U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 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

73–543 PDF 2012

HOLIDAY ON ICE: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY’S NEW IMMIGRATION DETENTION STANDARDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 28, 2012 

Serial No. 112–104 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JARED POLIS, Colorado 

RICHARD HERTLING, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT

ELTON GALLEGLY, California, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa, Vice-Chairman 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

DAVID SHAHOULIAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 28, 2012 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and 

Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy 

and Enforcement .................................................................................................. 2 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 11 

The Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi, a Representative in Congress from Puerto 

Rico, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement .. 12 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 13 

WITNESSES 

Kevin Landy, Assistant Director, Office of Detention Policy and Planning, 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

Jessica M. Vaughan, Policy Director, Center for Immigration Studies 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Chris Crane, President, National ICE Council 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 41 

Michelle Brane ́, Director, Detention and Asylum Program, Women’s Refugee 

Commission 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 48 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 51 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 3 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary 

Article from The New York Times titled ‘‘Detention Is No Holiday’’ ........... 14 

Letter to the Honorable Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ........................................................................................................ 16 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 74 

Page

IV 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Pedro R. Pierluisi, a Representative 

in Congress from Puerto Rico, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration 

Policy and Enforcement ....................................................................................... 79 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement ........................................................... 81 

Press Release, February 28, 2012, from the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 199 

Prepared Statement of Cheryl Little, Esq., Executive Director, Americans 

for Immigrant Justice (formerly Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center) .......... 200 

(1) 

HOLIDAY ON ICE: THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY’S NEW IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION STANDARDS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION

POLICY AND ENFORCEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:36 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Elton Gallegly 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gallegly, Smith, Lofgren, Conyers, 

King, Gowdy, Ross, Waters, and Pierluisi. 

Staff present: (Majority) Dimple Shah, Counsel; Marian White, 

Clerk; and (Minority) Tom Jawetz, Counsel. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I call the Subcommittee to order. I would ask 

unanimous consent that the Chair would have the right to recess 

the proceedings at any time should there be a vote call on the floor. 

Hearing no objection, that will be the order. 

Today our hearing focuses on the detention of illegal and criminal immigrants. From the onset, I would like to make it clear that 

no Member is against the humane treatment of detainees. However, I am concerned that ICE’s new Performance-Based Detention 

Standards, because they unreasonably put the interests of removable aliens ahead of the interests of the Nation. 

Full implementation of the new detention standards is likely to 

be extremely costly. Nevertheless, cost estimates are not addressed 

at any point in the 400-plus page standards. Has ICE considered 

the impact of this new policy on America and the American taxpayers? 

To make matters worse, the impetus for the new standards have 

little to do with a need for detention reform. Rather, they are part 

of an extensive public relations effort aimed at pro-amnesty advocates. 

Shortly after the detention standards were released, DHS announced the opening of a new detention facility in Texas. A San 

Antonio newspaper describes it as being more like a private college 

setting than a detention center. 

It is outrageous that the immigration detention facilities have 

morphed into college campuses, particularly when we are dealing 

with a facility that costs the taxpayer $32 million to start with. 

2 

This is especially true when American families struggle to make 

ends meet. 

However, even these changes do not make advocates happy. They 

have consistently said the new detention facilities are improved, 

but do not go far enough. What will ever enough be? Numerous 

statements issued by the advocates make clear they are opposed to 

the immigration detention in and of itself. 

DHS’s new detention standards are part of a trend. The trend 

began with leaked DHS memos that discussed mechanisms the 

agency could utilize to circumvent Congress and provide amnesty 

by administrative action. It continued with DHS issuing memos regarding priorities whereby potentially millions of illegal immigrants could be exempt from removal. These memos were superseded by new prosecutorial discretion policy allowing those in violation of the law, who are already in the removal process or ordered 

removed, to remain here undisturbed. 

And now, we have the release of new standards involve policies 

for detainee-friendly detention centers for those illegal and criminal 

immigrants that DHS does intend to detain, and, again, all at taxpayer expense. 

I have a recommendation to the Administration. The best way to 

help immigration detainees is not to roll out the welcome mat at 

detention facilities. It is, reduce the amount of time they spend in 

detention by making better use of the tools Congress has provided 

to process illegal immigrants for removal more expeditiously. It 

would be best if ICE spent more time, energy, and resources on removing illegal and criminal immigrants. 

With that, I will yield to the gentlelady, the Ranking Member, 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. In September of 2007, an armed ICE agent transported Ms. M.C. from the Krome Detention Center to the Broward 

Transitional Center. But instead of driving straight to Broward, 

the agent took her to his house, forced her to perform oral sex, and 

then forcibly raped her. According to documents related to his 

criminal conviction, the agent kept his firearm in his gun belt attached to his waist at all times during the sexual assault. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter the full statement of Ms. M.C. 

into the record. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

3 


73543A-1.eps
4 


73543A-2.eps
5 


73543A-3.eps
6 


73543A-4.eps
7 


73543A-5.eps
8 

Ms. LOFGREN. This was not an isolated incident. Four years earlier, another ICE agent was charged criminally with raping a female detainee during transportation, and last fall an ICE guard 


73543A-6.eps
9 

was criminally charged after he sexually assaulted at least 9 

women during transportation. 

Male guards have also sexually assaulted women while performing strip searches. In 2007, women at the San Diego Correctional Facility filed complaints about a guard who sexually assaulted them when strip searching them in a secluded room. Another guard in Texas pled guilty to multiple criminal charges stemming from similar abuses. 

Some of the detention reforms at issue today were adopted to 

protect female detainees from such horrors. The new standards, for 

example, prevent a lone officer from transporting or strip searching 

a single detainee of the opposite sex. If this were in place earlier, 

Ms. M.C. and countless other women could have been spared rape. 

The new reforms could have spared Francisco Castaneda from 

amputation of his penis and then death. He testified in 2007 before 

this Subcommittee about the serious medical neglect he experienced during his 10 months in detention. Suffering from excruciating pain, he spent months begging for a simple biopsy that had 

been repeatedly ordered by medical professionals. ICE refused to 

authorize the medically-ordered biopsy at every turn, claiming it 

was elective. ICE finally released Francisco because of his deteriorating health and the threat of litigation. He took himself to an 

emergency room where a simple biopsy confirmed that he had 

penile cancer. Because it had not been caught earlier, the cancer 

metastasized and spread throughout his body. After having his 

penis amputated and receiving chemotherapy, Francisco came to 

Congress with his teenage daughter to tell his story so that others 

would not have suffered unnecessarily the way he had. He died just 

4 months later. 

According to the judge who presided over his Federal lawsuit, the 

case represented ‘‘one of the most, if not the most, egregious 8th 

Amendment violations the court has ever encountered.’’ The United 

States ultimately settled the lawsuit for $2 million. 

This Subcommittee also considered the story of Jason Ng, a computer engineer from New York with a U.S. citizen wife and two 

U.S. children. Although he had a pending green card petition and 

no criminal history, Jason spent more than a year in detention due 

to government error in a previous proceeding. In detention he complained about crippling back pain, but guards said he was just faking. They ignored his request for medical care. They even denied 

his request for a wheelchair. One day guards pulled him from his 

bed, dragged him face down through the facility, placed him in restraints, and pressed him up against the wall while he screamed 

and cried for help. These photographs taken the following day at 

the hospital show the bruises that he suffered. When doctors finally examined Jason, they diagnosed him with advanced liver disease and a fractured spine. Despite a broken back, guards kept him 

restrained in the hospital until he died 5 days later. 

Other photographs here are of Boubacar Bah, who died in a similar fashion. While at the Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey, a detainee saw Boubacar collapse and violently hit his head on 

the floor. He was taken to the medical ward in shackled, but 

guards mistook his calls for help and erratic behavior as resistance, 

so they moved him to a disciplinary cell. He lay in that cell for 14 

10 

hours, despite repeated notations that he was unresponsive and 

foaming at the mouth. When they finally took him to the hospital, 

doctors diagnosed him with inter-cranial bleeding. They rushed 

him into surgery, but it was too late. He had slipped into a coma 

and died 4 months later. 

Incidents like these led this Subcommittee to hold hearings in 

2007 and ’08. Those hearings uncovered policies that led to suffering and death. We learned that ICE was tracking the amount 

of money it was saving by denying critical medical care for things 

like HIV, and head injuries, and tuberculosis. ICE could not even 

account for the detainees who died in its custody. Only after an extensive search ordered by new director Morton did they learn about 

10 previously untracked deaths between 2004 and 2010. 

To its credit, this Administration came in, admitted the problem, 

and fundamental change was necessary to prevent unnecessary 

suffering and death. That is the purpose behind the new detention 

standards at issue today. So, I was deeply disappointed to learn of 

the title of this hearing, ‘‘Holiday on ICE.’’ Certainly Francisco, 

Jason, or Boubacar would not think that their deaths in custody 

were any kind of a joke. I know, and Mr. Gallegly called me to say 

that he regretted the title of this hearing, and I accept that call on 

his part. However, I do not accept the criticism of the Administration expressed by the Chairman of the full Committee in his press 

release where he criticizes these detention standards as a hospitality guideline. 

I do not think that it is a hospitality guideline to prevent rape 

of detainees, women who have done nothing wrong, to prevent 

death and abuse of detainees in custody. I do not think women deserve to be raped. I do not think individuals deserve to be tortured 

through physical or medical abuse or gross medical neglect. I do 

not think women deserve to be shackled when they give birth. 

Throughout this Congress, we have seen elements of what I 

think of as sort of a Republican war on immigrants. In today’s 

hearing, I am afraid we are starting to see where the war meets 

the Republican war on women. 

And just a note on cost. You know, it costs about $122 a day to 

keep a detainee, a civil detainee, locked up in the immigration system. The new, less restrictive system is estimated to cost a little 

over $56 a day. So, these new standards will avoid torturing individuals. They will avoid the $2 million judgments for hurting or 

killing people, and it also will cost us less than half of the current 

costs. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I regret the focus of this hearing. I think it 

is wrong. And I look forward to having an opportunity to confer on 

this matter further, and yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

I would just like to respond to one thing in your statement, Zoe, 

and that was something that was laid before me yesterday, that we 

give anecdotal examples, none of which goes unrecognized as serious. None of these anecdotal examples seem to be more serious to 

me than one came across my desk yesterday when a criminal alien 

was released recently from detention because his native land would 

not repatriate him, and within days of the time he was released, 

he murdered 5 people in San Francisco. 

11 

With that, I would yield—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, since you have raised that issue, 

I think it is only fair if I be given a few—— 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. Moment to respond. That individual 

should have been deported to Vietnam. Vietnam refused to take 

him. As you will recall, we had a hearing on a bill authored by a 

Republican Member of the Committee that was so poorly drafted, 

it would have prevented Benjamin Netanyahu from being able to 

come to the United States to deliver his address to the Joint Session of Congress. 

At that time, I indicated a willingness to write a bill that would 

actually work to make sure that an individual like this could, in 

fact, be deported. I know that there has been some discussion at 

the staff level, but we have not reached an agreement on a workable bill. And I would urge the Chairman to intervene to see if we 

cannot get some consensus because there is not an argument. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentlelady can rely on that. It was not my 

intent to get into a debate when we have a hearing going on. The 

only point I was trying to make is that there are many anecdotal 

examples that none of us condone, none of us can accept, and we 

are all, I believe, charged with the responsibility of trying to find 

the best way to correct it. And the status quo is not working. 

I yield to the gentleman from Texas, the Chairman of the full 

Committee, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, let me say to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, that we actually marked up a bill in the full Judiciary 

Committee, the Secure Communities Act, which would have prevented that individual from being released, and would have prevented the deaths of those 5 individuals. And I am sorry she voted 

against that bill because if she had have voted for it, we might 

have had it passed by this time. 

Mr. Chairman, on February 28th, 2012, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement released about 400 pages of new Performance-Based National Detention Standards. But the Administration’s new detention manual reads more like hospitality guidelines 

for illegal immigrants. 

According to the preface, the detention standards supposedly 

‘‘were drafted with the input of many ICE personnel across the Nation, as well as the perspectives of non-governmental organizations.’’ 

But the preface fails to disclose that the union that represents 

ICE detention officers, who are among those most affected by these 

new standards, was not a part of a process that will have a large 

impact on their own safety. Neither were advocates for immigration 

law enforcement or advocates for American taxpayers who will 

have to pay for the new standards. 

Instead, ICE consulted with those who appeared to consist primarily of pro-illegal immigrant groups when it drafted the new detention standards. 

Under this Administration, detention looks more like recess. 

While funds for American students’ physical education classes are 

being cut, the new detention standards expand recreation for illegal 

12 

immigrants. For instance, illegal and criminal immigrants in ICE 

custody will have options such as soccer, volleyball, and basketball. 

It would be nice if all American students got those options. 

ICE wasted no time in putting their new standards into practice. 

Immediately following the release of the new detention manual, 

ICE opened up a new, state-of-the-art detention facility in Karnes 

City, Texas. The new detention facility was built with specifications 

set by ICE, which involved limited public scrutiny and no congressional oversight. 

Among the new amenities, the Karnes City facility contains a library with free Internet access, cable TV, an indoor gym with basketball courts, soccer fields, and sand, and that is for beach 

volleyball. Instead of guards, unarmed ‘‘resident advisors’’ patrol 

the grounds. And the cost of the complex: over $30 million taxpayer 

dollars. 

To make matters worse, the new standards expand the complaint 

process against ICE officers and facilities. It offers numerous avenues for complaints, unlike the Bureau of Prisons, which has a single streamlined process for complaints. Detained illegal immigrants 

can complain to ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility, the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General, or 

the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. 

With no protections against false accusations of abuse filed by 

detainees, and a process biased against ICE agents, the new detention standards could subject the agency and its employees to constant and frivolous lawsuits. 

It is no surprise that an agency that considers illegal and criminal immigrants it detains as its ‘‘customers,’’ ranks—listen to this, 

Mr. Chairman—ranks 222nd out of the 240 government agencies 

surveyed by the Partnership for Public Service for employee satisfaction. 

This hearing is entitled, ‘‘Holiday on ICE,’’ because ICE has decided to upgrade accommodations for detained illegal and criminal 

immigrants. While we would all like to be upgraded, we do not 

have the luxury of billing American taxpayers or making Federal 

law enforcement agencies our concierge. 

The Obama Administration should put the interests of American 

taxpayers ahead of illegal and criminal immigrants. 

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The gentleman from Michigan from Michigan, the 

Ranking Member of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Gallegly. With your permission, I would like to yield two of my minutes to the former attorney 

general of Puerto Rico, the Honorable Pedro Pierluisi. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Pierluisi, 2 minutes. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking 

Member Conyers. 

Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully say that I find the premise of 

today’s hearing to be misguided and, frankly, appalling. Our immigration detention system has serious problems. The evidence is as 

well documented as it is heartrending. 

Over 110 people have died in immigration custody since 2003. 

Too many others have been subject to rape, abuse, or medical neglect. Although there is still a long way to go, DHS and ICE deVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:36 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\032812\73543.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
13 

serve credit for making important strides in reforming our detention system as reflected in the 2011 National Detention Standards. 

Rather than welcoming these common sense standards and seeking their implementation at ICE facilities across the Nation, my 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle have claimed that detainees are now being pampered. That assertion does not even pass the 

laugh test. But nobody should find it amusing. 

Mr. Chairman, all Members of this Subcommittee are blessed to 

be Americans, citizens of this great democracy, which has done so 

much to make the world a better, freer, more humane place. But 

this love of country should be tempered by a sense of humility, 

rooted in the knowledge that we could just as easily have been 

born in a darker corner of this world where liberty or economic opportunity is in short supply. We should have more empathy for 

men and women who have left behind everyone and everything 

they know in order to reach our shores, especially since many detainees have violated no criminal law, and those that did have already served their sentences. 

Instead of simply paying lip service to the idea of humane treatment, we ought to promote policies that treat people with decency 

and compassion, guided by the understanding that there, but for 

the grace of God, go I. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Gallegly and to our full Committee Chairman, Lamar 

Smith, I have always been proud of the fact that the House Judiciary Committee has always evaded the partisan tiffs that frequently 

characterize what goes on in the House of Representatives. And I 

regret that today we are confronted with a dilemma that I would 

like to address and see if we can somehow rebuild the good will 

that has always existed on this Committee. 

Now, as I look across this audience, I would be pretty naive not 

to notice that there are many more women in this audience than 

is usually the case. And I think it is because of the nature of the 

hearing that is going on today. 

I want to remind everybody, and with the permission of the 

Chairman, I would like to put into the record the New York Times 

editorial of today by this famous Haitian writer, Haitian-American 

writer—she has citizenship in both countries—Ms. Edwidge 

Danticat, whose article is entitled, ‘‘Detention is No Holiday.’’ 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Conyers, I assume you are referring to what 

was, I believe, to be an op-ed, not an editorial? 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, I am sorry. Yes, it was an op-ed. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

14 


73543B-1.eps
15 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So, here is the problem, and this is a sentence that comes out 

of the article, the op-ed that is going into the record by Ms. 

Danticat, whom I must confess I just talked to on the phone an 

hour ago to let her know that I had delivered a letter to our Chairman, Lamar Smith, which I also ask unanimous consent to include 

in the record, please. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


73543B-2.eps
16 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. I will read just a sentence 

from Ms. Danticat. ‘‘We are being too generous in deciding to give 

them safe water, an hour a day of recreation, and of offsite medical 

care if they are in danger of dying.’’ And I think that is what it 

comes down to. 

And I conclude with this. I have the highest respect for the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, John Morton, 

its director. I know of the good reputation of the assistant director, 

Kevin Landy, who is our lead off witness today. And so, I want us 

to balance what we say against what our Ranking Member, Zoe 

Lofgren of California, has recited about the kind of conditions that 


73543C.eps
17 

people are frequently forced to live in. And I hope that we can come 

to reasonable conclusions. 

And I thank the Chairman for his time, and I yield back whatever is left. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The time of the gentleman has expired. As you 

obviously are aware, the bells have rung for, I believe it is two 

votes, if I am not mistaken. And we will recess until we complete 

the two votes. And I would assume that we ought to be able to reconvene within about 25 minutes. 

[Whereupon, at 2 p.m., the Subcommittee recessed, to reconvene 

at 3:08 p.m., the same day.] 

Mr. KING [Presiding]. I call this hearing back to order. 

We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses today. Each of 

the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into the record in 

its entirety. I ask that each witness summarize his or her testimony in five or minutes or less. To help you stay within the time, 

there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from 

green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. 

When the light turns red, it signals that the witness’ 5 minutes 

have expired. 

Introduction of the witnesses. Mr. Kevin Landy is assistant director for the Office of Detention Policy and Planning of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security. The Office of Detention Policy and Planning 

leads ICE’s efforts to overhaul the current immigration detention 

system. Prior to joining ICE, Mr. Landy served for 13 years on Senator Joseph Lieberman’s staff on the Committee on Homeland Security and on Government Affairs. He received his bachelor’s degree from Amherst College and his law degree from Yale Law 

School. 

And Ms. Jessica Vaughan. As the policy director at the Center 

for Immigration Studies, she has been with the center since 1991, 

where her area of expertise is administration and implementation 

of immigration policy. Prior to joining the center, Ms. Vaughan was 

a foreign service officer with the U.S. State Department, and she 

holds a master’s degree from Georgetown, and a bachelor’s degree 

from Washington College in Maryland. 

I would also welcome Mr. Chris Crane. He currently serves as 

the president of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council 118, American Federation of Government Employees. 

He has worked as an immigration enforcement agent for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—that is ICE—at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security since 2003. Prior to his service at 

ICE, Chris served for 11 years in the United States Marines. 

And then we have Ms. Michelle Brane ́. Ms. Brane ́ is the director 

of the Detention and Asylum Program at the Women’s Refugee 

Commission, which focuses on the critical protection of needs of 

women and children asylum seekers in the United States. She has 

more than 18 years’ experience working on immigration and 

human rights issues. Ms. Brane ́ holds a bachelor’s degree from the 

University of Michigan and a law degree from Georgetown University. 

I thank all the witnesses for being here and for your testimony 

in advance, and then recognize Mr. Landy for 5 minutes. 

18 

TESTIMONY OF KEVIN LANDY, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF DETENTION POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. IMMIGRATION 

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

Mr. LANDY. Vice-Chairman King, Ranking Member Lofgren, on 

behalf of Secretary Napolitano and Director Morton, thank you for 

the opportunity to highlight the ongoing efforts of U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement to reform our Nation’s immigration detention system. 

The Nation’s immigration detention system expanded rapidly in 

the last 15 years, from an average daily population of less than 

7,500 detainees in 1995 to more than 33,000 in 2011. This growth 

has presented challenges for the agency, and since 2009, Director 

Morton has made reforming ICE’s detention system a top priority. 

We wanted to develop facilities more appropriate for the agency’s 

detained population, and to improve conditions at existing facilities. We wanted to use fewer facilities located closer to the location 

of apprehension, to reduce the number of people transferred away 

from their families, communities, and attorneys. 

We wanted to ensure that detainees received adequate medical 

and mental health care, and that detention facilities receive necessary Federal oversight. And we wanted to do this in a fiscally 

prudent way. 

And, in fact, the agency’s reforms have produced concrete 

changes, while also achieving greater operational efficiency. I am 

pleased to highlight some of these reforms today. 

Last month, ICE promulgated the 2011 performance-based national detention standards. The standards cover a wide range of 

topics relevant to the management of detention facilities, including 

all necessary security safeguards. And in most respects, they are 

identical to the standards developed in 2008 by the prior Administration. 

In this new version, however, we have made important and targeted revisions to better address the needs of ICE’s unique detainee population. For example, the standards improve medical and 

mental health care services, reinforce protections against sexual 

abuse and assault, enhance opportunities to engage in religious 

practices, and in other ways establish new safeguards defining the 

appropriate treatment of detainees. 

It is important to note, however, that our new detention standards are only one of several interrelated reform initiatives that ICE 

has undertaken. For instance, ICE has made substantial progress 

in improving medical care available to detainees. The ICE Health 

Service Corps has streamlined the system for authorizing care to 

ensure timely treatment for detainees who have serious medical 

needs. And ICE is also developing an electronic health records system. 

ICE has also deployed field medical coordinators at all field offices to provide for better coordination with detention facilities and 

to monitor serious medical cases across the country. 

In 2009, ICE created an Office of Detention Oversight to conduct 

targeted inspections of detention facilities. ICE has also located 

more than 40 new Federal monitors at large detention facilities to 

inspect and monitor conditions, replacing a more expensive contract for those services. 

19 

In July 2010, ICE launched an online detainee locater system, a 

public web-based tool that allows family members and attorneys to 

locate detained aliens in ICE custody. By providing information online, the tool frees up time for ICE employees to focus on carrying 

out other responsibilities. 

ICE has made great strides in reducing costly long distance 

transfers of detainees by increasing detention capacity where it is 

most needed. This makes it more likely that detainees will remain 

near their families and attorneys. It also reduces disruptions to ongoing immigration proceedings that may lengthen an alien’s detention. The ICE transfer directive, signed by Director Morton in January of this year, ensures that decisions regarding the long distance transfer of detainees will be made only after careful consideration of the individual circumstances of each detainee. The policy 

will further decrease the transfer of detainees who have local attorneys, family members, or ongoing removal proceedings. 

As part of our continued effort to develop a better model for immigration detention, ICE has opened the Karnes County Civil Detention Center outside of San Antonio. The facility will house low 

risk detainees, many of them asylum seekers, in a less restrictive 

environment. The facility’s design permits greater freedom of movement, including easy access to outside recreation, and has other 

features consistent with our detention of foreign principles. Karnes 

also costs ICE far less than the agency’s average cost of detention. 

ICE plans to open additional new civil detention facilities in regions where they are most needed. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and for 

your continued support of ICE and its law enforcement mission. I 

would be pleased to answer any questions at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Landy follows:] 

20 


Landy-1.eps
21 


Landy-2.eps
22 


Landy-3.eps
23 


Landy-4.eps
24 


Landy-5.eps
25 


Landy-6.eps
26 


Landy-7.eps
27 


Landy-8.eps
28 


Landy-9.eps
29 


Landy-10.eps
30 


Landy-11.eps
31 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Landy. 

And now recognize Ms. Vaughan for her testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF JESSICA M. VAUGHAN, POLICY DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

Of course no one wants to see people mistreated in detention, but 

this initiative goes too far and is a waste of taxpayer dollars that 

is motivated not by a genuine need for reform, but as part of a 

larger strategy to trivialize immigration law enforcement, and minimize the consequences of illegal immigration, which imposes enormous fiscal, economic, national security, and public safety burdens 

on American communities. 

It is just wrong to ask Americans to foot the bill for the Obama 

Administration programs that seek to help illegal aliens game the 

system. For example, as part of this detention reform initiative, 

DHS has set up hotlines and special advocates for illegal aliens to 

complain about their treatment. As in any large detention system, 

abuses occur and are dealt with, but at this point, the people who 

really need a hotline and a special advocate are the ones who have 

been the victims of the illegal acts committed by illegal aliens. 

While critics of immigration law enforcement like to call them 

concentration camps, in reality immigration detention centers have 

always been softer than other detention centers. With their turf 

soccer fields, juice bars, satellite television, and polo shirt clad resident advisors, the descriptions of the brand new facility in Karnes 

City, Texas sound like more a college campus, not like a temporary 

holding place for people who have violated U.S. laws. 

Now, I am not here to suggest that DHS start housing detainees in tents in the desert, but the new Karnes facility cost $32 million 

to build. That is more than twice as expensive per bed as another 

new facility that was built not too long ago in Farmville, Virginia. 

It is reasonable to ask why the new facility, built according to the 

new standards, cost so much more, and how this compares to other 

options, such as housing detainees at local correction centers. 

How can DHS justify these facilities and services considering 

that the vast majority of detainees are there only for a short period 

of time? The average length of stay for a so-called non-criminal of 

Mexico or Central America is 10 to 21 days, just long enough for 

travel documents to be issued and flights to be arranged. And a 

large share of these ICE detainees, Mexicans who are apprehended 

by the Border Patrol, stay only 12 hours. 

ICE turns over groups of 100 of these illegal aliens twice a day. 

The only reason that they are in detention at all is for the purpose 

of padding ICE’s year end removal statistics. 

For others, mainly in the interior, the centers are really just a 

brief way station in the Obama Administration’s massive catch and 

release program. Under current policies, also known as prosecutorial discretion, if they are not a mandatory detainee and have not 

yet been convicted of a crime, they are whisked back onto the 

street, often with a work permit. 

Many of the small number who remain for long periods are there 

because they are refusing the option of quick return and choosing 

to challenge their deportation or seek relief. Unfortunately, too 

32 

often they are given false hope by advocacy groups who, under the 

new standards, get increased access to detainees. The humane 

thing to do is to process them more expeditiously so that they can 

get back home. 

An increasing number who choose to stay in detention in the 

hopes of getting permission to stay are illegal arrivals who are taking advantage of the Administration’s new lenient policies that reward people who express fear of return to their home country. They 

are usually assisted in this claim by NGO advocates who put on 

regular briefings in detention centers as called for in the new 

standards. 

After the application process, they are released with a work permit and notice to appear at some future date. These applications 

have increased 500 percent since the new policies were adopted. 

Advocates for illegal aliens are quick to point out that a large 

share of the individuals in detention are classified as non-criminals. This is not because they are harmless; it is usually because 

local authorities often will drop charges against illegal aliens in the 

expectation that ICE will take care of their problem by detaining 

and removing them. So, this population of so-called non-criminals 

in reality includes any number of unsavory and dangerous characters. 

Convicted or not, ICE still has the responsibility to remove them. 

Putting them in a center with standards that are too soft may put 

detention officers, resident advisors, and other detainees at risk, 

and releasing them back into our communities puts everyone at 

risk. 

The majority of aliens who are not detained while in proceedings 

will fail to appear for their hearings or will ignore orders to depart. 

And the number of absconders is now more than 700,000, which is 

a 28 percent increase over 2008. A huge number of them abscond 

from local criminal proceedings, too. 

One recent case illustrates what happens when ICE looks for 

ways to release rather than detain people who have been arrested. 

Last September, they released a man in Chicago who was charged 

with 42 counts of child molestation, including incest and rape. He 

was supposedly being monitored electronically, but like many thousands before him, he has not been seen since. There are thousands 

of other cases that we can point to that are similar to this, but for 

now since my time has expired, I will await your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Vaughan follows:] 

33 


JMV-1.eps
34 


JMV-2.eps
35 


JMV-3.eps
36 


JMV-4.eps
37 


JMV-5.eps
38 


JMV-6.eps
39 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. 

I would recognize Mr. Crane. 

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS CRANE, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL ICE COUNCIL 

Mr. CRANE. Good afternoon, Vice Chairman Gallegly—I am 

sorry, Vice Chairman King, and Members of the Committee. 

Executive Order 13522 in part states, ‘‘Federal employees and 

their union representatives are an essential source of front line 

ideas and information.’’ It goes on to say that union involvement 

services improve the productivity and effectiveness of the Federal 

Government, and that management should discuss workplace 

changes, challenges, and problems with labor, and endeavor to develop solutions jointly. The order was signed by President Obama 

on December 9th, 2009. 

Ironically, the very next day, December 10th, 2009, I gave testimony regarding ICE’s proposed detention reforms and detention 

privatization, stating emphatically that as a union and as Federal 

law enforcement officers, we should be involved in the predecisional development of ICE detention standards, emphasizing 

the President’s point that front line employees have valuable 

knowledge and experience that can make our government function 

more effectively. 

Appropriate 2 and a half years after my 2009 testimony, ICE’s 

new detention standards were implemented. There was never any 

union involvement. DHS and ICE excluded its own officers. 

Safety concerns are at the top of our list, safety for both officers 

and detainees. At ICE, some detention facilities now prohibit officers from carrying handcuffs. Some facilities prohibit officers from 

wearing uniforms, allegedly because detainees find uniforms offensive. Detainees wear street clothes and are free to wander throughout the facility, and even enter officer work spaces. 

Last night, an officer working in a low security facility reported 

that all officers and guards at his facility, inside and outside, are 

unarmed. There are no armed personnel at all providing security 

at the detention facility. He stated that there are no fire detectors 

inside detainee housing units leading the facility failing two fire inspections. Yet ICE headquarters directed that detainees be housed 

in the facility anyway, a dangerous gamble at best. 

Approximately 1 year ago, ICE leadership divulged the assaults 

against officers and escape attempts were up significantly, doubling 

numbers from the previous year. While data supporting these 

claims is not available to the union, we had already observed an 

apparent increase in the number of assaults and escape attempts. 

Efforts by the union to discuss stronger safety precautions for 

ICE officers has been met with strong opposition by ICE. This as 

the Administration efforts to apprehend the worst of the worst led 

to the obvious: detainee populations that are increasingly more 

dangerous and criminal in nature. 

New ICE detention standards provide no criminal background 

screening of visitors, as is standard practice at agencies like the 

U.S. Bureau of Prisons. Without screenings, ICE will permit individuals who pose a security threat to enter detention facilities, 

threatening the safety of both detainees and officers. 

40 

New ICE detention standards continue to establish pat down 

searches as the standard security search of detainees prior to admission or reentry into an ICE detention facility, not strip 

searches, creating an increased risk that weapons, drugs, and other 

contraband will enter ICE facilities. 

New ICE detention standards also establish prohibitions on strip 

searches of detainees following full contact visitation with members 

of the public. New ICE detention permit detainees to observe as officers search detainee housing and work areas, allowing detainees 

to monitor and learn officer search techniques better enabling detainees to conceal dangerous contraband inside the facilities. 

New ICE standards allow for detention officers to perform medical and mental health screenings of detainees to include 

screenings for emergent medical conditions, suicide risk, and controlled substance dependency. If interpreted correctly, new standards prevent detainees with serious medical concerns from seeing 

qualified medical staff for 36 hours or more, recklessly assigning 

important medical duties to officers instead of medical professionals. 

In conclusion, as a union and as Federal law enforcement officers, we do not oppose public outreach as part of policy development, but we do point out that such approaches are unbalanced 

and ineffective when law enforcement officers who perform the duties involved are prohibited from providing input as well. We believe that new detention standards proposed by ICE are at times 

unsafe, unsafe for detainees and unsafe for employees. Good intentions do make for sound security, and do not create a safe detention setting. 

If the Administration is concerned with providing a safe detention setting for detainees and safe working conditions for employees, it will begin to work with the union toward achieving those 

goals. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crane follows:] 

41 


Crane-1.eps
42 


Crane-2.eps
43 


Crane-3.eps
44 


Crane-4.eps
45 


Crane-5.eps
46 


Crane-6.eps
47 


Crane-7.eps
48 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Crane. 

And I would now recognize Ms. Brane ́. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHELLE BRANE ́ , DIRECTOR, DETENTION 

AND ASYLUM PROGRAM, WOMEN’S REFUGEE COMMISSION 

Ms. BRANE ́. Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to 

testify about this matter, which profoundly affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of—— 


Crane-8.eps
49 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you pull your microphone a little bit closer 

so we can hear? 

Ms. BRANE ́. The Women’s Refugee Commission identified as 

GAPS, researches solutions and advocates for change to improve 

the lives of crisis affected women and children. For nearly 2 decades, we have visited immigration detention facilities throughout 

the United States and spoken to detention center staff, local service 

providers, and to detainees about policies, practices, conditions of 

detention, and access to protection. 

There is no question that conditions of immigration detention in 

the United States have been inadequate, inhumane, and unsafe. 

These conditions have been in violation of the U.S. Constitution 

and our obligations under international law and treaties, exposing 

detainees to harm and leaving the Department of Homeland Security and its employees vulnerable to litigation. 

The purpose and authority of ICE detention is to hold, process, 

and prepare individuals for removal. It is not to punish or rehabilitate. Despite this distinction, ICE uses a penal incarceration system. Regardless of whether it is inconvenient, the agency has a 

duty to provide basic services and care to those it detains. Anything less is unlawful. 

The detention reforms we are discussing today are a response to 

the public outcry and litigation over conditions of confinement. 

Abuses and inhumane conditions have been well documented by 

NGOs, the media, and government oversight agencies. The 2009 report by former DHS special advisor, Dr. Dora Schriro, concluded 

that significant reforms were necessary. 

The violations led ICE to launch a much needed reform effort, including the updating of the 2008 standards. Despite years of development, the 2011 standards are only slightly better. They do, however, articulate stronger guarantees to appropriate and necessary 

medical/mental health and women’s health care, and protections 

against sexual assault for immigration detainees. 

Let us be clear. These standards for confinement are no hospitality guide. 

In my numerous visits to detention facilities, I have encountered 

a litany of shortcomings, abuses, and tragic consequences. As evidenced by over 120 documented deaths in immigration custody 

since 2003, this lack of medical care is not a frivolous matter to be 

cast aside as insignificant. The case of Mr. Boubacar Bah’s death, 

previously articulated by Representative Lofgren, is a case in point. 

The current medical standards for women also fall well below 

those in our Federal prison system. Women have been denied medically necessary treatment and prenatal care that have resulted in 

serious consequences, including untreated cancer and miscarriages. 

Even basic needs, such as sanitary napkins, have been inconsistently available. 

Sexual assaults occur during intake, during detention, and even 

during transport and removal. Frontline recently highlighted sexual assaults at the Willacy Facility in Texas. In 2009, a guard 

forced a woman at the Willacy Detention Facility into a bathroom 

and raped her. He threatened to make things worse for her if she 

reported the assault. He was not sentenced until 2 years later 

when he pled guilty in August of 2011. 

50 

The 2011 standards include basic provisions for treatment that 

are consistent with, not more generous, than what is available in 

the Federal prison system and by law. These include appropriate 

guidelines for the provisions of medical care, including access to 

prenatal care and gynecological services, limits on the use of shackles for pregnant women, and provisions to prevent and respond to 

sexual assault, including a requirement that victims be provided 

emergency and medical health services. 

To imply that these very basic protections are a holiday or an 

undue burden on the agency is simply wrong. The new provisions 

bring ICE detention standards closer to a minimum level of compliance with legal obligations of a civil detention system. They will realign priorities so that people like Mr. Bah and victims of sexual 

assault receive basic needed medical care and protection from abusive practices. They also provide clear guidelines and protection for 

agency and facility staff. 

Instituting reforms to improve the operation and oversight of detention operations should be welcomed. Revising existing detention 

standards is not only necessary for the safety of detainees, it is a 

significant opportunity for ICE to create a more efficient and effective system of enforcement. 

This concludes my testimony, and I am happy to take questions 

at this time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brane ́ follows:] 

51 


Brane-1.eps
52 


Brane-2.eps
53 


Brane-3.eps
54 


Brane-4.eps
55 


Brane-5.eps
56 


Brane-6.eps
57 


Brane-7.eps
58 


Brane-8.eps
59 


Brane-9.eps
60 


Brane-10.eps
61 


Brane-11.eps
62 


Brane-12.eps
63 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Ms. Brane ́. And I appreciate all your testimony, and I recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

And I would turn first to a remark or comment that I heard 

made by the gentleman from Puerto Rico in his opening remarks, 

Mr. Pierluisi, where he said that 110 have died in detention ICE 

custody since 2003, I believe the number was. And so, I would ask 

Mr. Landy, do you have a sense of—I understand that there are inVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:36 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\032812\73543.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

Brane-13.eps
64 

dividual cases here that does assuage anybody’s grief when it is 

personal, and it is personal to every family. But from a statistical 

standpoint, do you have a sense of whether it is safer or more dangerous to be in ICE detention than it is in the broader society of 

America? 

Mr. LANDY. With respect to detention deaths, first of all, in 2004, 

there were 28 deaths in immigration detention. During so far in 

this Fiscal Year, there have been 6 detention deaths. And in the 

previous Fiscal Year, there were 8. 

ICE has been working very hard to improve medical care, to address the concerns that have been raised thus far. 

Mr. KING. I understand that, Mr. Landy, and I appreciate your 

statements with regard to that. But data wise, my question was, 

is it safer to be in ICE detention as compared to in the broader society of America, or is it more dangerous to be in ICE detention 

from a fatality standpoint? And you have about 33,000 people at 

any snapshot given day incarcerated. So, have you given any sense 

to that whether when they go inside your doors they are safer than 

they were outside the doors? 

Mr. LANDY. Safer—— 

Mr. KING. Less likely to die. 

Mr. LANDY. I myself have not done a statistical analysis. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Let me help you out then. I just did a little 

math here when I heard the statement made from Mr. Pierluisi, 

and I thought, what does that mean, 110,000 deaths since 2003? 

So, I just did a little math and roughly 9 years, and you shake this 

out, it comes down to about 1 out of every 2,500 people. And if you 

figure the 33,000 annual, about 1 out of every 2,500 would die in 

ICE custody. That is the data that Mr. Pierluisi gave us if you are 

accepting the 33,000 number. If you look at the broader society of 

America, about 2.4 million people die in America every year out of 

a 313 million population. So, that would be .767 percent, which 

happens to be 1 out of every 28 and a half—1 out of every 128.5 

people statistically die in America. 

So, just think of a town of 128 people. Likely 1 of them will pass 

away in a given year. So, that means that it is 20 times safer statistically to be in your ICE facility, and I would just point that out 

because not that there are not any problems. I would not take that 

position. But statistically, 110 deaths over that period of time is 

not alarming to me. 

Mr. LANDY. May I respond to that, Vice-Chairman? 

Mr. KING. Please. 

Mr. LANDY. In the general public, typically people who pass away 

do so at an advanced age. Our population on average is much 

younger. There are people who, in our general public, would be considered healthy, young adult males at that age primarily. We do 

not have very many elderly people in our custody. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Thank you for that analysis, Mr. Landy, and I 

would just suggest, though, that you take a look then, and it is 

going to be a question I will ask you on the record today, and we 

want to follow up with a response to it. I will ask you do a statistical analysis of the universe that you have described in the broader society versus that of the ICE facilities, and I think that would 

65 

be instructive for this panel to know, because it has been part of 

the discussion that has taken place. 

And then I would turn to—thank you. And I would turn to Mr. 

Crane and ask you if you would have any comments you would like 

to make after you have heard the testimony from Ms. Brane ́. 

Mr. CRANE. A lot of things run things went through my mind 

during the testimony today regarding the deaths. And I think the 

first thing that I would say is that the people that made these happen were bad players. And no number of rules or regulations that 

we make will get rid of bad players. They are going to do bad 

things if they are not supervised 100 percent of the time. And I 

think that is one of our biggest issues with the performance-based 

detention standards is that we really feel that they have kind of 

been off the mark starting in 2009. We said that the agency needed 

more oversight. We did not necessarily need more regulations per 

se and more rules. 

You know, providing people with opportunities to have more rec 

time during the day is not going to overcome this type of issue. But 

also, as law enforcement officers, well, at ICE specifically, first of 

all, we know that many of these facilities are local jails. 

Mr. KING. Is it true that some of the inmates control the keys 

to their own cells? 

Mr. CRANE. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. KING. Okay, thank you. And I would just quickly turn to Ms. 

Vaughan then and ask you to flush out your comment that ICE 

looks for ways to release rather than to detain. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, the policies now in place, the guidelines for 

ICE agents, ICE removal officers in particular, is to hold only those 

as a priority who have been convicted of a crime. And that policy 

overlooks the reality of our how our criminal justice system plays 

out in that many of these individuals are not going to be convicted 

unless they are held because they stand a chance of fleeing before 

their proceedings can occur, both their criminal proceedings and 

also their immigration proceedings. So, that is why that policy puts 

the rest of us at risk when people who are released back into the 

community have the opportunity to go on to commit other crimes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Ms. Vaughan. 

The Chair would turn and recognize the gentlelady from California, Ranking Member Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Before asking my questions, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to include in the record the following statements: a statement from Congresswoman Lucille Roybal-Allard; a 

statement from a Member of the full Committee, Congressman 

Jared Polis; a statement from Dora Schriro, the commissioner of 

the New York City Department of Corrections and the former special advisor to Secretary Napolitano; a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union; from the Advocates for Human Rights; 

from the American Immigration Lawyers Association; from the National Immigration Forum; from Human Rights Watch; from 

Human Rights First; from the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee 

Service; from the National Latino Evangelical Coalition; the National Immigrant Justice Center; and Susanna Barciela, the Policy 

Director for Americans for Immigrant Justice. 

66 

*The information referred to is available in the Appendix. 

Mr. KING. Hearing no objections, so ordered.* 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, there have been a lot of statements made, and we 

only have 5 minutes, so it is not possible to spend all the time necessary to correct various things that were said that were incorrect. 

But I do think it is important to take a look at the facility that has 

been described as kind of a country club, I guess. 

We have a couple of pictures, because I think pictures are worth 

more than a few words. This is, to me, again, there are bunks. It 

does not look my idea of a plush holiday locale. I mean, this is the 

new center that has been built. And by the way, several Members 

have said that this was a $30 million building at taxpayers’ expense. It was actually $32 million, but it was not built at taxpayers’ expense. It was built by Geo Group, a private for-profit 

prison company, and they are paid per bed about half of what we 

pay for other facilities. 

If we could show the next picture. This is the plush recreation 

yard. You can see the very large fence in back, a rather grim recreation area. It is not where really I would plan to spend my holiday. 

It is not what I would consider a holiday on ice. And the third and 

final picture, this is the showers, as you can see. No curtains. Not 

exactly what I would consider a plush environment. 

You know, I think it is very easy to pick on the most vulnerable 

people, and I think that is some of what is going on here today. 

You know, I heard Ms. Vaughan say that these standards, these 

new detention standards, just go too far. I think that was the exact 

words she said. And I am just sort of wondering, you know, Ms. 

Vaughan, you have studied this. Is it too far to not shackle women 

as they give birth? Do you think that is something that really protects the American people? Or if you have a mental illness, would 

it go too far to say, do not put that person in segregation because 

we have seen that some of those mentally ill people if they are segregated without any care, they have committed suicide while in 

custody? Or how about this: the guidelines prohibit the male 

guards from strip searching the female detainees. Do you think 

that really goes too far to say that the male ICE officers should not 

strip search the women detainees? 

Or how about this: Frontline did a big expose of sexual assault 

in the ICE system. And one of the things they pointed out was 

that—and I am not saying this is all ICE officers, Mr. Crane, but 

certainly there have been multiple instances where officers, some 

employees of the Federal Government, some by contract, have 

taken a detainee by themselves and then assaulted them. And now 

under these guidelines, if you are an ICE officer or a contract officer, you cannot take for a ride the female detainees, and take her 

and rape her or abuse her. 

Do you think those things really go too far? 

Ms. BRANE ́. Well, we really think that those are all obviously the 

very minimum of what one would expect in a civil detention facility. As I have said, the objective and the authority of ICE is not 

to detain punitively; it is to detain pending processing a hearing 

67 

and removal. And in that context, ICE absolutely has a duty to protect and provide minimum care to the people in their custody. 

The new standards, I think, provide really minimum basic protections and provisions for preventing some of the horror stories we 

heard today. Of course I think that Mr. Crane is absolutely right, 

that oversight in implementation of these standards is critical. We 

have seen that they have not necessarily implemented them. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Let me ask Mr. Landy, and maybe it is not fair 

to ask you because we asked the Secretary of the Department, and 

she has not really given us a definitive answer. But we had a bipartisan effort here in the Congress to do something called the 

Rape Prevention Act. And it was Congress Wolf from Virginia and 

Congressman Scott from Virginia came together and a whole series 

of procedures to prevent rape of people that are in our custody. 

Many of us believe that that bipartisan law should also be applied 

to the immigration detention that is now the law in the Bureau of 

Prisons. 

Would you not think it would be a good idea to be against rape 

in these detention facilities and to adopt some of those standards 

mandatorily? 

Mr. LANDY. Director Morton has recently testified there is no 

daylight between PREA and where we want to be as an agency. 

The Prison Rape Elimination Act establishes general principles to 

try to prevent sexual assault entirely, and, if it should occur, to respond appropriately and to investigate thoroughly. That is exactly 

what this agency does. 

We promulgated in our 2011 standards far stronger protections, 

although the 2008 standards did that as well. We intend to aggressively follow up on any allegation of sexual assault, as well as prevent it, to the maximum extent possible. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KING. I thank the gentlelady, and I recognize the gentleman 

from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Landy, what percentage of aliens are released on bond? 

Mr. LANDY. We can get back to you on that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Just give me a round number. I am not going to 

hold you to it. Just generally. 

Mr. LANDY. I cannot give you that number, but I will say that 

anyone convicted of a serious crime is required by law to be detained. So, anyone who is released on bond—— 

Mr. GOWDY. That actually was not my question. My question is, 

in the full universe of aliens, what percentage of them are given 

bond? 

Mr. LANDY. We will have to get back to you for an exact number. 

Mr. GOWDY. What kind of flight assessment do you do before you 

determine the terms and conditions of the bond? 

Mr. LANDY. ICE officers do a very careful assessment of the individual’s criminal history and other aspects of that person’s background. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, if it is that careful, can you tell me the percentage who actually abscond or fail to appear? 

Mr. LANDY. We will have to get back to you on that precise number. I should say that is not—— 

68 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I see the number 40 percent in my paperwork. 

Would you disagree with that number, that 40 percent of aliens 

who are issued bonds abscond or fail to appear? 

Mr. LANDY. I do not know that that is correct. And, in fact—— 

Mr. GOWDY. If it were 40 percent, would you agree that you probably ought to rework your flight assessments or retrain the people 

who are actually deciding whether or not grant bond? 

Mr. LANDY. I should emphasize that my office does not work on 

these operational issues as to how people who are reviewed are released on bond. But I will say that—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, that is fine. You are the most knowledgeable 

person I can ask today about that. 

Mr. LANDY. Which is why I will tell you that ICE officers, pursuant to the agency’s policy, very carefully consider all relevant factors, and only would release someone who is not convicted of a serious crime, in which case detention is mandatory by law. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I understand that, but, I mean, there are other 

ways to do threat assessments other than—I mean, a prior conviction for a serious violent offense would be a really good indicator 

that that person was a danger to the community. So, I am not 

going to give them any credit for detaining people who have suffered prior serious violent convictions. 

Mr. LANDY. Our agency’s enforcement priorities extend far beyond that one criteria. First of all—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Has bond ever been reissued for an alien, absconded, 

failed to appear, arrested for the failure to appear, and then a bond 

then reissued? 

Mr. LANDY. The absconding from a final order of removal is one 

of the very high priorities that are included in the agency’s initiative. So, if somebody had absconded from a final order of removal, 

it would be highly likely that that detention would occur in those 

instances. 

Mr. GOWDY. And the detention would be indefinite, right? 

Mr. LANDY. Excuse me? 

Mr. GOWDY. Would the detention be indefinite? 

Mr. LANDY. Detention would be until that person’s removal could 

be effectuated. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, what if they come from a country that will not 

have them back? 

Mr. LANDY. Under Supreme Court decision, Zadvydas, ICE is required by law to release people after—— 

Mr. GOWDY. So, they are right back where we started, right? 

Mr. LANDY. The agency is required by law to release those people 

pursuant to the Supreme Court decision. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am familiar with the Supreme Court decision. I am 

also familiar that there have been people that have been held in 

State jails and prisons for upwards of 2 years awaiting a trial. 

Mr. LANDY. Under the Supreme Court decision, people who cannot be removed or repatriated must be released within 180 days. 

We must abide by that law. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, let me ask you about repatriation. Would you 

support legislation that would restrict visas or cut financial aid to 

countries that will not accept their citizens back? 

69 

Mr. LANDY. I will have to get back to you on whether the Administration has a position on that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, you have a position. I mean, do you not? 

Mr. LANDY. I am here in my official capacity to testify on detention policy, and my office does not work on that issue. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I think it is actually the law. I think the law 

is in place that there are visa restrictions for countries that will 

not accept their citizens back. We just do not ever enforce it. 

Mr. LANDY. Well, I cannot speak to that. In fact, I am not even 

sure that that is within the agency’s mission. 

Mr. GOWDY. Did you consult with line ICE agents before these 

standards were promulgated? 

Mr. LANDY. Yes, we did. We provided the draft version of the performance-based national detention standards to Council 118 leadership in March of 2010. 

Mr. GOWDY. Can you give me an example of something they 

asked you to include or asked you to take out that you did? 

Mr. LANDY. Well, when we met with them in April of 2010, and 

then again when they were briefed in September of 2010, they 

never provided subsequent input as to what sorts of changes they 

would like to make, notwithstanding our request that they let us 

know our security concerns. 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you have any information on ICE agents who 

have been injured themselves by detainees? 

Mr. LANDY. I know that it is exceptionally rare, but I do not have 

specific facts. 

Mr. GOWDY. What do you mean by exceptionally rare? 

Mr. LANDY. Well, I personally review on a daily basis significant 

incident reports, and I also speak with ICE officers in the development of our initiatives. And I honestly do not recall an incident—— 

Mr. GOWDY. What about false allegations against ICE agents? 

Have you encountered any of those, or are those also extremely 

rare? 

Mr. LANDY. Our office would not necessarily know about false allegations against ICE officers since we are a policy office that develops detention initiatives in collaboration with our operational 

components. 

Mr. GOWDY. I see the red light is on, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KING. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members. I have another Committee that is meeting and several other 

things going on, but I was so intrigued by this title, I thought I 

would come to see what it means. ‘‘Holiday on ICE.’’ Ms. Vaughan, 

do you know what that means? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. It is a reference to a film. I believe it means that 

it is a reference to the public perceptions of what some of the conditions may be in some of these facilities. 

Ms. WATERS. I am not aware of it. I have not heard this kind of 

discussion. Could you describe to me what is meant by that? What 

conditions are you talking about? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, I cannot speak to what went into the naming of the hearing. I have seen some accounts in news media reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:36 Jul 09, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\032812\73543.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
70 

ports, and I have also visited a facility myself. So, I have a reasonable sense of what the conditions are. 

Ms. WATERS. What did you see? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Pardon me? 

Ms. WATERS. What did you see when you visited a facility? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. What I saw was a surprisingly relaxed atmosphere. This was a facility that ICE leased space in from a county 

detention center up in the northeast where the detainees had pretty free access within the facility and access to each other. They had 

meals that were brought in by a woman who cooked them in her 

home. What I saw, it was a pretty well-rounded meal of breaded 

chicken, mixed vegetables, and some mashed potatoes. They were 

on a first name basis with the officers who were in charge of security at the facility. Most of them actually we were told were requesting to be housed in that facility rather than being sent to 

places that were closer to where their families were, I think because it was smaller and a little bit different type of setting. 

They accepted their detention because they knew that they were 

in the country illegally, and they were awaiting their removal. 

Ms. WATERS. Yeah, but they had no choice. They had been detained, is that right? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Right. Oh, I am sure they would rather not be. 

Ms. WATERS. They were not there voluntarily. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. No, but they also knew that the reason for their 

detention was because they were here in violation of U.S. law. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, but I want to talk about the ‘‘Holiday on Ice’’ 

and the conditions that this title refers to. And so, you had people 

who were relaxed. That means they were not screaming, or crying, 

or running around, or fighting, or anything, but they were just ordinarily calm people who happened to be detained. Is that correct? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, most of them were in there for drug violations. 

Ms. WATERS. Could you describe to me what you think would be 

wrong with being relaxed and a little bit sane? Is something wrong 

with that? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. No, though this is a number of years before the 

new standards were put into place. 

Ms. WATERS. They had access to each other. What do you mean, 

families, that the mother, the father, children could talk to each 

other? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Well, they were able to have visitors. They 

seemed to appreciate our visit because the purpose of it was to get 

a sense of what the conditions were for them in detention. 

Ms. WATERS. So, did you on your visit, did you determine that 

the conditions were luxurious and extravagant and a ‘‘Holiday on 

Ice,’’ or just kind of an ordinary thing with some woman who 

cooked some food and brought it in? It was not catered by a restaurant. What was extraordinary or extravagant about these conditions? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I was surprised actually that it was as relaxed as 

it was considering that the local officers may not have had good information about who these people were or what all was in their 

background because this was before the era of secure communities 

71 

**The information referred to is available in the Appendix. 

and biometrics-based background checks. So, I remember thinking 

that they were potentially at risk because it was so relaxed. 

Ms. WATERS. But they did not demonstrate that they were violent, or they were about to attack anybody, or that they were fighting. They did not demonstrate any of that. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. Not during our visit. 

Ms. WATERS. You just thought that maybe they should have because they had records of some kind, and you were just surprised 

that they were not violent, or fighting, or that kind of thing. 

But I guess the bottom line is you did not observe extravagance, 

did you? 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I would not call it extravagance, no. It was more 

kind of Mayberry-ish like atmosphere. 

Ms. WATERS. So, you think that is too nice for a detainee. 

Ms. VAUGHAN. I would have left that up to the people who are 

in charge of running that facility. It seemed a little bit relaxed to 

me knowing what can happen. 

Ms. WATERS. I know. You keep talking about it being relaxed, 

and I am not so sure what you are referring to. And what I am 

trying to find out is what this Holiday on ICE is because it implies 

that there is some kind of extravagance, and people want to be 

there. They are having a great time. They are having a vacation. 

But having just talked with you, I do not think that is the case. 

Let me ask Mr. Landy, if I may—— 

Mr. KING. And as the gentlelady’s time has expired, we will allow 

that last question. 

Ms. WATERS. Oh, thank you very much. 

I think everyone is interested in these facilities being safe and 

humane. Is that the mission? Is that the goal? You have to have 

these detainees until something happens. They are either deported 

or something happens. And are you trying to do anything more 

than safety and humaneness? 

Mr. LANDY. It is essential that the detention facilities that we 

use be safe and humane, especially recognizing the fact that our 

population and the authority that we have is a civil detention authority, that we do not have the authority to punish people. 

Also the fact that there are non-criminals in our detention, that 

there are asylum seekers in our detention, and given the variety 

and diversity of our population, we do need to make sure that our 

policies and standards are appropriate for our population. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady from California. I 

thank the witnesses, Mr. Landy, Ms. Vaughan, Mr. Crane, and Ms. 

Brane ́, for your testimony. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. KING. And without objection—yes, I would yield. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could I ask unanimous consent to place in the 

record also the pictures that we displayed of the new facility? 

Mr. KING. Hearing no objection, so ordered.** 

Mr. KING. Again, I thank the witnesses for your testimony today. 

And without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses, 

72 

which we will forward to ask the witnesses to respond as promptly 

as they can so that their answers may be made part of the record. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, again, I thank the witnesses. And this hearing is 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(73) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

74 


73543D-1.eps
75 


73543D-2.eps
76 


73543D-3.eps
77 


73543D-4.eps
78 

f 


73543D-5.eps
79 


73543E-1.eps
80 

f 


73543E-2.eps
81 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Immigration Policy and Enforcement 


73543F1-1.eps
82 


73543F1-2.eps
83 


73543F2.eps
84 


73543F3-1.eps
85 


73543F3-2.eps
86 


73543F3-3.eps
87 


73543F3-4.eps
88 


73543F3-5.eps
89 


73543F4-1.eps
90 


73543F4-2.eps
91 


73543F4-3.eps
92 


73543F4-4.eps
93 


73543F4-5.eps
94 


73543F4-6.eps
95 


73543F4-7.eps
96 


73543F4-8.eps
97 


73543F4-9.eps
98 


73543F4-10.eps
99 


73543F4-11.eps
100 


73543F4-12.eps
101 


73543F4-13.eps
102 


73543F4-14.eps
103 


73543F4-15.eps
104 


73543F4-16.eps
105 


73543F4-17.eps
106 


73543F4-18.eps
107 


73543F4-19.eps
108 


73543F4-20.eps
109 


73543F4-21.eps
110 


73543F4-22.eps
111 


73543F4-23.eps
112 


73543F4-24.eps
113 


73543F4-25.eps
114 


73543F4-26.eps
115 


73543F4-27.eps
116 


73543F4-28.eps
117 


73543F4-29.eps
118 


73543F4-30.eps
119 


73543F4-31.eps
120 


73543F4-32.eps
121 


73543F4-33.eps
122 


73543F4-34.eps
123 


73543F4-35.eps
124 


73543F4-36.eps
125 


73543F4-37.eps
126 


73543F4-38.eps
127 


73543F4-39.eps
128 


73543F4-40.eps
129 


73543F4-41.eps
130 


73543F4-42.eps
131 


73543F4-43.eps
132 


73543F4-44.eps
133 


73543F4-45.eps
134 


73543F4-46.eps
135 


73543F4-47.eps
136 


73543F4-48.eps
137 


73543F4-49.eps
138 


73543F4-50.eps
139 


73543F5-1.eps
140 


73543F5-2.eps
141 


73543F5-3.eps
142 


73543F5-4.eps
143 


73543F5-5.eps
144 


73543F5-6.eps
145 


73543F5-7.eps
146 


73543F5-8.eps
147 


73543F5-9.eps
148 


73543F6-1.eps
149 


73543F6-2.eps
150 


73543F6-3.eps
151 


73543F6-4.eps
152 


73543F6-5.eps
153 


73543F7-1.eps
154 


73543F7-2.eps
155 


73543F7-3.eps
156 


73543F8-1.eps
157 


73543F8-2.eps
158 


73543F8-3.eps
159 


73543F8-4.eps
160 


73543F8-5.eps
161 


73543F8-6.eps
162 


73543F9-1.eps
163 


73543F9-2.eps
164 


73543F9-3.eps
165 


73543F9-4.eps
166 


73543F9-5.eps
167 


73543F9-6.eps
168 


73543F9-7.eps
169 


73543F9-8.eps
170 


73543F9-9.eps
171 


73543F9-10.eps
172 


73543F9-11.eps
173 


73543F9-12.eps
174 


73543F10-1.eps
175 


73543F10-2.eps
176 


73543F10-3.eps
177 


73543F11-1.eps
178 


73543F11-2.eps
179 


73543F12-1.eps
180 


73543F12-2.eps
181 


73543F12-3.eps
182 


73543F12-4.eps
183 


73543F12-5.eps
184 


73543F12-6.eps
185 


73543F13-1.eps
186 


73543F13-2.eps
187 


73543F13-3.eps
188 

Karnes City, Texas Detention Center 


73543F14A.eps
189 


73543F14B.eps
190 


73543F14C.eps
191 

Francisco Casteneda, testifying before the House Committee on the Judiciary, four months prior to his death. 


73543J1.eps
192 

Bruises on Hiu Lui Ng’s body photographed at the hospital 

prior to his death. 


73543J2.eps
193 


73543J3.eps
194 

Boubacar Bah calling for help while being restrained in detention. 


73543J4.eps
195 

Family visits Boubacar Bah in the hospital before his death. 


73543J5.eps
196 

Boubacar Bah in the hospital before his death. 


73543J6.eps
197 

Government Chart Documenting Cost Savings Achieved Through Denials of 

Requests for Medical Attention. 


73543I-1.eps
198 

f 


73543I-2.eps
199 

f 


73543G.eps
200 


73543H-1.eps
201 


73543H-2.eps
202 


73543H-3.eps
203 


73543H-4.eps
204 


73543H-5.eps
205 


73543H-6.eps
206 


73543H-7.eps
207 


73543H-8.eps
208 


73543H-9.eps
209 


73543H-10.eps
210 


73543H-11.eps
211 


73543H-12.eps
212 

Æ 


73543H-13.eps