[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
A REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE APPREHENSION, DETENTION, AND RELEASE OF NON CITIZENS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES (PART II)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 19, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-538 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Sean McLaughlin, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Art Arthur, Staff Director, Sub Committee on National Security
Sang Yi, Professioal Staff Member
Sarah Vance, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 19, 2015................................... 1
WITNESS
The Hon. Sarah R. Saldana, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Written Statement............................................ 9
APPENDIX
Breakdown of the Subsequent Convictions Associated with Criminal
Aliens Placed in a Non-Custodial Setting in Fiscal Year 2013... 52
Figure 5. ICE Interior Deportations: 2009-2014................... 90
Letter to Hon. Charles E. Grassley from Thomas S. Winkowski...... 91
Website for The ``Recidivism of Prisoner Released in 30 States in
2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010'' Report...................... 96
QFR's from Sarah R. Saldana to Chairman Jason Chaffetz........... 97
A REVIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY'S POLICIES AND
PROCEDURES FOR THE APPREHENSION, DETENTION, AND RELEASE OF NON-CITIZENS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES (PART II)
----------
Thursday, March 19, 2015,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jason
Chaffetz(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Walberg, Amash,
Gosar, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Mulvaney, Buck, Walker, Hice,
Russell, Carter, Grothman, Hurd, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney,
Norton, Connolly, Cartwright, Duckworth, Lawrence, Plaskett,
DeSaulnier, and Lujan Grisham.
Chairman Chaffetz. The committee will come to order.
I thank everybody for joining us here today. Without
objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time.
We are here today to continue a discussion that began a few
weeks ago at a joint subcommittee hearing about the President's
executive actions on immigration. I want to thank the
subcommittee chairmen, particularly Ron DeSantis and Jim
Jordan, for starting the committee's review of the new
immigration apprehension policies that Secretary of Homeland
Security Jeh Johnson announced on November 20th of the year
2014. We now have a better understanding of the various ways
those policies may undermine local law enforcement efforts to
protect the public.
Today we are going to followup with questions for the newly
confirmed Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE,
Ms. Sarah Saldana, and about how ICE will actually enforce the
immigration laws and how their enforcement posture will affect
public policy.
We want to particularly thank the men and women who do the
hard job and work within ICE. They put their lives on the line
every day and we are very grateful for their service, and we
are thankful for your service and participation here today.
This hearing is important because it allows us to determine
whether non-citizens who committed serious offenses will be
apprehended, detained, and then ultimately removed per the
promise that the President of the United States gave the
American people.
The President's executive actions will have two very
different effects on approximately 11 million non-citizens
unlawfully present in the United States. Through Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, and Deferred Action for
Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA,
as it is referred to, the Administration intends to provide
benefits to about five million otherwise unlawfully present in
the Country.
Earlier this month, the subcommittees conducted a hearing
focused on how these executive actions may make it easier for
these individuals to register to vote illegally. Just this past
Tuesday, the subcommittees examined the fiscal costs of these
actions to the Federal and State Governments.
Secretary Johnson's November 20th, 2014, announcement will
also have an effect on others unlawfully present in the United
States. In essence, it will provide de facto amnesty for many
of the remaining six million non-citizens unlawfully present in
the United States who are not directly covered by DACA or DAPA.
Unless these individuals fall within the carefully
circumscribed categories, their removal will not be a priority
for Department of Homeland Security.
But the core reason we are here today, even under the
immigration policies that predated that announcement, convicted
criminals who are unlawfully present in the United States have
been released in staggering numbers. And this I simply just
don't understand. The President, the Secretary, the
Administration, time and again has promised the American people
that if you are convicted, if you are a criminal, you are going
to be deported. But that is not what is happening.
According to ICE, 36,007 convicted criminal non-citizens
were released in Fiscal Year 2013. In the year 2014 that number
is roughly 30,000. More than 60,000 people. These are people
that are here illegally, committed a crime, were convicted, and
then they were released back into the public, rather than being
deported. That is the question that is posed to us today.
Of the 36,007 individuals from the year 2013, not too long
ago, they amassed nearly 88,000 convictions--not accusations,
convictions--including 193 homicide convictions, 426 sexual
assault convictions, 303 kidnaping convictions, 16,070 drunken
or drugged driving convictions. Convictions.
As of September 2014, 5,700 of those individuals went on to
commit another crime. They are here illegally, they get caught,
they get convicted, they get released, they go back and commit
another crime. One thousand of those individuals were convicted
again for offenses including lewd acts with a child under the
age of 14, indecent liberty with a child, child cruelty,
possible injury or death, driving while intoxicated.
I can't even imagine being a parent and having my child
molested by somebody who is here illegally. The President
promises he is going to be deported and they didn't. They
released them back out. And I want to know from ICE why that
is. It is intolerable. I could never look the parents of those
children in the face with what has been done here.
The joint subcommittee heard compelling testimony from two
family members of victims of these types of criminals. In
January of this year, 21-year-old Grant Ronnebeck was murdered
while working at a convenience store in Mesa, Arizona by a non-
citizen unlawfully present in the United States. Prior to
Grant's death, his murderer, Apolinar Altamirano, was facing
deportation proceedings after being convicted of burglary, but
released on a $10,000 bond just 4 days after his detention in
2013.
In March 2008, Jamiel Shaw was a 17-year-old high school
football star in Los Angeles, California, when he was murdered
by Pedro Espinoza, an illegal immigrant gang member who had
been released from jail just 2 days before after serving time
for assault with a deadly weapon. They released him back into
the public.
While the Department of Homeland Security was invited to
testify at that previous hearing, they declined. And I think it
is important for the Department representative to hear and see
from the American people those lives that are directly impacted
by these policies.
We put together a very brief video which is a highlight
from the last hearing, and I would like to play that now, if I
could, please.
[Video.]
Chairman Chaffetz. I don't know how you look into the eye
of Mr. Shaw. Our heart bleeds for somebody like that. The
person is here illegally. Are there good people that are here
that probably shouldn't be here? Yes, I am sure there are. But
we are talking about the criminal aliens. We are talking about
people that are convicted of violent crimes. And instead of
being picked up and deported, as the President promised, that
person was put back out on the street and committed murder.
I am going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record 1,000 of these convictions. This is a list, it is
numbered 1 to a 1,000, a breakdown of subsequent convictions--
subsequent convictions--associated with criminal aliens placed
in non-custodial setting. And this is just the Fiscal Year
2013.
Without objection, so ordered.
Chairman Chaffetz. It is not difficult to imagine that
people like Mr. Ronnebeck and Mr. Shaw often wonder if their
loved ones would still be here today if our immigration
enforcement laws were enforced.
Secretary's Johnson's November 20th announcement exposes
the American people to even greater danger. In his November
20th, 2014 guidance, Secretary Johnson set forth three levels
for priorities for immigration enforcement. The top priority
for deportation was listed as terrorists, spies, and other
threats to national security; those apprehended at the border
and ports; some criminal street gang members; and certain
aliens convicted of felonies.
While these should be priorities for deportation, the
agency is no longer considering as the top priority for
apprehension aliens who have been convicted of certain
misdemeanors, including sexual abuse or exploitation, drug
distribution or trafficking, burglar, firearms offenses,
driving under the influence, domestic violence.
Talk about a war on women. This is not a priority for this
Administration. This is not a tier one priority according to
Homeland Security. These are offenses that also endanger our
communities and affect a much larger number of Americans in a
very personal way. Many criminals, including some that Congress
has Stated should be subject to mandatory detention, are not
listed as a priority for removal at all.
While Secretary Johnson's November 20th, 2014
prioritization guidelines dictate that ``due to limited
resources, DHS and its components cannot respond to all
immigration violations or remove all persons illegally in the
United States,'' the Department does not appear to be using all
the resources it has available to enforce the immigration laws.
According to statistics from ICE reviewed by the Center for
Immigration Studies, from 2009 to 2014, there was almost a 60
percent decline in annual deportations. In other words, while
2009 ICE deported more than 236,000 individuals from the
interior of the United States, in 2014 ICE deported around
1,224.
The number of criminals deported from the interior declined
by 21 percent between 2013 and 2014. It went from 110,115 down
to 86,923. Further, Congress provided ICE with funding for
34,000 detention beds and mandated those beds be filled.
According to a review of ICE records, however, the average
daily population of detainees has declined every year since
Fiscal Year 2012. As of January 2015, the average daily
detainee population was 25,480, the lowest level since 2006,
when the bed mandate was at 20,800.
I have seen firsthand the hard work of the people within
Customs and Border Patrol and ICE. I can't thank them enough
for their good work. But we are not fulfilling the mission that
was promised by the President of the United States. I think
this body is committed to making sure that criminal aliens are
deported, and that is why we are having this hearing here
today.
I have gone well past my time. We will now recognize the
gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank you for holding this hearing. I think it is a very
important hearing.
This morning, as I read over the testimony from the
subcommittee hearing that took place about a month ago, I could
not help but feel a deep sense of sorrow for Mr. Shaw and his
family, and Mr. Ronnebeck and his family. As one who
experienced the murder of my nephew, who was like a son to me,
three and a half years ago, I know the pain that comes with
that, to see a young person's life snuffed out. So I can
understand, Mr. Chairman, how you feel.
And that puts a lot of weight on you, Assistant Secretary
Saldana, and I hope you can understand that members on both
sides of the aisle have our concerns and have a lot of concern
about this. So I want to thank you for being here, and I am
sure you will explain exactly what your priorities are and how
those things are laid out, and hopefully talk about the court
decisions that dictate how you do what you do.
There are about 11 million undocumented immigrants in our
Country today. Many of these people are from hard-working,
taxpaying families simply looking for a better life. Many have
lived here since they were children and many have raised
children of their own. They are the ones that I met this
weekend, about 150 of them, who were law-abiding people, and
the thing that they said to me over and over again is why do
they consider us all criminals. They also said that they simply
wanted to keep their families together.
I heard firsthand how they live in fear and uncertainty
about their futures. They work hard and make their homes in our
neighborhoods; yet they live every day in the dangerous
outskirts of our society. Almost everyone agrees that our
immigration system is broken. That is right, this is not a
bulletin coming over the wire. Everybody knows the system is
broken.
In the last Congress, the Senate passed legislation
supported by Democrats and Republicans that would have offered
a comprehensive approach to this problem. The bill not only
would have provided a responsible path to citizenship for those
who passed background checks and meet other requirements, but
it also would have improved our visa systems and established
stronger enforcement mechanisms.
The House Republicans refused, refused to call up this bill
for a vote. I guarantee you, if it had been called up for a
vote, it would have passed.
Despite Speaker Boehner's pledge to address comprehensive
immigration reform, a minority of House members in the
Republican party stood in the way, blocking, blocking
comprehensive reform. As a result, in November, I joined with
116 of my colleagues urging President Obama to use his
executive authority to address some of the problems facing our
immigration system.
On November 20th, 2014, the Administration took a series of
steps to strengthen enforcement, enhance public safety, and
temporarily provide peace of mind to qualifying immigrants. In
response, House Republicans attacked the Administration's
actions, even as they refused to act themselves. For example,
they held up funding for the Department of Homeland Security
and they criticized the Administration for not removing
immigrants who commit crimes.
Let me make a few points for the record in response to this
claim. The Obama Administration has removed more people from
this Country than any administration in history. Removals hit
an all-time high of 438,421 individuals in 2013.
Now, Secretary Saldana, as I read the transcript, there was
an issue as to the counting and how that counting was done. I
would like for you to talk about that. There was an issue as to
whether this Administration is counting differently than past
administrations.
Under the Obama Administration, criminal removals have also
reached record highs. They have more than doubled from the
prior administration, increasing from 84,000 in 2003 to 2007 in
2012.
With respect to the release of immigrant criminals, the
Administration is bound by court cases and immigration judge
rulings that require releases in many instances. In other
cases, DHS releases detainees on a discretionary basis after
weighing risk factors, including criminal records, medical
histories, and flight risk.
These are the same types of factors routinely considered by
local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies every single
day for the general population. In fact, according to an April
2014 report issued by the Department of Justice, the recidivism
rate after 12 months for prisoners released across 30 States is
more than 20 percent. In contrast, DHS data on immigrant
criminals released in Fiscal Year 2013 shows a recidivism rate
of less than 3 percent.
I want to be clear here. These decisions are not easy, and
the dangers of recidivism are very, very real. Personally, I
would be devaStated to learn that someone who injured or killed
a member of my family had been in custody, but was released.
And I would feel exactly the same way regardless of whether the
attacker was an immigrant or a United States citizen.
We have the ability to work together to tackle these
issues. That is what the American people want. They do not want
us walking away from the hard problems, leaving them on the
table when we go home.
The fact is that the comprehensive immigration bill adopted
by the Senate on a bipartisan basis would have doubled the
number of Border Patrol agents, established an improved system
for employers to verify their workers' legal status, and
provided new security measures along the border. But it was
never allowed a vote in the House of Representatives. So it is
time to reach out across the aisle and pass comprehensive
immigration reform legislation.
So I look forward to your testimony.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
We will hold the record open for five legislative days for
any member who would like to submit a written Statement.
We will now recognize our sole witness today. I am pleased
to welcome the Honorable Sarah Saldana, Director of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Welcome.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn
before they testify, so if you would please stand and raise
your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth?
[Witness responds in the affirmative.]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. You may be seated.
We try to hold the testimony to 5 minutes, but we will give
you some latitude. Your entire written comments will be entered
into the record.
You are now recognized. Thank you.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE SARAH R. SALDANA, DIRECTOR, U.S.
IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Ms. Saldana. Thank you, Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member
Cummings, and other committee members. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today, and I really do mean that. I know
that many remarks made to this committee start out like that,
but I will tell you this is the first congressional committee
that I have testified before since I have been the assistant
secretary for Homeland Security Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, 86 days, 9 hours, and 25 minutes ago.
I consider this a very important part of my job. I do not
shirk away from it and I welcome it, and it is part of my
education to hear from you all as to your concerns.
As you all know, ICE has a very vital role in securing the
homeland through the enforcement of more than 400 laws
governing immigration. But we also have laws that affect border
control, customs, and trade.
I most recently served as the United States attorney for
the Northern District of Texas. I say that very, very proudly.
One of the greatest jobs in the world, you will hear every U.S.
attorney say. As the chief Federal law enforcement officer for
a district that spanned 97,000 square miles, I oversaw the
enforcement of these 400 laws and, quite frankly, thousands
more under all the Federal statutes.
From my early years cutting my teeth, my prosecutorial
teeth on the immigration docket in my office to these first 90
days as Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, I have
personally observed what the chairman recognized, and that is
the talent and dedication of ICE's agents, its officers, its
attorneys, its international and mission support staff as they
go about the business of securing the homeland. I consider it a
great privilege to continue my law enforcement career as the
leader of this agency.
Given the topic upon which you have asked me to testify, I
want to give you a brief overview of ICE's enforcement and
removal operations, a little bit about our recent activity, and
then also just highlight some of the challenges that we face.
ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations Office, again,
just a portion of what ICE does, a significant portion,
referred to as ERO, is a team of almost 6,000 dedicated law
enforcement offices stationed throughout the world, actually,
who apprehend and remove undocumented immigrants in a way that
focuses our finite resources on those who present the greatest
risk to the American public.
In carrying out this mission, they have a wide array of
important, very important and complex responsibilities, not the
least of which are overseeing the detention facilities,
coordinating departures all over the world, and obtaining
travel documents from other countries, some of which do not
care to cooperate with ICE in any manner.
We work closely with our sister agencies within the
homeland security umbrella, Customs and Border Protection, as
they encounter and apprehend undocumented immigrants at our
borders and at our ports of entry; and citizenship and
immigration services as they perform their immigration benefit
services.
In 2014, ICE removed nearly 316,000 individuals unlawfully
present in the United States. More than 213,000 of these
individuals were apprehended while or shortly after attempting
to cross our borders. I should point out, in line with the
theme of the opening remarks of our chairman and ranking
member, that about 85 percent of these interior removals were
of undocumented immigrants previously convicted of a criminal
offense. That is an 18 percent increase over 2011 and it
reflects the agency's renewed focus for some time now on
aggressively targeting and removing the worst criminal
immigrants: security threats, convicted felons, gang members,
and the like.
With respect to the operational challenges we face, first,
as you all well know, our Country faced an unprecedented
migration of families last summer, including unaccompanied
children coming up from the Rio Grande Valley, which required
ICE, as well as many other agencies, to shift resources to
address that. ICE detailed or transferred almost 800 personnel
away from what they were doing and additional monetary
resources to deal with this extraordinary influx.
A second challenge is the dramatic increase in the number
of jurisdictions that have declined to cooperate with ICE in
its law enforcement activities. A detainer advises other law
enforcement agencies that ICE intends to assume custody of an
individual before that individual is released from the agency's
custody, and we ask that individual to be held for a very short
time until we can get that custody.
Re-arresting at-large criminal aliens released by State and
local jurisdictions only increases the already extraordinary
risks our law enforcement officers already face, and is a waste
of resources that reduces the number of criminal aliens ICE can
apprehend and remove.
Last calendar year, State and local jurisdictions rejected
more than 12,000 ICE detainee requests. These are convicted
criminals. And ICE has been denied access to more than 275
detention facilities, including those in some of our Country's
largest cities and States.
A third challenge we face is the changing migrant
demographic. We have recently seen more Central Americans and
fewer immigrants from Mexico attempting to cross our borders.
It requires more time and resources to complete the removal
process for Central Americans, as they demand additional time,
resources, staff, enhanced efforts to get travel documents to
remove them, and the arrangement of air transportation.
My first 90 days or so as director have been full, both in
becoming familiar with the challenges as I just described that
face ICE and in formulating and implementing plans to try to
address them.
I would be remiss if I did not express my gratitude, since
obviously we cannot do our job without proper funding, for the
passage earlier this month of a full year appropriation bill
for the Department of Homeland Security, which include our
agency and its 20,000 employees.
Let me conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman, that I left my
family, my friends, the State I have lived in for all my 63
years behind, which, as many of you here facing me have done so
as well, for the sole purpose, for the sole purpose of
assisting a very proud agency to move forward and to help in
whatever small way I can, help our Country to address these
very difficult, complex, and divisive issues facing the
Country.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Prepared Statement of Ms. Saldana follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Madam Director, if you are a criminal, will you be
deported?
Ms. Saldana. Those are the people we are looking for, yes.
Chairman Chaffetz. But they have been in your detention.
They have been detained. They were convicted. Were they
deported?
Ms. Saldana. They are in the process of being deported.
Everyone in our detention facilities is in the process of being
deported, chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Well, that is not true. I mean, you
regularly release them back out into the public before they get
deported, correct?
Ms. Saldana. Actually, I do want to address that number. I
think you talked about 36,000, Chairman, earlier?
Chairman Chaffetz. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. And I think you, the members of this
committee, and the American public deserve a thorough
explanation regarding that 36,000.
I think I mentioned earlier, we have many challenges at
ICE. One of them is the opinions we get from the highest court
in the land, the Supreme Court. You all are familiar and have
heard the term Zadvydas, which is the Supreme Court decision
that requires ICE, requires ICE, does not give us an option, to
release persons without hurting them.
Chairman Chaffetz. Our time is all limited.
How many criminal convicted aliens were released under the
discretionary authority of ICE?
Ms. Saldana. You mentioned 36,007 in Fiscal Year 2013. A
little bit more were those that we don't have any discretionary
control over.
Chairman Chaffetz. So you don't automatically deport them,
correct?
Ms. Saldana. Automatically, sir? No. The statute, the laws
that this Congress has passed, deny these people due process.
Chairman Chaffetz. No, no, you have discretion. You have
discretion. You have a lot of discretion. You said half of them
you have discretion.
Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir. The law gives us that discretion.
Chairman Chaffetz. So when you say, if you are a criminal,
you will be deported, that is not necessarily true.
Ms. Saldana. It is true, sir.
Chairman Chaffetz. After they get released back into the
public for untold number of times?
Ms. Saldana. It does happen. It does happen, yes, that is
exactly what we are here to do.
Chairman Chaffetz. What does happen, they get released?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. Even criminals that are released. And,
mind you, we are talking about--let's focus on the ones that
you were talking about with respect to ICE, the 22,000 or so in
2013. Those people were released under the laws of the United
States. We are allowed to, discretionarily, as you pointed out,
to give a bond.
Chairman Chaffetz. But you could have deported them. You
could have deported them, correct? And you chose not to.
Ms. Saldana. No, sir, it is not a matter of choosing; it is
a matter of following the law.
Chairman Chaffetz. No. You have discretion. That is not
what the President of the United States said. He said if you
are a criminal, you will be deported. That is not true.
Ms. Saldana. The discretion you are talking about, sir, if
I may explain to you so that you and the American public can
appreciate what the process is.
Chairman Chaffetz. Sure.
Ms. Saldana. The discretion we have is to determine custody
pending that person's removal. The removal process is in the
hands of the immigration courts. Those immigration courts are
under the auspices of the Department of Justice, the Department
I previously worked for. And with respect to those people, it
can take, following due process, months and even years to
deport folks.
Chairman Chaffetz. And that is what is the total
disconnect. Do you believe that somebody who is convicted of
domestic violence, sexual abuse, or exploitation, burglary,
unlawful possession, use of a firearm, drug distribution, drunk
driving, are those dangerous?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, those are dangerous crimes.
Chairman Chaffetz. And yet they are your priority too; they
are not even your top priority.
Ms. Saldana. The priorities are priorities, sir, whether
they are one, two, or three.
Chairman Chaffetz. But they are not your top priority. Let
me ask you this. This is the weekly departure detention report
from ICE dated January 26, 2015, and in that report it says
there are 167,527 non-detained, final order convicted criminals
on the loose in the United States, correct?
Ms. Saldana. What was that number, sir, again, over what?
Chairman Saldana. It is 167,000 convicted felons. These are
people--I shouldn't say felons. Convicted people. These are
people that are here illegally, get caught, get convicted, and
you release back into the public.
Ms. Saldana. Sir, we only release pursuant to the statute.
I don't know of a single officer, detention officer or other
officer, that comes to encounter an illegal immigrant who looks
at that person and says, you know what, I think I am going to
release someone into the public who can commit another crime.
Chairman Chaffetz. But that is what you are doing. That is
what is happening. Your budget request requested less beds, not
more beds. You could have detained these people. And the
President promised the American people he would deport them,
and he is not.
Ms. Saldana. I am very familiar with detention and the idea
of detention, chairman, because as a United States attorney we
face these decisions every day in the courts. So do the Federal
judges we practice before. Detention is provided by statute,
and the considerations for detention are provided by statute.
Chairman Chaffetz. Don't be blaming all the courts. You
have discretion on this and you have made some very, very bad
decisions. It is inexcusable to have somebody who has been
convicted of these crimes and not immediately deport them. The
parents that we listened to there, why were these people--these
persons are convicted and they go out and they murder people. I
listed off all the statistics.
My time has expired, but don't tell me that it is just the
courts and you are mandated by law to do this. You have 167,000
convicted criminals who are here illegally that should be
deported that are on your list, and you better give us an
explanation about how you are going to round those people up
and immediately get them deported. I don't think you have a
game plan to do that.
Ms. Saldana. I am trying, chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. What is your plan to do that? And then I
will yield to the ranking member.
Ms. Saldana. Our plan is what we do every day. You
mentioned these convicted felons out there. We have information
in data bases that we use hundreds of people, both right here
in the District.
Chairman Chaffetz. These people were already in your
possession and you let them go. They were already sitting in
jail and you let them go.
Ms. Saldana. Chairman? There is a process provided by
statute in which the officers, Congress gave us the authority
to exercise discretion with respect to every person, as we do
on a case-by-case analysis, not picking and choosing little
facts out of a file, but the entire picture of this individual.
Is this person terminally ill and cannot be removed from the
Country because we cannot get medical authorization to do so?
That is actually one of those cases you are talking about. This
is an exercise that we take very seriously and we determine on
every case's facts.
Chairman Chaffetz. So you are telling me because they have
a medical condition, you are going to release them back out
into the public?
My time is far expired.
I will now recognize Ms. Plaskett from the Virgin Islands.
You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Plaskett. Yes, good morning and thank you, Mr.
Chairman, ranking member.
Secretary Saldana, I thank you so much for the work that
you and your agency are doing. I actually was at the Justice
Department and working with Larry Thompson and then Jim Comey
when your Homeland Security was created, and I think that it
has come a far way in its mandate and the mission that it has.
I wanted to talk a little bit about this discretion that
the chairman was taking you through in his questioning, and I
want to focus on where that discretion comes from, the
prosecutorial memorandum that was issued that was created, I
believe, because you have not just the courts and the laws, but
also limited resources in determining how you are going to
detain the individuals that you have, and prioritizing those
based on not only the law, but the resources, as you said, the
finite resources that are available to your agency.
I did want to note in your testimony that you did say,
however, that despite this there has been an 18 percent
increase in the amount of individuals that have been deported
over the very small period of time and that you are working in
that area. So if you would focus your attention on the
executive actions that you are taking based on that memo. It
provides guidelines for prosecutors and specifically targets
areas that we believe are the highest threat to the entire
homeland, that being our national security, public safety, and
border security.
Could you please explain how this memorandum is different,
also, from past guidance that was regarding prosecutorial
discretion?
Ms. Saldana. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, I do want to
talk about this subject because, actually, I have been
exercising prosecutorial discretion for over 10 years as a
United States attorney and assistant United States attorney
and, of course, now in managing ICE.
I should say that the origins of prosecutorial discretion
are those that you all have given the Secretary of Homeland
Security. Perhaps not the individuals in this room today, but
the Congress. And I will read from the 2015 bill that was
passed that I thanked you for earlier, chairman, where it says,
specifically in the language that you authorized, that the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall prioritize the
identification and removal of aliens convicted of a crime by
the severity of that crime. That is precisely what you have
directed the secretary to do, that is what the secretary has
directed me to do, and that is what we have done.
As the United States attorney, as I said earlier, I think
somebody at the Department of Justice tried to count the number
of statues that we are responsible for enforcing. The person
stopped at 3,000. There is no way that, with the limited budget
that United Stated attorneys have and, by analogy, that the
director of ICE has, finite resources, that we can prosecute,
in the case as the United States attorney, that I could
prosecute people who break the 3,000-plus Federal laws of the
United States.
So, as a United States attorney, I set specific
prosecutorial guidelines for my office to make sure that we
were having the greatest public safety impact over that 97,000
square mile district that I described earlier. The greatest
impact to ensure that. I would have loved to have prosecuted
every case.
Ms. Plaskett. So in the discussion that the chairman had
about priority No. 1, it is the agency's belief that that is
the highest impact to the United States by doing that.
Ms. Saldana. Yes. Obviously, terrorists, convicted felons,
persons who are gang members, all of those who threaten public
safety. The secretary has very clearly laid out--you asked
about the difference between the guidance that already existed.
I would probably have come in and reviewed that guidance and
made my own decisions, but the secretary had just reviewed
that, sent out his memo of November 20th, and specifically
outlined those priorities.
Ms. Plaskett. So to further that discussion, when the
chairman said priority one, that includes terrorism and
espionage, aliens apprehended at the border while attempting
unlawfully to enter, aliens convicted of an offense that are
related to criminal street gang, felon in a convicting
jurisdiction, and convicted of aggravated felony.
Priority two, which was alluded to, were misdemeanors,
correct?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. And significant misdemeanors. And I
should also point out, because I have directed all my staff to
do this, that the priorities specifically allow for that person
facing the individual illegal immigrant to exercise their best
judgment, as we expect of them every day, that even if they
don't meet those three priorities, if in their opinion, based
on all the facts and circumstances pertaining to that
individual, that they deem them to be a public safety threat,
that we detain those people and put them in removal
proceedings.
Ms. Plaskett. Well, I see that I have run out of my time,
and I just want to once again thank you and thank the chairman
and ranking member for allowing us to discuss this issue
because, of course, the release of convicted felons and release
of individuals is something that none of us want. But we do
understand the limited resources that you are working with and
the efforts that all of our law enforcement are making to
continue to make our homeland safe.
Thank you, and I yield the balance.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman.
We now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, welcome. I have a couple of questions. I heard in
your opening testimony I know you say that you administer 500
laws and maybe as many as 3,000----
Ms. Saldana. Four hundred for ICE, sir, 3,000 or thousands
more with respect----
Mr. Mica. So a lot of laws that you are responsible for
enforcing. You have also had a couple of actions by the
President, one for Deferred Action of Parents of Americans, or
legal permanent residents, DAPA and DACA, Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals that the President has ordered as actions.
It has created a certain amount of confusion, too, I think,
with some of the line officers, as to what they are supposed to
enforce, whether the law or these actions.
What are they supposed to enforce?
Ms. Saldana. They are supposed to enforce all the
immigration laws.
Mr. Mica. The laws would take precedent over the
President's action requests?
Ms. Saldana. As I mentioned earlier, with those difficult
decisions as I had with a United States attorney, Congressman,
we have focused the attention of all of our officers, the 5,000
or so that I mentioned, to focus on those who most threaten our
national security.
Mr. Mica. But there is confusion. In fact, I got a release
from the National Border Patrol Council, and they were
concerned about the President's threats for consequences for
Border Patrol agents. That is what this says. When the
President was in my State, ok Miami, recently, he said there
would be consequences. So some of it Border Patrol, again, are
concerned about what those consequences would be.
What are the consequences for noncompliance that they face?
Ms. Saldana. And as I mentioned, Congressman, Border Patrol
is our sister agency; they are the folks at the border and the
ports of entry.
Mr. Mica. Right.
Ms. Saldana. I am responsible for ICE, and this is what we
have done with respect to clearing any confusion that there is.
We have required very specific training to have been completed
by 100 percent, not 98, 96, 95, but 100 percent----
Mr. Mica. Well, the President said, I have his quote, ``if
somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they
don't follow the policies, there is going to be consequences to
it.'' So he referred specifically to those you have control
over.
My point is there is confusion about enforcement. There is
confusion about what takes precedent. The other thing, too, is
you testified about the number of deportations, domestic
deportations. You said 2,000--I am sorry, how many domestic
deportations in 2014?
Ms. Saldana. I believe I said that number was----
Mr. Mica. Well, while you look for that, the Administration
and the President has said that we have had more deportations
in the past 6 years of criminals; they are up 60 percent. We
have conflicting information.
Put up this chart that shows--I updated the chart that
shows deportations, interior deportations, domestic. This isn't
quite to the end, so it was 102,000, to be fair. That actually
shows a decline, is that correct?
Ms. Saldana. Over that period of time, that is.
Mr. Mica. That is until last year.
Ms. Saldana. And I see that the source is ICE. I am not
sure what in particular, but I think those numbers you got from
us----
Mr. Mica. So it is actually declined. You are not saying
this information is wrong.
Ms. Saldana. No, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. The other thing, too, is we were recently
told from one of the ICE officers that his office used to
process as many as 100 aliens a day, but since the President's
executive orders went into effect, they are now processing 5 to
10 aliens a day. That means that they are spending 20 times as
much in resources, because you have similar resources, to
deport each alien. Is that the case?
Ms. Saldana. I am not familiar with those numbers that you
are quoting.
Mr. Mica. Well, again, we are also deporting fewer, if you
do the math, it is costing us more to deport fewer folks.
Ms. Saldana. And I think you and the American public
deserve a response to that, sir.
Mr. Mica. We do.
Ms. Saldana. As you know, and this is good news, Customs
and Border Protection has been apprehending far fewer persons
at the border this past year than they ever have. They are at
24 percent decline in apprehensions at the border. That should
be good news. I know that Mexico and other countries that I
have visited since I have been with the Department have ramped
up their efforts to try to stop people before they come into
the United States.
Mr. Mica. But the fact is, as the chairman pointed out, we
are harboring, keeping, and releasing criminal illegal aliens
and not taking care of that important aspect.
Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Cartwright, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here, Director Saldana.
Ms. Saldana. Thank you.
Mr. Cartwright. I want to revisit what the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mica, said, he had a chart up and he showed you
that for about 25 seconds. Had you ever seen that before,
Director Saldana?
Ms. Saldana. I have not.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. Did you get a full chance to analyze
what subset of immigration data that was representing,
director?
Ms. Saldana. No. There was very fine print down there. I am
63 years old; my eyes are not as good as they used to be.
Mr. Cartwright. And are you aware of any reason members of
this committee could not have provided you that chart ahead of
time so that you could have analyzed it and answered questions
intelligently about it?
Ms. Saldana. No. In fact, I would be delighted to do so,
take that chart and come back.
Mr. Cartwright. OK. Since we are talking about statistics,
under the Obama Administration, DHS has enforced U.S.
immigration laws, resulting in the removal of more unauthorized
immigrants in the United States than during any other
administration in United States history. Am I correct in that?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. The removal of criminals has
also more than doubled from the prior administration, that is,
the George W. Bush Administration. Removal of criminals has
more than doubled from the Bush Administration, from 84,000 in
2003 to 207,000 in 2012, another record high. Are you aware of
that, director?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, I have that.
Mr. Cartwright. All right.
I want to talk about the DHS funding bill. A few years ago
we had bipartisan momentum in the House of Representatives for
comprehensive immigration reform. But that was before what I
call the shutdown crowd took over. And it is not all the
Republicans, but there is a certain element of them that I call
the shutdown crowd. Last year the shutdown crowd among the
Republicans refused to budge on immigration reform, they
refused to take action on the Senate-passed bipartisan
comprehensive reform bill.
So, of course, the Administration carried out a series of
executive orders to address the problems directly, and since
then the Republicans have focused their efforts really on
attacking the President rather than attacking the problem of
comprehensive immigration reform. In fact, they were willing
to, yes, shut down the Department of Homeland Security over it.
They held the DHS funding bill hostage to protest the executive
actions; they refused even to allow a vote on comprehensive
immigration reform.
Director Saldana, when your agency heard that Congress
might not pass a DHS funding bill in time, what did ICE have to
do to prepare for the possibility of a shutdown?
Ms. Saldana. It was extraordinary and, of course, we went
through this when I was the U.S. attorney back in Dallas last
year, as well. You have to take the attention of people off the
very important work they are doing and provide guidance on
things like not showing up for work, for example, if we did not
have any money; certainly not carrying on with the grants that
we have that we award local law enforcement in order to assist
us in our very important efforts. Never mind the human toll it
takes on the 20,000 employees that we have.
The mission is the most important thing in terms of the
impact, and to take away our ability to do what we can do--and
we can do a lot--is by guessing whether or not we are going to
have funds at the end of the week. I think we went through this
very painfully 2 weeks in a row. It was just very difficult.
Mr. Cartwright. What sort of resources and staffing did you
have to redirect to make the preparations for the shutdown?
Ms. Saldana. Well, all of our front office governing all
the staff we have in the Country--and let's not forget the
attaches we have in 47 foreign countries--were taken off of
their daily tasks and put to identifying the staff that we
might need to lay off, might need to send home; making sure we
had made arrangements for people to have a place to work even
though they weren't getting paid; lining up our budget people
who had to work day and night in order to make sure that we
were going to be able to honor the contracts, for example, with
respect to the detention facilities that we have in several
parts of the Country, to be able to honor our contracts with
those people to maintain those folks in detention that were in
detention in our facilities.
Mr. Cartwright. I don't mean to interrupt, but can you give
us an idea, a ballpark figure, of how much it costs to get
ready for this shutdown that was looming at the time?
Ms. Saldana. It was millions of dollars, sir, but I don't
have a precise number.
Mr. Cartwright. In your opinion, was that a wise use of
taxpayer funds?
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
Go ahead and answer that question, but we will need to move
to the next.
Ms. Saldana. No, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. And I would remind the gentleman that
the Democrats had the House, the Senate, and the presidency the
first year, 2 years of the Obama Administration, and they
didn't even introduce a bill dealing with immigration. And I
would also remind the gentleman who was in the 112th Congress,
that we actually passed a bill that I sponsored. I am grateful
for the broad bipartisan work. It went over to the Senate and
Harry Reid decided never to pull it up; otherwise, I think we
would have helped this problem.
We will now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Meadows, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony here today. I want to return
to what the chairman started out with, and it is about the word
discretion, because you have indicated about laws and about the
rule of law, and yet there are many who would say that this
Administration, specifically ICE, picks and chooses which laws
they choose to enforce. And you may call it prioritization, but
is that not just a discretion that you choose to use on what
you enforce and what you don't enforce?
Ms. Saldana. Well, it is grounded in a rational approach,
Congressman.
Mr. Meadows. Is it discretion or not? Yes or no? I am not
saying----
Ms. Saldana. Is discretion discretion?
Mr. Meadows. I am not saying that it is not grounded in
something. But are you using discretion on who we deport and
who we don't deport?
Ms. Saldana. I believe discretion means discretion, yes.
Mr. Meadows. Are you using discretion, yes or no?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. OK, so let me ask you this. If you are using
discretion on who we deport and, according to your report,
there are some 900,000 people who are waiting to be deported,
they are not detained, how are we going to find those people in
the United States?
Ms. Saldana. We have a number of information data bases
that have last known addresses----
Mr. Meadows. So if they have moved from their last known
address and you have 900,000, almost a million people that you
are saying that you are going to deport, do you believe that
you can find 900,000 of them here in the United States?
Ms. Saldana. Perhaps 900,000, 100 percent, but we have some
very savvy law enforcement officers who can do some good old
fashioned police work and are very good at it.
Mr. Meadows. So would it not have been a better use of
resources, Mr. Cartwright was talking about resources, just to
have kept them in custody?
Ms. Saldana. Custody decisions, sir, by law, are determined
by two basic factors: public safety--we can't just detain
people because we want to detain them.
Mr. Meadows. Granted.
Ms. Saldana. And threat to the community.
Mr. Meadows. So let's go on to another. Let's go to the
tier two. Sexual abuse, exploitation. You have already talked
about how that is awful. But according to your deportation
priority, if they commit a crime, sexual abuse or exploitation,
you don't deport them. That is not a priority, is that correct?
Yes or no? Is it a priority?
Ms. Saldana. It is a priority. It is called priority two,
sir. It is priority level two.
Mr. Meadows. So do you deport all illegals that are here
that have committed a sexual abuse or exploitation? Do you
deport them all?
Ms. Saldana. We don't have the ability to deport without an
order of removal. We will apprehend and arrest them if we
encounter them.
Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me bring it back home, then,
maybe, because sitting at that same table--and the reason why
we are so passionate--were two relatives of people who lost
their lives because of our prioritization or the discretion
that you are using.
But let me go even further, because when we look at a
number of people in North Carolina that have been killed by
drunk drivers, that they have failed to be deported over and
over--one of these had been convicted of drunk driving five
times, killed a husband named Scott, certainly put the wife in
a vegetative State. But it is not just that. It is Marcus, who
was 7 years old. He was killed by a drunk driver with repeated
offenses that all we had to do was just deport them. And yet
you are saying that that is not a priority.
Ms. Saldana. I didn't say that, sir. And let me tell you,
as a prosecutor, I would give my right hand----
Mr. Meadows. But you are not a prosecutor anymore; you are
a Director of ICE.
Ms. Saldana. If I may answer the question.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I didn't ask a question.
Ms. Saldana [continuing]. So the American public can know
who the director of ICE is.
Mr. Meadows. You are making a comment.
Ms. Saldana. As a prosecutor, I would love to get my hands
on those people and personally prosecute them.
Mr. Meadows. But you had your hands on those people. You
had them in custody and you let them go.
Mr. Meadows. You let them go.
Ms. Saldana. Congressman, with all due respect, I do not
have the facts that you have just cited in front of me.
Mr. Meadows. Would you like for me to give them to you?
Ms. Saldana. I would love to. In fact, I would like every
case that you know of----
Mr. Meadows. But this is over and over.
Ms. Saldana. If I may finish, sir.
Mr. Meadows. There are 22,000 examples----
Ms. Saldana. If I may finish, sir.
Mr. Meadows. There are 22,000 examples where this has
happened. And the American people have had enough.
Ms. Saldana. And let me tell you what I have learned. With
respect to Mr. Shaw and Mr. Ronnebeck, that is not an unusual
situation to me. I have sat next to victims of crime and
homicides, and had to deal with them when we were prosecuting
cases, and I will say that I would love to be the first person
to prosecute Mr. Altamirano, the person who committed that
horrendous crime.
And let me say a frustration of mine, if I sound emotional
on this also. My frustration is the quibbling I hear here when
we are trying to do a law enforcement job, the quibbling I
hear. Mr. Ronnebeck, in that very emotional, tremendously
personal Statement, said something that I thought was so wise.
He urged this committee and every Member of Congress to set
aside their personal interests and differences, and to move
forward with comprehensive immigration reform so that this does
not happen again. I am all for that.
Mr. Meadows. But here is the thing. Comprehensive
immigration reform does not affect when we allow convicted
criminals to go free. It would not affect that.
I yield back.
Chairman Chaffetz. Let me just mention year after year the
budget request, with this year being the first time the budget
request in the Administration keeps going down. So to say that
you want to be able to do this and that you need more
resources, but the budget does not reflect that is just
inconsistent.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Chaffetz. Sure, sure.
Mr. Cummings. Would you let her respond to what you just
said? I think that would benefit the whole committee.
Chairman Chaffetz. Sure.
Mr. Cummings. Why is it that the budget requests have gone
down?
Ms. Saldana. From last year, sir?
Chairman Chaffetz. Each year, with the 2016 budget request
being the exception, 2012, reduction in funding by $53 million;
2013, reduction by $91 million; 2015 was a reduction in funding
by $155 million.
If you could get back to us on the record on this. It
doesn't make sense because I always here from law enforcement,
oh, we wish we could, we wish we could. But then when we look
at the requests, less and less beds. That was the request.
Let me recognize Mr. Mica here for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, I just ask unanimous consent to
insert in the record after the end of our discourse on the
interior deportations between 2009 and 2014, and I have
annotated the chart. It was 100,000, 114 within 14 days, the
final figure being 102,224. The director had said she had not
seen this and was not aware of these figures. So I would ask
that be put in the record.
I will also provide her with a large copy she won't have to
use her glasses for.
Ms. Saldana. Thank you so much.
Mr. Mica. And I will provide the minority with a copy, too,
Mr. Cummings.
Chairman Chaffetz. All right, without objection, so
ordered.
Chairman Chaffetz. We wanted to make sure that if you
wanted to say anything else about the budget request, that you
had an opportunity to do so.
Ms. Saldana. Sir, I can only speak for the agency. We
welcome any amount of money that we have. We can always do more
with more resources. We are just doing the best we can with the
resources we have right now.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
We now recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member
Cummings for holding this hearing.
I want to echo something that as we as a committee and
Members of Congress debate and analyze and do our due
diligence, that it is truly important, and I think we highlight
it every time we have a hearing, that we need comprehensive
immigration reform. It is badly needed to address these issues
that we are talking about. And I wish that we would use as much
passion as we are using in finding those areas that we find
unacceptable to use that to improve and to develop
comprehensive reform.
Assistant Secretary Saldana, I understand that there are
hundreds of thousands of immigrants waiting an average of 587
days for a hearing, and that they are waiting three to 5 years
for their cases to be resolved. It is also my understanding
that there are only 260, only 260 immigration judges operating
in 58 U.S. immigration courts in our Country. In fact, my home
State of Michigan, we only have two immigration judges for the
entire State.
With immigration judges responsible for an average, an
average of 1,500 cases a year, it is no wonder that the
National Association of Immigration Judges is saying that these
people can wait for years, for years, for a final hearing of
their cases.
I know that the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge is
housed in the Department of Justice and not in the Homeland
Security. But as they are essential to the removal process that
we are talking about, or the litigation process, I am trying to
understand how your two agencies work together.
So, Assistant Secretary, you tell me what happens to
detainees while they await their court dates, and specifically
outline your role and the Department of Homeland Security.
Ms. Saldana. OK. And when you were referring to detainees,
Congresswoman, we are talking about people who are in our
custody?
Mrs. Lawrence. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. Obviously, we have some very important
standards to ensure their safety and their attention to all
their needs; medical, food, housing, and everything, while they
are waiting. I will tell you that I am not blaming the courts,
but I will tell you this is a system, the immigration system
involves various parties, and the immigration courts are
obviously a very important part of that.
We have almost half a million people waiting to hear about
their petitions. And I know that the Congress did allow for
some more judges. I would urge this committee to do everything
it can, and I am more than happy to work with you all to try to
come up with some more answers to adding more judges to the
immigration courts. But they are an essential part of what we
do.
I have met with Juan Osuna, the coordinator for the
Department of Justice. I had worked with Mr. Osuna when I
worked on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee for
Immigration and have a good relationship with him. We are going
to try to have meetings fairly regularly to talk about
everything we are doing and what they can do help us and what
we can do to help them.
I have also tried to solicit a meeting with the chief judge
of the immigration courts to explain to that person the need to
coordinate and get as much help as we can to reduce the
backlog.
I just plead for more help in that regard from all of you
all.
Mrs. Lawrence. At this committee's hearing on February the
25th, we discussed a number of legal constraints that DHS
faces, and releasing these detainees. ICE sent a letter on
August 15th, 2014, to Senator Grassley, addressing some of
these issues.
I ask for unanimous consent to enter this response into the
record, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mrs. Lawrence. According to this letter, ``ICE has no
discretion for the release of many of these individuals.'' This
letter also explains that a 2001 Supreme Court case, Zadvydas
v. Davis, requires certain detainees to be released from DHS
custody. Can you explain how it affects ICE's ability to keep
individuals in detention?
Ms. Saldana. As I mentioned earlier, we are a part of a
large group of organizations that touch undocumented workers.
Immigration courts are ones, the Supreme Court of the United
States is another. And in that decision they required us, they
ordered us. So when we say there are 30,000 releases that ICE
does, that leaves out a couple of facts, and one of those is
that almost half of those are those that ICE is required under
the Zadvydas order; the other half are the immigration courts,
which have made their own custody determinations, and they are
allowed to by law, and have revisited and decided that we are
to release those. We follow orders of the court.
Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Chairman, before I yield my time, I just
want to make sure that we understand that comprehensive
immigration reform is needed. We have the courts, we have the
Department of Homeland Security, we have ICE. And until we, as
a Congress, step forward and do what we need to do with
comprehensive reform, we will continue to come forward looking
at these issues and finding what is not right, and we need to
make it right.
Thank you so much.
Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentlewoman.
Members are advised that we have a vote on the floor. We
are going to recognize Mr. Hice for 5 minutes and then the
intention is to go into recess. We do not anticipate being back
here any sooner than 25 minutes before the hour, so other
members are advised to vote on the floor. We are going to
recognize Mr. Hice for 5 minutes and then go into recess.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The bottom line of what we are dealing with, obviously, is
the question as to why ICE is releasing convicted criminals who
are non-citizens back into the public square. Is it fair to say
that the reason for that ultimately comes down to policy?
Ms. Saldana. I am sorry, with respect to those that we have
discretion over, sir?
Mr. Hice. Well, why are we releasing illegal criminals back
into the public square? That evidently has to do with policy at
the end of the day, is that true?
Ms. Saldana. It has to do with our case-by-case
determinations that some person can meet the----
Mr. Hice. So there is no policy overruling this? So it is
just a case-by-case; some you let go, some you keep, and there
is no policy dictating who you keep and who you release?
Ms. Saldana. Actually, it is very specific guidance.
Mr. Hice. So it is policy?
Ms. Saldana. It is direction and policy, yes, sir.
Mr. Hice. OK. All right, so when it comes to policy on who
is released and who is not released, we are not dealing, then,
with rogue agents or law enforcement individuals who are not
abiding by the policy. They are not making their own
determination; they are doing what they are told to do, is that
correct?
Ms. Saldana. That is correct.
Mr. Hice. OK. So then we must go a level up higher than
that. The problem is not the agents or law enforcement
individuals; the problem is either with you or with policy that
is coming and pressuring you one way or the other. But it is
not the problem with the agents. So who is putting this policy
forward? Is this your policy, is this your choice, your
discretion to release these illegal criminals back into the
public square?
Ms. Saldana. Sir, it is our discretion based on a very
rational analysis of the facts and circumstances for every
person that comes before us. To answer your question, let me
say the secretary put out the November 20th memorandum where he
outlined specifically his priorities, and I will tell you that,
just like you and the chairman and the ranking member, that
number of 30,000 caught my attention real quick.
Mr. Hice. The 66,000 over the last 2 years, and this is
very poor discretion if policy is saying these people should be
deported and they are not being deported, they are being placed
right back in our neighborhoods. I spoke this morning with a
sheriff in Gwinnett County, which is the third largest county
in the Nation in terms of dealing with this problem, and he
says that he doesn't even hear from you when you all are
releasing illegal criminals back in his county. Why is it that
ICE is not even informing law enforcement departments?
Ms. Saldana. Let me point out, Congressman, again, I don't
want to quibble with you, but when you say ICE released 66,000,
I point out to you once again that about half of those were
releases that we were ordered to do. Now, with respect to the
other half, let me say specifically I have directed our chief
counsel, our field office directors, and our officers out
there, all of them.
Mr. Hice. Please be quick.
Ms. Saldana. Because of my concern, I announced another
level of review so that I can be satisfied that these decisions
are being rationally made. It may offend somebody that we are
looking over their shoulders, but we are going to do it so that
I can be satisfied of this. I am asking every field officer,
director at that level or close to that level, associate
directors, to review every----
Mr. Hice. All right, let's go on. I want you to answer my
question here. We are dealing with sheriff departments across
this Country who are not even in communication with your
department, with ICE, and ICE is releasing criminals back in
these areas, and these sheriffs are not being informed of it.
Why is that?
Ms. Saldana. I am trying to answer the question.
Mr. Hice. Well, be quick, please.
Ms. Saldana. OK. That policy that I am talking about that I
have advised everybody about includes notification to State and
local law enforcement when we do release a criminal; not only
the additional levels of review which I announced and have put
in place and actually issued a press release with respect to it
yesterday, the additional level of reviews.
Mr. Hice. So are you telling us that law enforcement agents
from here on out are going to be informed? Give me the bottom
line.
Ms. Saldana. It is going to take us a little time to get
the system going and make sure we are all talking to each other
electronically, but that is what we are doing.
Mr. Hice. When will that be in place?
Ms. Saldana. I cannot give you a specific date, but we are
working as fast as we can on that. And let's not forget the
secretary and the deputy secretary's efforts, along with
myself, going across the Country, meeting with police chiefs
and sheriffs to discuss this new system and everything we are
doing in connection with----
Mr. Hice. Will it be in place this year, by the end of this
year?
Ms. Saldana. I am very hopeful, sir, yes. I will get back
to you on specifically where we are when we get back after this
hearing.
Mr. Hice. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, as has become the custom in our
committee, when we have folks coming before us and they say
that they are going to get something done, I would like for us
to have some kind of deadline so that you can come back. The
gentleman asked some good questions. I just want to make sure
we followup.
Chairman Chaffetz. What is a reasonable timeline?
Ms. Saldana. To return?
Chairman Chaffetz. No, to provide the information that he
is asking for.
Ms. Saldana. Oh, 2 weeks?
Chairman Chaffetz. Fair enough. Fair enough. Thank you.
Ms. Saldana. Thank you.
Chairman Chaffetz. The committee will stand in recess. We
will reconvene no sooner than 10:35, depending on the length of
the votes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Chaffetz. The committee will come to order.
We are now going to recognize the ranking member. I believe
we had a followup question just prior to going into recess, and
then after that question we will recognize the ranking member
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Madam Secretary, what we were asking about
before, Mr. Hice had asked you some questions about when the
things that you announced yesterday, I think, would be up and
running. That is the deadline that we were talking about.
See, what happens, madam, is that after being here for 18
years, one of the things I have noticed is that people will
come in, tell us they are going to do things, and we don't
followup. They wait until another Congress, and it never gets
done. So what we are trying to do, and I applaud the chairman
for this, we are trying to--you tell us when, and then we need
to bring you back in or somebody back in to say it was done.
OK? So tell us. You know what I am talking about, right?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Is your mic on? Because I want us to be
clear. I want our expectations to be clear with each other.
Ms. Saldana. Yes, absolutely. I am one of these people that
makes lists and try to check them off, so we will be sure to be
doing that.
Mr. Cummings. Tell me what it is that you will be doing so
that we will all be clear.
Ms. Saldana. OK, what I announced yesterday is with respect
to this issue of the criminal releases, I want to satisfy
myself that we are doing everything we can to make sure we are
doing the right decisions. So there were four aspects to that
initiative that, quite frankly, I was directed by the secretary
to review and have come up with. And in addition to the
additional oversight of every decision that is made with
respect to a criminal release, that has already been done.
Actually, that is one, two, and three of my directive.
Those are already in place. Everybody who is out there is
acting accordingly. That is, a person makes a custody decision
or a bond determination; a field office director or someone
equivalent is reviewing that; and on a monthly basis we are
gathering senior managers to review all of those decisions.
The fourth aspect is the one I said--so let me just be
clear. Those top three are done.
Mr. Cummings. Are done. OK.
Ms. Saldana. They are in place. They are happening now.
Mr. Cummings. OK. Now, tell me No. 4, because that is where
I want to go.
Ms. Saldana. No. 4 is the communication with State and
local jurisdiction is to make sure they know ahead of time that
we are releasing a criminal into their community, because we
want them to keep tabs on those folks, too, and be aware of
that. So that is the one that is going to take a little bit
more time because it involves tapping into a system we already
have for victim notification to expand it to State and locals.
That is just going to take a little bit more time, and that is
what I was saying, is I have to go back and visit with my folks
to see exactly where we are with respect to that.
Mr. Cummings. When can you give us a date? I want you to
tell us when you can give us a date so that we will be certain.
I want you to be real clear why I am saying this. Life is
short, and I want to be effective and efficient in every single
thing I do, even if it is going to that door. So we want to
make sure that we get back so we have some kind of check, that
is all.
Ms. Saldana. I am with you, sir.
Mr. Cummings. OK, so you will let us know by?
Ms. Saldana. I will let you know by the end of the week the
best date that I can come up with.
Mr. Cummings. OK. That is good.
Ms. Saldana. I am going to come up with a date, sir.
Mr. Cummings. All right. OK. All right.
Chairman Chaffetz. OK, go ahead.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just trying to be effective and efficient.
Assistant Secretary, according to publicly released
information, 36,000, we have heard this figure over and over
again, criminal immigrant detainees were released during Fiscal
Year 2013. Is that correct?
Ms. Saldana. It is 30,007, I believe is the number.
Mr. Cummings. OK. Well, DHS determined that 1,000 of these
individuals were since convicted of new crimes. Is that right?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. So if I did my math right, that is about 2.8
percent recidivism rate, is that about in that vicinity?
Ms. Saldana. It is under 3, yes.
Mr. Cummings. OK. And in April 2014, the Department of
Justice issued a report on recidivism, and I ask unanimous
consent to enter that report in the record.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Cummings. This report shows that prisoners released in
30 U.S. States at the 12-month mark had a recidivism conviction
rate of more than 20 percent. Does that surprise you?
Ms. Saldana. No, that is a figure I am very familiar with
as a United States attorney.
Mr. Cummings. By the way, as a lawyer, I can tell you that
I have a lot of respect for U.S. attorneys. I don't know
whether you were leaving the U.S. attorney's spot to come to
this one. I don't know why you did that.
Ms. Saldana. You question my intelligence, sir?
Mr. Cummings. No. But I am just saying you are held in high
esteem.
But how do you believe ICE officials are performing, given
a recidivism rate of 2.8 percent? Are you satisfied?
Ms. Saldana. I would like it to be zero.
Mr. Cummings. Yes, I would too.
Ms. Saldana. But I cannot--I will tell you if we were to
get it down to zero, we were almost requiring our officers to
have total prescience, be able to predict things that have not
yet happened; and that is an extraordinary standard I can't
hold folks to. What I do hold them to is to be trained on what
to look for in determining flight risk and threat to the
public.
Mr. Cummings. Well, that leads me to my next question. What
are you doing to further improve the risk assessment processes
that ICE officials use for the release of criminal detainees?
And are those criteria for risk assessment, are they reviewed
at any time? Do you review them and change them?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. And when you say you, not me personally,
but persons responsible for them.
Mr. Cummings. Yes.
Ms. Saldana. We actually have been re-tweaking this risk
classification system. Mind you, we put in all kinds of data
with respect to the undocumented immigrant, and it gives us a
risk classification. We took another look at it after these
priorities came out in November 20th that the secretary
announced; we re-tweaked it. We are looking at it all the time,
Congressman. So what we have asked, though--that is just an
assessment.
Mr. Cummings. I understand.
Ms. Saldana. Then you have a human being actually looking
at the entire facts, the number that comes out in the
assessment, the facts and circumstances to make a determination
based on their training and their experience--we have some very
well experienced officers out there--to make a judgment on
whether these people meet the bond requirements or not.
Mr. Cummings. So my sense is that if we want to talk about
recidivism rates, let's do that, but let's not narrowly assume
that the struggles that ICE faces are unique among law
enforcement agencies.
Ms. Saldana. Very familiar with that struggle.
Mr. Cummings. I think about a judge. One reason why I have
never been asked to be a judge is because it is hard to judge
sometimes. I mean, in other words, you have to assess a
situation, in sentencing, for example, and try to figure out
what fits in this particular instance.
I also understand that ICE uses alternatives to detention
and that ICE's full service program has a 95 percent success
rate. Can you explain how alternatives to detention work? What
is that?
Ms. Saldana. That is an identification of good candidates
for, based on again, intensive factual analysis, to be released
and not detained based on whether, again, they represent a
risk, whether they are a good candidate.
And we have had extraordinary success with that; those
people are actually showing up. We have asked for and gotten a
little more money in 2015 to expand this program. We are making
those decisions all the time with respect to the candidates.
Based on that success, we are asking for even more money in
2016 in regard to this, because when we see something that
works, we want to continue using it.
Mr. Cummings. Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. Let me
ask you, what are the alternatives? Is there more than one?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. It is anything you would use actually
with a bond person; that is, monitoring, ankle bracelets. They
are out, but they are being supervised, for example; report in
more often than otherwise. There are alternatives to putting
someone in a detention center versus having them out there but
with a short leash.
Mr. Cummings. In the prison cell.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Florida, the
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Mr.
DeSantis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, director. I have noticed that the President,
particularly since he issued his executive actions on November
20th, has stressed that we are doing this in order to protect
the public from criminals, gang members, and he has repeated
that a lot. In fact, I think we have a clip very recently where
he was----
[Video.]
Mr. DeSantis. Well, we are having technical difficulties.
But I think the quote was a very emphatic admonition that
criminals, gang members, these likes, these are the folks who,
when they are here illegally, they obviously need to be
returned to their home country.
But it has come to our attention on the committee that law
enforcement officers are being provided with mixed guidance in
this regard. There is a hypothetical scenario that we have
received in some of the training materials that officers use,
and basically here is the scenario: John Doe entered the United
States illegally in 2009. He does not have any lawful status.
He is 25 years old and in State custody on a pending criminal
street gang charge. When Border Patrol contacts the police
department about the case, it advises the Border Patrol officer
that Doe is a known gang member with gang affiliations and
documented gang tattoos on his body.
He has not been convicted of this yet, so is it the case
that he may not fall into priority 1(c), relating to gang
members?
Ms. Saldana. It is the case that he may not. But as I
mentioned earlier, I am not sure that you were here at the
time, the priorities also are very clear that on that case-by-
case assessment that the officer does, he must take a look at
the whole picture and whether or not there is a conviction or
some other very obvious reason to hold him, that if that
officer believes, in that extensive experience that most of
them have and the training they have received, that that person
presents a threat to public safety, they have the discretion to
request that they be detained.
Mr. DeSantis. And I understand that and I trust some of
these officers are very knowledgeable and have great
experience, but it does conflict a little bit with what the
President is saying. The President is saying if you are a gang
member, you are gone. And basically what this guidance is
saying is, well, if you are a gang member, if you haven't been
convicted, you may be gone, but you also may not be gone. And
the problem with that is that I think that allows people who
would represent a danger to our society to potentially fall
through the cracks.
Now, this is a little bit different than the gang
situation, but we had the family member of the convenience
store clerk in Arizona who was murdered by someone who was in
the Country illegally, was involved with the law, was
definitely a problem individual released by DHS and obviously
really shattered that family's life.
So I think that what I have learned by just looking at
this, and this is before you became director, when there is
discretion, sometimes this is a big bureaucracy, there are so
many people that are involved in this and it has been Stated on
both sides of the aisle and it is true, there are way more
people here illegally than we have the resources to enforce the
law against.
But I just worry that if you are saying that we have zero
tolerance for gang members, I think the policy should be zero
tolerance. I mean, if we have that intelligence from a local
law enforcement, the person is here illegally anyway, so they
wouldn't even have needed to do that to be sent back under
existing law, so I just wonder why we would leave it to chance.
If mistakes are made, those mistakes are going to end up having
the American people pay for those mistakes, potentially.
We had a fellow by the name of Jamiel Shaw in front of this
committee a couple weeks ago on the subcommittee, and this was
long before you were there, it was even before I think the
current President was in office, but his son was an aspiring
football player, was doing well in school. They lived in the LA
area and he was murdered on the way back home from school by
somebody who was a gang banger, had been in trouble with the
law, but had been released, and there wasn't coordination
between the local and the Federal authorities.
So I would just say the President's guidance needs to match
his rhetoric. And if we are going to have zero tolerance for
gang members, I would like to see, once we understand that, I
would like to see an expeditious repatriation to that
individual's home country.
My time has expired and I yield back.
Ms. Saldana. May I comment on that real quickly?
Thank you, sir. I did look at that testimony of Mr. Shaw
and I was very moved. We have reviewed that file. There had
been no encounter with ICE before he committed that offense.
Mr. DeSantis. Why was that, though, because the locals
didn't want to coordinate?
Ms. Saldana. I can't speak for the locals, I am sorry. But
I will tell you that, again, it is on me if these officers
aren't being properly trained and having their questions
answered. As I said earlier, I have directed everyone to take
these criminal cases very seriously; have instituted those
procedures I talked about earlier. I am with Mr. Shaw on this.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
We will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Chaffetz. Wait, wait, wait. My bad. I did not
recognize Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia. It is her turn to go first, and then
we will recognize the gentleman from Georgia.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Saldana, as you heard the questions, some of them are
the kinds of questions you would expect certainly from the
average Americans, you know, kind of throw the bones out
questions. And, of course, if you catch people at the border,
that is one thing. If you catch people who have been involved
in our criminal justice system, it is another. And I would like
to put some of that on the record because part of this is the
frustration, forgive me, with due process of law, how it
operates, even with respect to people that have been found,
yes, to have committed crimes in this Country, but they have
been found through our due process court system.
I want to ask you about Section 236 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, about discretionary release. For example, such
people who you apprehend may, for example, qualify for bond, is
that not the case?
Ms. Saldana. That is.
Ms. Norton. Now, if you caught those people at the border,
that would be one thing, but they are now in our criminal
justice system. And though they are illegal and perhaps
shouldn't be here, and perhaps have committed a crime, now they
are in the criminal justice system. Under Section 236 of the
Immigration Act they qualify for bond the way any other
defendant would.
Ms. Saldana. Congresswoman, if I could just clarify. They
are not part of the criminal justice system. Bond
determinations are made comparable to, analogous to what the
criminal justice considerations are when determining bond in
those cases. But these are administrative detentions.
Ms. Norton. Yes, that is an important distinction you make.
I am trying to get to the due process question.
Ms. Saldana. Right. And that detention, the bond
determination is provided in the statute.
Ms. Norton. That is what 236 does.
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Ms. Norton. So it says bond. It says that part of due
process does apply to these detainees. Now, in these cases, why
might it be better for DHS, the detainee, for that matter, and
the community at large to release the detainee?
Ms. Saldana. Why is it better?
Ms. Norton. Why might it be better to release them.
Ms. Saldana. Well, every case, Congresswoman, every case,
the only thing we are thinking about is public safety; and the
two considerations about flight risk and threat to the
community; and, by statute, even in some cases, humanitarian
reasons.
Ms. Norton. Would you say what some of the factors are in
releasing detainees?
Ms. Saldana. There are a whole host of them, and this is
very much like the criminal justice system in bond
determinations: the severity of the crime, how long ago it was
committed, the circumstances and facts of the underlying
offense, the ties to the community.
Ms. Norton. Can you talk about a flight risk? I mean, is
that one?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, absolutely. That is where ties to the
community, financial resources, where the person has a job.
Ms. Norton. I see.
Ms. Saldana. All of those are considerations. There is a
whole host of them.
Ms. Norton. What about the criminal record?
Ms. Saldana. Absolutely. The nature of their criminal
record, their offenses, their current offense, all their
history going back that we have access to.
Ms. Norton. Of course, we see in our own criminal justice
system how problematic these decisions are made. Many of them
are guesstimates, but at least they are on the record based on
a record of some considered judgment.
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Some evidence. And many of the questions you
have had this morning assume that based on what we think we
already know, and some of that may absolutely turn out to be
true, these people should be thrown out of the Country. And I
remind my colleagues who over and again refer to the
Constitution at-large, but when you get into the nuts and bolts
of it, some of it is very frustrating; and one of the most
frustrating parts of the Constitution is due process of law.
And what you have explained here today about bond and
flight risk is what we see every day in the ordinary criminal
justice system, and 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act
that this Congress has passed says that those same factors must
be considered by ICE.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Saldana. And if I may just say it is a frustration that
we all have. I took issue many times with the Federal courts
decisions on matters when I was asking for bond and did not get
it. Congresswoman, I started out my career very early on in the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as an investigator and
an intake person, so I became familiar with you at that time.
Ms. Norton. Look at you now.
Ms. Saldana. My goodness.
Chairman Chaffetz. Now recognize the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Carter, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Again, thank you for being here, Ms. Saldana.
We appreciate it very much.
It is my understanding that ICE officers and Border Patrol
agents are being directed through internal memos not to ask
questions concerning why people are here illegally in the
United States. Can you tell me what these internal memos say?
Ms. Saldana. I can only speak for Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, sir. I am not aware of any such memo. I can't
speak for CBP; I really don't know. The memos we are sending
out is to give guidance on the secretary's priorities that he
announced on November 20.
Mr. Carter. OK. Let me ask you this and let me remind you
you are under oath, and you recognize that. Let me ask you are
you directing officers or agents, or anyone, not to follow the
law but, instead, to follow the policies of the Administration?
Ms. Saldana. Anything I have done since December 23d, when
I was sworn into office, has been to direct our people to
follow the law.
Mr. Carter. So you are not directing your people to follow
the policies of the Administration.
Ms. Saldana. The law and the policies as the Secretary of
Homeland Security has announced November 20th.
Mr. Carter. OK.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to ask to be
entered into the record a press release by the National Border
Patrol Council dealing with a recent town hall meeting in Miami
that President Obama said there would be consequences for
Border Patrol agents or ICE officers who do not follow the DACA
and DAPA policies and remove qualifying illegal aliens from the
United States.
Chairman Chaffetz. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Carter. In fact, we have a clip of that.
Ms. Saldana. This is Border Patrol?
Mr. Carter. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Saldana. That is our sister agency.
Mr. Carter. We have the clip. Here we go.
[Video.]
Mr. Carter. Can you tell me what these consequences are?
Ms. Saldana. That the President is talking about?
Mr. Carter. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Saldana. I cannot. I can tell you in general with
respect to any member of an agency, organization, a private
company, any member has to abide by the policies and the
directives at the top. I mean, that is pretty straightforward.
Mr. Carter. But, you know, when you use the word
consequences, that is somewhat threatening. I want to know what
the consequences are. Can you tell me what those are?
Ms. Saldana. The consequences, I cannot tell you what the
President was talking about. I cannot. I can tell you that if
someone is not doing their job, there are consequences, up to
and including termination; there is discipline, there is
suspension, there is penalties. All kinds of things that can
start from a written reprimand all the way to termination. That
is basic employment.
Mr. Carter. But do you consider not doing their job as not
following the law or not following the Administration's policy?
Ms. Saldana. It is not following the law and the policies
of this Administration. It is both, sir. Policy is just as
critical as law.
Mr. Carter. Policy is just as critical as law?
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Carter. But what about when policy doesn't agree with
what the law is, when it is in direct conflict of what the law
is?
Ms. Saldana. I would say that is a problem. But I am not
aware of that in this case with respect to immigration and
customs enforcement. And again, Congressman, I really can't
speak to Border Patrol and the customs and border protection.
Mr. Carter. OK, a minute ago you spoke about the memos that
you have sent out. Can we get copies of them?
Ms. Saldana. Absolutely. The one I was talking about, in
fact, we may have a copy with us right now. I will make sure
you get it even before the conclusion of this hearing, the one
that I sent out yesterday.
Mr. Carter. Now, I am not talking about just the one. I
want to see the internal memos that you have sent out to Border
Patrol agents and to ICE officers.
Ms. Saldana. Sir, let me make it clear. I am the Director
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. There are seven
agencies within Department of Homeland Security. I do not send
directives to employees of Customs and Border Protection; they
are not my employees.
Mr. Carter. I understand. What about ICE?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, I do send directives to ICE.
Mr. Carter. Can we get those?
Ms. Saldana. You may have any directive I have sent to ICE.
Mr. Carter. OK. One last question. Are you familiar, are
you aware of any other director involved in this process who
has sent out directives to ICE officers, Border Patrol offices,
or anyone else, not to follow the law, but, instead, to follow
the policy of the Administration?
Ms. Saldana. I am not aware of that.
Mr. Carter. OK. Thank you very much.
I yield back my time.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank the gentleman.
We will now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina,
Mr. Mulvaney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mulvaney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Saldana, and thank you for sticking around
after the votes. I just have a couple of random questions
following up on things that you have said and things that other
folks have asked you.
You mentioned earlier on today that apprehensions at the
border are down and that this is good news. Were you aware that
previously Ms. Napolitano had testified before Congress that
apprehensions at the border were up and that this was good
news?
Ms. Saldana. No, I was not aware of that.
Mr. Mulvaney. So it seems like it is good news if we are
apprehending more and good news if we are apprehending less.
Really, the number of apprehensions at the border isn't the
measure, is it? It is the number of folks who actually are able
to cross without being apprehended. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Saldana. Of course. Of course.
Mr. Mulvaney. OK. So you come and you say, look,
apprehensions are down. That is not determinative as to whether
or not it is good news.
Ms. Saldana. Not determinative, sir, but I would think you
all would think that is a good thing.
Mr. Mulvaney. No, ma'am, actually, because you could come
in and say we didn't apprehend anybody, that is zero, and that
is great news, and we would disagree with that.
Ms. Saldana. It reflects border security to me if we are
stopping everybody that comes across and there are zero
apprehensions.
Mr. Mulvaney. OK, so there is my question. How many folks
are getting across without being apprehended?
Ms. Saldana. How do I know something that is not happening?
Mr. Mulvaney. Do you have any data as to whether or not
that number is increasing, decreasing, staying the same?
Ms. Saldana. And let me be sure I understand your question.
Mr. Mulvaney. Sure.
Ms. Saldana. Would you repeat it, please?
Mr. Mulvaney. Sure. You have mentioned the number of folks
who are apprehended at the border. I have suggested to you that
that is not the measure of success of the program. The measure
of success of what you are doing is the number of people who
are crossing into the Country illegally, without being
apprehended.
So my question to you is do you have any data as to whether
or not that number is going up in the last couple of years,
going down, or staying the same.
Ms. Saldana. I have no data that reflects something that is
not happening.
Mr. Mulvaney. OK. So you have no idea if it is working or
not.
Ms. Saldana. Oh, I do. I do.
Mr. Mulvaney. No, ma'am, you don't, because you could come
in here and say, look, we apprehended five times as many as we
did last year, and that is evidence of us doing a great job;
and that is what Ms. Napolitano said previously. Or you could
come in and say what you said today, which is we only
apprehended half as many as we did last year, and that is
evidence of us doing a good job. And those things are
nonsensical.
Ms. Saldana. I presume that you, sir, as well as every
other congressperson here, wants us to apprehend everybody that
is coming across the border illegally.
Mr. Mulvaney. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Saldana. And, if possible, get that down to zero.
Mr. Mulvaney. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Saldana. So zero would be good news. I believe we all
agree on that.
Mr. Mulvaney. But you are talking about the other half of
the equation, which is the number of people you are
apprehending, not the people who don't get apprehended.
Let me ask you this. Has the definition of turned back
south or deported, has that changed in recent history?
Ms. Saldana. I am not familiar with that.
Mr. Mulvaney. So when you come in and you say that the
number of people we turned back at the border has gone up or
gone down, that definition of what you are using, I think the
term is TBS, that definition has not changed in the last couple
years?
Ms. Saldana. The persons at the border are Customs and
Border Protection, most likely, and there are some
circumstances, if I am understanding this correct, where they
do turn back people back into Mexico.
Mr. Mulvaney. I guess the point I am getting at, when the
President says that we deported more people than we ever have
before, has the definition of what that means changed in the
last couple of years?
Ms. Saldana. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Mulvaney. Okay. All right.
Let me followup on a couple different things. You said
before that there were communities and local governments that
were denying you access. Tell me about that.
Ms. Saldana. This is one of the challenges that I mentioned
in my opening Statement, sir, and I enlist the help of anybody
that I can get help from on this issue. Because our biggest
priority is criminals, convicted felons in particular, we need
to work with State and local jurisdictions who are apprehending
undocumented workers for offenses against State and local law.
They have them in their custody; we can now communicate
with the State and local jurisdiction and get some notice in
advance, through our detainer request, to let us know that they
are about to release them because they have served their State
custody sentence and that we can take possession of them
because of their violation of the law; and now we have a
convicted criminal here.
Mr. Mulvaney. But they are denying you the ability to do
that.
Ms. Saldana. Some jurisdictions are.
Mr. Mulvaney. Why?
Ms. Saldana. I can't speak for them. I will tell you some
of them have policies and laws that are telling----
Mr. Mulvaney. Do you believe that you have--I am sorry to
cut you off. Do you believe that you have the legal right to
force them to comply with your requests?
Ms. Saldana. I cannot say that the detainee notices are
mandatory; they are definitely discretionary.
Mr. Mulvaney. Would it surprise you if the Administration
had taken a different position on that in the recent past?
Ms. Saldana. Well, we have argued that and there is pending
litigation everywhere on this topic. I think you may be
familiar with the Oregon case.
Mr. Mulvaney. Would it help you if we clarified the law to
make it clear that it was mandatory that those local
communities cooperate with you?
Ms. Saldana. Thank you. Amen. Yes.
Mr. Mulvaney. Thank you, Ms. Saldana. I appreciate the
opportunity.
Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you.
Now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, ranking
member.
And to Director Saldana, as a fellow Texan, welcome to
Washington, DC.
Ms. Saldana. Thank you.
Mr. Hurd. My first question is, how does the inability of
deporting every person that violates our laws impact future
illegal immigration?
Ms. Saldana. I am not sure. I think if we could deport 11
million people there might be a message sent that you really
shouldn't be coming into the United States. But I think that is
fairly impractical.
Mr. Hurd. So how does a criminal alien actually get
released, the process? They are in our custody, in U.S.
Government custody, they get charged. What is that process?
Ms. Saldana. I can speak to when we are in the picture.
Mr. Hurd. Sure.
Ms. Saldana. And this is bound by statute. I think the
Immigration and Nationality Act is about this big. But what
happens is we arrest them, they come into custody, we process
them, take fingerprints, get all kinds of information on them
so we can establish a data base. Very early on the question is
we have to make ICE--this is ICE--has to make a custody
determination and whether bond is appropriate.
Based on the factors that I talked about earlier, that
decision is made. Either they go into a detention center
because we say there is no bond allowable, or we say the bond,
and I believe the minimum is $1500 all the way up to whatever
is necessary in our view to get them to report in the future is
then assessed.
If not, they can challenge that determination by ICE, and
they do very, very often. So then they go into the immigration
court for the immigration court then to say, ICE, you were
right in your bond determination or no, you should let these
release. So that half of the people that I think we have been
talking about, 30,000 that were released in 2013 and another,
36,000 in 2013 and another 30,000 in 2014, that is where the
immigration courts have come in or the Zadvydas case and said
they must be released; ICE, you do that.
Mr. Hurd. So do you think all criminal aliens should be
deported?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. If we encounter them and get our hands on
them, sure.
Mr. Hurd. Okay.
Shifting a little bit to another topic, the surge of
unaccompanied minors and families that we experienced last
summer. Are you anticipating another surge this spring or
summer? And what are you doing specifically? And I recognize
that all elements of DHS are involved in that, and I am
interested in hearing what ICE is doing to be prepared.
Ms. Saldana. Well, we learned some very hard lessons last
summer, so as I think many of you are aware, we have ramped up
our family facilities because, of course, the surge involved
unaccompanied children and families with children. So we have
established Dili that I visited about a month ago and have 400
or so units already developed with people in them, and we are
expanding and should conclude up to 2400 units by May.
We are gathering all the intelligence we can get, some of
which I cannot share in public here, but I am happy to share it
with you in a classified setting, to try to see if we can
expect that again this year. I do know that what I met with the
minister of security in Mexico City a few weeks ago, that he
feels very strongly that we may be getting some more people up
here. Mexico has done an extraordinary job in stopping quite a
few people--they report in the six figures--before they even
get to the United States.
Mr. Hurd. On that area, you are saying Mexico is doing a
good job of helping. What areas, what countries where we are
seeing illegal immigration come from that are not being
supportive or where there is room for growth?
Ms. Saldana. A very critical one is China. I am actually
going there this next week to sign a repatriation agreement
where, as the result of work that I can't take credit for,
although I would like to, that has been done with ICE
officials, they have convinced the Chinese government to assist
us with respect to interviewing Chinese nationals who we are
removing from the Country. We are very happy for that step. We
will continue to work with them and other countries to try to
improve that situation.
Mr. Hurd. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mulvaney [presiding]. And I thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
Duckworth, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad I made it
over here. Running between hearings.
Last week, ICE announced the arrest of over 2,000 convicted
criminal immigrants as a result of a nationwide operation known
as Operation Cross Check. According to ICE, of the 2,059
individuals arrested, more than 1,000 had multiple convictions
and more than 1,000 had felony convictions, including robbery,
voluntary manslaughter, and rape.
Assistant Secretary Saldana, is this correct?
Ms. Saldana. Yes. That is who we targeted, was people with
serious criminal offenses, violent offenses.
Ms. Duckworth. And what led ICE to engage in this
nationwide operation?
Ms. Saldana. Well, actually, this is something ICE does
every day, fugitive operations; try to locate those people at-
large that we were talking about that perhaps we couldn't get
through cooperation with State and local jurisdictions. So what
we did was for a matter of weeks we worked toward--and this is
our sixth operation in this regard; we do it once or twice a
year. We searched all our resources to go through all the
intelligence we had, information we have in data bases to
identify people who were anywhere in the Country where we could
identify people fitting that pattern of meeting our priorities.
Then we went out, and actually I got up 4:30 Sunday morning
about 3 weeks ago with my bulletproof vest, and met up with a
team of extraordinary ICE officers and actually we were able to
locate and arrest two people on my team. The number is over
2,000. It was an extraordinary effort. Of course, when you do
that, then you are not doing the day-to-day work, but that is a
function that is right up our wheelhouse and exactly what we
should be doing, and that is going after the worst of the
worse, and that was an example of it.
Ms. Duckworth. Can you explain how the individuals arrested
will be prosecuted and processed, since you arrested them, and
what is the next step? How will they be prosecuted and
processed for, for example, removal from the United States?
Ms. Saldana. They go into the removal process. We issue a
notice to appear. In some cases we may have some people who
already have an order of removal. That will be easier to get
them out of the Country. And, of course, once again, as
Congresswoman Norton noted earlier, there are some due process
requirements, but we are moving as expeditiously as possible to
remove them from the Country.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you. As a former U.S. attorney, can
you explain how this operation reflects the Administration's
new November 20, 2014 prosecution priorities? You said this was
right up your wheelhouse.
Ms. Saldana. Yes. You mentioned the list of offenses. Those
are serious assaults, other crimes, serious crimes that have
been done, and that is where we should be spending every
Federal dollar that the Congress has authorized us to spend, is
on getting those people, identifying them, locating them, and
getting them out of the Country and away from the American
public.
Ms. Duckworth. Wonderful. You talked about this balance
between doing your regular duties and an operation like this,
Operation Cross Check, and how if you are doing this you are
not able to focus as much on the regular duties. Do you think
this was a successful step toward prioritizing for prosecution,
convicted criminals and public safety threats, operations like
Cross Check? You say you do several of them a year, right?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, and it was very successful. Actually, it
was extraordinarily successful. Again, this is an
administrative process. The officer goes up and knocks on the
door to see if the individual is in there, and I cannot say
this enough. I am sorry if I am repeating myself, but when we
don't have the cooperation of State and local jurisdictions, we
are putting our officers at greater risk. My palms are sweating
again thinking about these officers knocking on a door and not
knowing what to expect when somebody opens the door.
We had a very good success rate; I think it was something
like 20 percent of the people that we were looking for answered
and we were able to arrest them.
Ms. Duckworth. And targeting and identifying of these
criminals, you said that it is better with the local law
enforcement support. Are you getting some of that? I assume
there will be more of these operations in the future. How do
you prepare for that so that you have that high success and
arrest rate so that you can go and find the right person and
get these very hardened criminals off the streets?
Ms. Saldana. Well, I am actually thinking about expanding,
and we are talking about it internally, our fugitive operations
because there are people out there that we need to locate and
get out. It is a vital part of what we do and, again, the
priorities are these violent criminals, gang members, those
kinds of things; and I think we had all of them represented in
this group of 2,000-plus that we were able to arrest.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you. It is clear that ICE's
enforcement efforts continue to contribute to this record
number of apprehensions of very serious criminals. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the gentlelady.
We now recognize Mr. Russell, the gentleman from Oklahoma,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Director Saldana, for all of the work that
you do. Public service is often thankless, as you know. While
we might have differences, I do appreciate your service.
The President recently said, in a national address, if you
are a criminal, you will be deported. Is that really true?
Ms. Saldana. If you are a criminal, we are going to locate
you, arrest you, and put you in removal proceedings and deport
you.
Mr. Russell. But with over 160,000 convicted criminals
still at-large in the United States, do you believe that is
being held accountable?
Ms. Saldana. This is what I do. This is what we are trying
to achieve. We are looking for them. We are going to find them.
I will tell you there will be no stone unturned to try to
locate every one of them. Will we have a 100 percent success
rate? That is probably impractical. But we are doing everything
we can to find them.
Mr. Russell. And of the 2,000 criminals recently
apprehended this month, as it was announced, how many had been
apprehended by ICE previously?
Ms. Saldana. I think there was 1,000. I think there were
1,000 that we had. You mean by ICE? I am sorry.
Mr. Russell. Or by anyone.
Ms. Saldana. Or some other law enforcement agency?
Mr. Russell. Of the 2,000 criminals that were apprehended
as being on the most dangerous list, how many had been in
custody of the United States law enforcement agencies before?
Ms. Saldana. There were quite a few. I don't have that
number right at hand.
Mr. Russell. It speaks to a problem that if these were the
most dangerous and these were at the top of the heap for
targeted and we had held them in our custody once before, but
we didn't think it important enough to prevent their release.
How many of the 2,000 will be deported?
Ms. Saldana. They are all in removal proceedings.
Mr. Russell. And can you provide confirmation to us of
those numbers as they are deported?
Ms. Saldana. Yes, sir.
Mr. Russell. The last interesting thing, in a recent town
hall meeting in Miami, President Obama said that there would be
consequences for Border Patrol agents or ICE offices who do not
follow the DACA or DAPA policies to remove qualifying illegal
aliens from the United States. What are those consequences for
Border Patrol agents who remove those illegal aliens?
Ms. Saldana. As I just Stated, I am the Director of ICE.
Customs and Border Protection is one of the other agencies with
the Department of Homeland Security----
Mr. Russell. And I understand that, but you work
interrelated. What do you think the President would be speaking
of there that there would be consequences on agents that are
trying, like yourself, to uphold the law?
Ms. Saldana. They are employees and, as I just Stated a
minute ago, it is like any other employee; if they are not
following the directives of the top, then anything from a
reprimand to ultimately termination can occur. And I will tell
you that is my view. I do not know what the President was
talking about.
Mr. Russell. Well, sure. But let me ask you as the director
and as a prosecuting attorney and someone who has served the
public for a long time, putting criminals behind bars, do you
like such restrictions and being told that you can't uphold
what you know the rule of law to be?
Ms. Saldana. I wish, I wish, and I mean this sincerely, I
could get every criminal immigrant who is illegal in the
Country out of the Country as quickly as possible, and I am
doing everything I can to do that.
Mr. Russell. Do you feel that you are being prohibited by
the executive?
Ms. Saldana. No, sir. We have our hands full. We have our
hands full with the priorities; the murderers, the rapists. We
have our hands full. Those are the people we are out to look
for. We are interested in public safety, border security, and
national security; and that is where our focus is.
Mr. Russell. But doesn't it create a little bit of an
intimidating environment when you have the chief executive
making threats to agents that are trying to uphold the law and,
when you have limited resources, changing rules? I mean, you
deal with these people. You mentioned them yourself in earlier
testimony here of how dangerous these criminals were and the
types of offenses that they had done. Knowing your passion for
upholding that, how does that make you feel, as a director of
an agency so vital to our security, to have what appears to be
intimidation Statements being made by the executive?
Ms. Saldana. I have made it very clear to all almost 20,000
employees that I expect them to uphold the highest standards,
and, quite frankly, we have an employee manual that is quite
extensive, where people know that if they do not represent the
agency well or they commit, themselves, crimes, there will be
consequences. So, quite frankly, I think it is an important
thing to communicate clearly to employees what the expectations
are.
Mr. Russell. Well, I appreciate that and I understand that
people that try to uphold the law can face consequences. I hope
those that are illegally here and are breaking the law and are
dangerous, as we have heard in testimony, even some losing
members of their family to these criminals, I would hope that
they would be the ones that would have the consequence.
I yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the gentleman. I apologize for being
a little quick with the gavel, but I will let the members know
that votes have been called. We have 14 minutes left and two
members in the queue, so we hope to move through and wrap up
the meeting.
Recognize now for 5 minutes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to take
maybe half my time.
Thank you for your patience. I know sometimes the questions
seem repetitive. I am going to go in a different direction
today.
Last month, the secretaries of State from Kansas and Ohio
testified right there about their concern about illegal aliens
having access to vote; the Social Security numbers gathered
from the President's referendum. But the bigger concern was
they wanted to keep the rolls very pure and very clean for the
people who are actually citizens that are voting.
My question is do you believe the States should have access
to the DHS's immigration records so that they can reconcile
these voting rolls? I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Ms. Saldana. I really have not given that thought, sir.
That is not something within the jurisdiction of Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, and I have not really studied the
question. I would like to give you an informed opinion, and I
just don't have the facts.
Mr. Walker. So you have no opinion today on whether the
States should have the information based on some of these
Social Security numbers that have been distributed out? You
feel like the States, you just don't have an opinion on that?
Ms. Saldana. It sounds like a reasonable proposition but,
again, I like to give informed opinions, and I just don't know
the facts.
Mr. Walker. Well, then let me ask it this way. Do you
believe that illegals should have any opportunity to vote in an
election, whether it is local or whether it is a national
election?
Ms. Saldana. I am not an expert on the benefits that are
provided to some people who are in the Country and who are
undocumented, but I don't think they have the right to vote,
sir. I don't think that is provided by law.
Mr. Walker. Even with a Social Security number, even before
they become a citizen or go through the process, you are
telling me--I want to make sure I have this on the record--that
you believe those people should not have an opportunity to
vote?
Ms. Saldana. I do not know that they do. I don't believe
they have the right, illegal, undocumented aliens----
Mr. Walker. And how would we know that unless the
information is shared from the DHS to the States?
Ms. Saldana. I wish I had time to consider that and work on
that, but I have so many issues to deal with at ICE that I
haven't really focused on it.
Mr. Walker. All right. Well, then let me move in a
different direction real quick, since that is fair. Hopefully,
at one point you will have a chance to look at that, because
that is very important, some of the States, that they are
having accurate elections.
The number that we have talked about several times, 167,527
number of convicted criminal aliens that have not been
deported. That is a big number, isn't it? That is a huge
number.
Ms. Saldana. Yes.
Mr. Walker. One of the numbers, though, that really
concerned me, as well as the 167,000, is the 30,558 that
currently are unlawfully here in the United States. I think I
did the math a second ago. There is an average of 400 cities
per State. Times 50 is 20,000 cities. So if you look at the
average, that is 1.5 criminals that are here right now in our
Country. Does that number alarm you?
Ms. Saldana. One alarms me. I would like to see them all
out of the Country.
Mr. Walker. Okay.
Well, because of time constraints, we are going to let my
fellow member, Ken Buck, share his time, so I am going to yield
back to the chairman.
Mr. Mulvaney. Thank the gentleman.
We will recognize Mr. Buck for the final 5 minutes, and
some more, if he wants it.
Mr. Buck. At the risk of missing votes, I will be brief.
I actually didn't come here to argue or to ask any
questions; I just wanted to pass a message to you. I am dating
myself, but as a Federal prosecutor I worked with INS agents,
not ICE agents. Then as a district attorney I worked with ICE
agents.
And I have to tell you that some of the very best people I
worked with were from INS and ICE, and the folks that you have
on the ground are absolutely passionate about the mission that
you have with your agency; and, as a prosecutor, I am sure you
probably share my view of I don't want to call them the old INS
agents, but INS agents.
The problem I have, and I think the challenge that you have
and the message that I wanted to deliver to you today is that
the sense of mission is becoming frayed. I think they are
getting a lot of mixed messages from DC. While their heart is
in public safety and while they are doing their very best to
protect the public and work with local law enforcement and work
with prosecutors and sheriffs offices and police departments, I
think they are getting a mixed message. I would just encourage
you to try to work with those folks who are on the ground that
I have seen really struggling.
And I don't say this in a partisan way, but really having a
morale issue as a result of the various messages being sent out
there, both by mayors and city councils and county commissions
and others, as well as folks in DC. We were doing much better
in 2005, 2006, 2007 in terms of being able to hold people in
the local jail and move them through the process. There was a
much clearer sense of really what the priorities should be than
there is now.
So I just wanted to present that to you in as neutral a way
as possible and just encourage you to work with those people
because if we lose them, it is a loss to the Federal
Government, it is a loss to the public safety.
That is really all I wanted to say. If you would like to
comment, I open this for dialog.
Ms. Saldana. I hadn't been on the job 6 hours when I met
with all the senior staff and recognized that principle in
particular, and that is we can't do our jobs without the women
and men of the agency knowing what their job is, doing it well.
We owe them the training and the tools necessary to do their
job well.
Part of that is very clear communication. I have started
that; I intend to improve on it. I have asked for a
professional development plan giving our people the tools and
the training they need to do their job; having their questions
answered. It is very much, very much at the top of my list, and
I appreciate you sending that message along; I couldn't agree
more.
Mr. Buck. And if there is anything I can do to help, but if
there is anything we can do in terms of legislation to help in
that way, I certainly would welcome the opportunity to work
with you on this.
Ms. Saldana. I look forward to taking you up on that. You
may regret having made that offer. I will see you to talk about
that, and any member here. Thank you.
Mr. Buck. Thank you.
Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the gentleman and remind our members
we have about 7 minutes remaining on vote, so for now I will
recognize the ranking member for his closing comments.
Mr. Cummings. Madam Secretary, I want to thank you very
much for your testimony. It is clear that you have a very, very
difficult job and calls for a lot of balancing; and the people
who work with you, they have very difficult jobs, and I am sure
they quite often come under criticism and it is not easy
sometimes. But I just want to take a moment to thank you and to
thank them for what they do every day.
As I sat here and I keep listening to you, I can't help but
just keep in mind, and I hope all members understand the
significance of a former U.S. attorney. That is serious
business. And you have sworn to uphold the law. As a matter of
fact, I am sure you put a lot of people in prison as a U.S.
attorney. So I think we need to keep in mind that people are
doing the best they can with the tools that they have.
Sadly, there will be folks who will fall through the
cracks, people who should not be on the street. It happens,
unfortunately. And like I told you, when I think about the pain
of the witnesses that testified in our last hearing, talking
about their loved ones, I can relate big time. The idea of
having a young person's life snuffed out and then mourning for
the rest of your life of what could have been for them. So,
again, you have our support.
I want to remind you to get back to us with regard to the
information we requested and thank you.
Ms. Saldana. Thank you.
Mr. Mulvaney. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Saldana, on behalf of the committee, I thank you.
Congratulations on your first hearing. My guess is part of it
met your expectations and part of it was probably a little bit
different than you expected. But we do appreciate your time. We
especially appreciate you making yourself available so that all
the members could ask questions. Too many members of the
Administration will come in and limit their time, and we do
appreciate you making yourself available, and it is very
appreciated. So thank you very much.
We thank the witnesses and, if there is no further
business, without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]