouraging people to report on their neighbors for possible violation of civil offenses.

i have seen this with the drug war in america. we have hundreds of thousands of people locked up in this country right now for low-level drug crimes, many of them doing things that two of the last three presidents admitted doing. think of the resources that could be used to keep people safe. i am done now but i want to ask you one 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 , canine, for god's sake encourage americans to make a -- make it safer and not continue to round up people that take resources away from that really dangerous situations? sen. grassley: i hope you can give a short answer. >> i will do my best. nine out of every 10 people we arrest has a criminal conviction

or has been charged in a criminal offense, i can tell you that 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 public safety threats, we are not going to turn a blind eye to them. the other individuals who we arrest are those who have had their day in court, and are fugitives, meeting they ignored the judge's order, 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 does not fall under me. we have been working with the tip line to be prioritizing the types of calls that come in there, and the group that has been doing this one enforcement. they are doing that so they can move those cases for referral, hsi keeps the other

categories. because they had responsibility. i will find out. sen. booker: that does not jive with the data. if that is true, then why does his own data show that these people don't pose any threat whatsoever. it does not some like you're prioritizing resources for public safety at all, but you are creating more safety hazards and fear among immigrant communities to report crimes. sen. grassley: senator blumenthal. sen. 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? you can just raise your hand. who thinks 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? >> the zero-tolerance prosecution policy memorandum was issued by the attorney january 6, 2018. sen. blumenthal: so the official responsible for zero-tolerance is the attorney general of the united states acting presumably with the approval of the president, correct? >> he is the one who issued the memorandum. it's an extension of an earlier memorandum he issued in 2017. sen. blumenthal: did any member of this panel say to anyone maybe this is not such a good idea? commander?

>> during the deliberative process over the previous year, we raised a number of concerns oor 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. sen. blumenthal: 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. tremendousthal: its

-- it is tremendous for any child, 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. sen. blumenthal: 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? >> no, sir, we were advised that family separation was not the policy. sen. blumenthal: family separation just happened to result from zero-tolerance without anybody knowing in advance even though you raised the concern, correct? >> yes, we raised concerns about the effect on children as well as the effect on the program. sen. blumenthal: and what was the answer? oort no time that i was in

was there an actual policy announcement of family separation. it was just a discussion of future possible consequences. sen. blumenthal: so there was an awareness that would be the consequence, correct? you raised it. >> i did raise it. sen. blumenthal: i'm asking again, what was the answer? >> the answer received is that family separation was not a policy. there was no policy that would result in family separation. sen. blumenthal: it would be the consequence of the policy but not the policy. >> no, i was advised that there was no policy which would result in separation of children from family units. sen. blumenthal: are you satisfied with the amount of care and counseling that is being provided to these children to deal with the trauma and the pain of their separation from their parents? >> yes. the children in oora care each have a mental health clinician.

sen. blumenthal: i know that they each have a clinician. are you satisfied that they are receiving sufficient care or du -- or do you believe that maybe those clinicians are overworked or overburdened and there should be more? >> i believe the children are receiving sufficient care. sen. blumenthal: let me ask whether anyone here has authority to end the appeal of of the judge's decision that the flores settlement should be continued? does anyone here have that authority? >> the department of justice makes the litigation decision . i personally would not have that authority. the department would. sen. blumenthal: can you commit to me that there will be reconsideration of the department's decision flores should be sustained? >> as i indicated previously,

the department is considering its options. sen. blumenthal: what are the number of children under five who have been reunified? >> sir, i don't have that number with me, i'm sorry. thanblumenthal: is it less two that werer of separated? >> some minors were not eligible for reunification. blumenthal -- sen. blumenthal: do you know the number question -- number? >> i don't know the number but we haven't and can provide it. sen. blumenthal: of those 431 total, how many eventually of them do you expect will be reunified? >> you are referring to the

minors who have been removed from the united states? sen. blumenthal: is there any process to reunify them? >> there's no way i can say what number that will happen because it hasn't happened yet, but we are working on strategy to affect reunification. a number of parents may elect that their children remain in the united states. sen. blumenthal: when parents are put in detention facilities, are they permitted to retain their telephone? their cell phone? >> not at the facility itself, no. sen. blumenthal: how do children reach their parents? >> i can speak to our capabilities at the detention facilities. commander white spoke very well about the process they utilize. 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 domestically or internationally. we have worked closely with commander white's people during the course of this process to

ensure that communication occurs in a routine and regular basis. they help facilitate that can -- communication. sen. blumenthal: >> i will finish because my time has expired but i just want to say that there is now total consensus on both sides of the aisle that this zero tyler and's -- zero-tolerance and family separation policy and it had been a policy, as you indicated, commander, 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 because general kelly himself and other top officials indicated that deterrence was an objective. it 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 on whether the chairman will -- sen. grassley: do it in writing. senator harris. en. hirono:'s -- sen. harris: thank you, mr. chairman, it is clear the folks before us now are not the shot callers. they are following orders. 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. i believe that those who created this policy and implemented it including secretary nelson should step down because this has been a policy that has not only wreaked havoc but it will , down the line to all the children affected, 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. >> ma'am, we don't have the parents, we have the children, but 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. sen. harris: and what is the deadline by which we are and that you are going to reunify those children with their parents? is there a deadline in place? >> my team is working to affect those reunifications. sen. harris: 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. sen. harris: don't you believe that we should be held accountable to ensure that 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? >> ma'am, it is absolutely my heartfelt conviction that we must reunify those children with their parents, yes. sen. harris: will you commit to creating a deadline by which

that should 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. sen. harris: are you saying you don't have the authority to create a deadline? >> i'm saying that if i could have reunified all those children with their parents by yesterday, it would be done. we are operating under -- we work within the world of what is operationally achievable. sen. harris: are you under a consent decree? >> i'm sorry? sen. harris: are you under a consent decree? by the court? >> i will have to defer to doj to characterize our current legal situation. sen. harris: what effort is the government making to provide phone and video contact with these families while they are in detention facilities? >> as we indicated, for the children in our care, we work to

provide them with unimpeded access with phones to contact their parents. sen. harris: is it a policy that they are not to be charged to make these phone calls? you are aware there is an expense associated with those calls? who pays that expense? in our care, are whether those minors have been separated, those calls are paid for under the appropriation of congress. sen. harris: what about the calls the parents make to their children, who pays for those calls? >> if they are in one of the facilities that has access to our free platform, then those calls are at no cost to the individuals. if not, the individual will have a minor cost associated with that call depending who the individual is calling. calls to family members and emergency calls are not charged. calls upon booking to a facility

or transferring to a facility are not charged. sen. harris: have you visited the otay mesa detention facility in california? >> i may have been there once. sen. harris: i have been there and i have been told that the calls those parents would make to their children are free. however, when i sat with the mothers at those detention -- that tension facility -- that the tension facility -- that detention facility 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 those parents are there and perform labor such as cleaning toilets or doing laundry, they are paid one dollar per day. are you familiar with that policy? or practice? >> many of the individuals in ice custody are eligible to apply and work in a voluntary work program. it is not mandatory. it is voluntary if they choose to do so.

many choose to do so to pass the time while they await their hearing or removal. sen. harris: 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. sen. harris: to clean toilets? sir is that what you are saying? , >> i don't know every task they are assigned, but is -- it is voluntary. sen. harris: are you familiar with the practice at that detention facility to pay the to -- the detainees one dollar per day for labor performed in that facility? >> i'm not familiar with that facility. i can find out when i get back. sen. harris: 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? >> i don't have since january. i can give you the fiscal number year to date as of july 21. that's 1395. sen. harris: 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 third trimester? is there a policy? >> yes, we do have a policy regarding pregnant detainees and their care. the policy was changed last year to comply with the president's executive orders. in practice, the only effective change is no longer are pregnant women given the presumption of release. we look at it on a case-by-case legislation. sen. harris: which was the previous administration's policy, to the in a less restrictive -- >> it would be less restrictive. the number of pregnant detainees we have right now is not vastly larger than the last two years. sen. harris: but the conditions and terms by which they are detained are vastly different. >> no, we are using the same detention facilities we were using in 2015.

sen. harris: it's no longer a presumption -- >> that's correct. sen. harris: i've heard at least two cases where women were going into labor while they were in detention. are you familiar with those cases? >> i am not. sen. harris: what protocol has been followed or promulgated for women going into labor while i at your detention facilities? are they being accompanied by ice officers to a hospital or is the anticipation is that they will give birth in a detention facility and do you have policies in place of them being shackled? do you know any of that? >> our policy with regard to shackling, we do not shackle women in active labor. sen. harris: what does active labor mean? >> they are in labor. if they are six months pregnant and not in labor, that would not

be active labor. sen. harris: is there a policy requiring pregnant women being shackled if they are not in active labor? >> there are times when an individual is being transported when they would need to be handcuffed for their own safety as well as the safety of the officers, absolutely. sen. harris: if you can follow up on the number of women in their third trimester or -- who are currently housed in your detention facility, i would appreciate that. thank you, mr. chairman. 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 for answer in writing. some of you have received them orally already. there will be one week for 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. [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] >> the u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york

held a briefing earlier today, saying there will be federal charges against congressman chris collins for insider trading. here is that announcement. today we announced criminal charges against christopher collins, a united eights congressman. -- united states congressman. congressman collins is charged with insider trading and lying to the ei -- the fbi. congressman collins cheated our markets and our justice system in two ways. first, he tipped his son to confidential court with information at the expense of regular investors, and then he lied about it to law enforcement to cover it up. a briefing held earlier today as authorities announced federal insider trading charges against new york congressman chris collins.

he has been accused of tipping off his family and friends to insider knowledge of a drug company's failed clinical trials for a drug to create -- treat multiple sclerosis. we will show you today's briefing in its entirety tonight at 7:30 eastern here on c-span. a look at our primetime schedule on the c-span networks. starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern, former president barack obama delivers remarks at the annual mandela lecture in south africa on c-span. book tv with a look at recent biographies. on c-span3, american history tv with programs on civil rights and race relations. thursday, former law clerks to supreme court nominee brett kavanaugh discuss their time working for him and how he approached his job as a judge on the d.c. circuit court of deals -- appeals. that's at the heritage foundation.

live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc -- washington, d.c., and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> the former executive director of the state department's advisory commission on public diplomacy, shawn powers recently reflected on the , challenges of getting information to foreign and domestic audiences. mr. powers spoke during an event hosted by the university of southern california annenberg center on communication, leadership. >> this is p