U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

94–183 PDF 2015

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2015 

Serial No. 114–27 

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 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 14, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

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

of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 3 

The Honorable Trey Gowdy, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of South Carolina, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 20 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 21 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Sarah R. Saldan ̃ a, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 6 

Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 10 

Material submitted by the Honorable Henry C. ‘‘Hank’’ Johnson, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 67 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 96 

Response to Questions for the Record from the Honorable Sarah R. Saldan ̃ a, 

Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 97 

(1) 

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT 

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Smith, 

Chabot, Issa, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Gowdy, Labrador, Farenthold, Collins, DeSantis, Buck, Trott, Bishop, Conyers, 

Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Johnson, Pierluisi, Chu, Deutch, Gutierrez, 

DelBene, Jeffries, and Peters. 

Staff Present: (Majority)Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Dimple 

Shah, Counsel; Kelsey Williams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, 

Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; 

Maunica Sthanki, Counsel; and Rosalind Jackson, Professional 

Staff Member. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. 

The Judiciary Committee will come to order. Without objection, 

the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any 

time. We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on Oversight 

of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and I will begin by 

recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

As the Obama administration consistently shrinks the universe 

of criminal and unlawful aliens that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement can remove, ICE apprehensions have decreased 

40 percent since this time last year. ICE administrative arrests of 

criminal aliens declined 32 percent compared to this time last year. 

The average daily population of aliens in detention facilities has 

declined to approximately 26,000 beds. This has occurred despite a 

mandate in law that requires ICE to maintain a 34,000 average 

daily population in detention facilities. And the number of unlawful 

or criminal aliens that ICE has removed from the interior of the 

country has fallen by more than half since 2008. 

Many factors have contributed to the sharp decline of interior immigration enforcement under this Administration including the collapse of issuance and compliance with ICE detainers because of 

ICE’s own detainer policy issued on December 21, 2014, that limits 
2 

ICE’s ability to issue detainers; ICE’s failure to defend its detainer 

authority; ICE’s implementation of its new enforcement priorities 

announced by Secretary Johnson on November 20, 2014; and the 

demise of the Secure Communities program on this same date. 

Detainers are a key tool used by ICE. They are notices issued by 

ICE and other DHS units that ask local, state, and Federal law enforcement agencies not to release removable aliens held at their facilities in order to give ICE an opportunity to take them into its 

custody and put them in removal proceedings. 

Due to the detainer debacle this Administration has created, ICE 

officers must wake up in the early hours of the morning, put their 

lives at risk, and go out into the community to apprehend convicted 

criminal aliens that have been released onto the streets. 

Director, you yourself are part of the confusion. You testified before Congress one day stating that detainers should be made mandatory, and the next day you retracted your testimony. 

When aliens released onto the streets go on to commit additional 

crimes, yet could have been placed ICE custody, this Administration is responsible. From January 1, 2014 to September 30, 2014, 

over 10,000 detainers were not honored. The recidivism rate for 

these aliens was 29 percent. Innocent citizens and law enforcement 

officers could be injured, maimed, or murdered due to a detainer 

not being issued or honored because of this Administration’s policies. The Administration is responsible and will be held accountable. 

When President Obama announced unilateral changes to our immigration system with a wave of his pen and cell phone on November 20, 2014, he indicated that he would allow millions of unlawful 

and criminal aliens to evade immigration enforcement. He did this 

with the issuance of new, so-called ‘‘U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement priorities’’ for the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens. 

Under the Obama administration’s new enforcement priorities, 

broad categories of unlawful and criminal aliens will be beyond the 

reach of the law even if they don’t qualify for the President’s unconstitutional legalization programs. This means that millions of 

removable aliens will remain in the U.S. without any risk of removal. 

Simultaneously, President Obama effectively announced the end 

of Secure Communities. Despite the fact that the President claims 

he took action to prioritize immigration enforcement against criminal aliens, he is scrapping a tool that identifies criminal aliens 

booked in jails across the United States so that Federal law enforcement officials can prioritize their removal. Secure Communities, created in 2008, was a simple and highly successful program 

to identify criminal aliens once arrested and jailed. It protected 

American citizens and immigrants alike from aliens who were a 

danger to their communities. 

As ICE has said on numerous occasions, Secure Communities 

simply uses an already-existing Federal information sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that 

helps to identify criminal aliens so that ICE can take enforcement 

action. As of August 2014, the Administration indicated that over 
3 

375,000 convicted criminal aliens were removed as a result of Secure Communities. 

We just learned that in addition to releasing over 36,000 convicted criminal aliens in fiscal year 2013, ICE released 30,558 convicted criminal aliens in fiscal year 2014 pursuant to its so-called 

‘‘priorities.’’ The agency released thousands of criminal aliens convicted of offenses involving dangerous drugs, assault and domestic 

violence, stolen vehicles, robbery, sex offenses, sexual assault, kidnapping, voluntary manslaughter, and even homicide. Twentyseven percent of the aliens released were so-called ‘‘level ones,’’ according to the Administration; the worst of the worst. 

Director, ICE’s first duty and highest obligation is public safety. 

The nonsensical actions of this Administration demonstrate its lack 

of desire to enforce the law even against unlawful aliens convicted 

of serious crimes. I can only hope that, as the new director of ICE, 

you will reconsider these policies put in place by your predecessors 

and return ICE to an agency that puts public safety and the enforcement of our immigration laws as its number one concern. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Immigration se statementand Border Security Subcommittee, the 

gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for her opening statement. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing is our first opportunity as a Committee to speak 

with the Honorable Sarah Saldan ̃ a, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. The job that the director took on at the end of last year is a difficult one. I think we 

can all agree on that point. So I look forward to hearing more 

about how she intends to approach this challenge. 

One of the many responsibilities she must carry out at ICE is implementing a series of immigration enforcement memoranda issued 

in November by Secretary Johnson. These memoranda grew out of 

a directive issued last March by President Obama when he asked 

Secretary Johnson to ‘‘do an inventory of the department’s current 

practices to see how it can conduct enforcement more humanely 

within the confines of the law.’’ 

I believe the memoranda contains a number of commonsense reforms to our immigration enforcement efforts and they represent 

the Secretary’s best efforts to carryout the President’s directive. It 

is important to remember that these reforms did not take place 

overnight and they were developed to respond to a particular problem that we have observed over many years. 

During the Bush administration, ICE officials regularly conducted worksite raids targeting people who were living and working in the country without authorization, but who posed no threat 

to national security or public safety. Half of the people deported 

from the interior by ICE in the last Administration had never been 

convicted of a crime or had been convicted only of immigration or 

traffic offenses. Many were helping to grow our economy, put food 

on our table, while also supporting their own American spouses 

and children. 

The Bush administration began to shift away from that 

unfocused style of enforcement in its final years and this Administration has sought to continue the trend. Because earlier efforts fell 
4 

short, Secretary Johnson’s November memo, ‘‘policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants,’’ hones in more carefully on the Department’s top three civil 

immigration enforcement priorities and incorporates clear prosecutorial discretion guidance. 

The memo explains that prosecutorial discretion may be exercised not only for persons who fall outside of those priorities but 

also for persons who appear to be priorities but who have compelling extenuating circumstances. When making enforcement decisions, the memo directs immigrations, officials to consider individual circumstances such as the length of time the person has 

lived in the United States, Military service, number of years that 

have passed since an offense leading to a conviction, family or community ties, and other compelling humanitarian factors such as 

poor health, age, pregnancy, or young children. The memorandum 

makes clear that ‘‘[d]ecisions should be based on the totality of the 

circumstances.’’ 

Given limited resources, it makes sense to focus, first, on persons 

who pose a threat to national security or public safety before we 

turn our attention to people who have lived in the country for 

years, have strong equities, and who are contributing members of 

their communities. 

So I hope we will hear today about what the agency is doing to 

ensure that the totality of the circumstances is considered in each 

case. I am concerned about reports that I continue to receive about 

enforcement actions being taken against people who appear to be 

candidates for prosecutorial discretion. 

The well-publicized case of Mennonite Pastor from Iowa, Pastor 

Max Villatoro, is one such case. Although Pastor Max’s 17-year-old 

conviction for driving while intoxicated undoubtedly counts as a 

‘‘significant misdemeanor’’ and undoubtedly places him within the 

Priority two category, the extended length of time since that offense, his four U.S. citizen children, his marriage to a DACA beneficiary, and his years of service to his congregation appear to make 

him an ideal candidate for discretion. Yet he was deported to Honduras last month. 

The memorandum also explains that detention resources generally should not be used for persons ‘‘who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, who are disabled, elderly, pregnant or nursing, who demonstrate that they are primary 

caretakers of children or an infirm person, or whose detention is 

otherwise not in the public interest.’’ 

When I talk about these issues, I am always reminded of Francisco Castan ̃ eda, who testified before the Immigration Subcommittee just 4 months before he died from cancer that went untreated throughout his 11 months in ICE custody. I was reminded 

of Mr. Castan ̃ eda again when I read an article last week about a 

detainee who died of intestinal cancer after being detained since 

2010. I understand the Office of Professional Responsibility is reviewing this matter, but I think the case raises important questions about the November 20 memo. 

I also believe it is difficult to square the language in the memo 

with the Department’s current policy of holding women and children in family detention for extended periods of time—8, 9, 10 
5 

months—even after they have established a credible or reasonable 

fear of persecution. In recent months, we have received reports 

about the detention of a child with brain cancer, a mother with 

ovarian cancer, a mother with a congenital brain disorder, and a 

15-day-old baby held with his post-partum mother. We are aware 

of at least one suicide attempt by a woman at the new Dilley facility. 

Our experience contracting with private prison companies to run 

family detention facilities has not been a good one. When the Corrections Corporation of America received a contract to convert a 

medium security prison into what became the Hutto facility, the results were awful. After litigation, Congressional oversight, and sustained public outrage, families were moved out of the facility. I am 

concerned that we are today making the same mistake we made 

then, but on a much larger scale. 

Finally, I think Secretary Johnson was wise to announce the end 

of Secure Communities. Right from the start, the program was 

based on misrepresentation to Federal, state and local officials, including me. It became deeply unpopular when it became clear that 

it was largely being used to apprehend and remove non-criminals 

and court challenges in legislative change to the state and local 

level rendered the program largely defunct. 

Now, when I spoke with the Director last month about the Department’s efforts to roll out a priority enforcement program, we 

agreed that ICE must first regain the trust of state and local governments and law enforcement agencies. And that process begins 

with regaining the trust of immigrant communities. I believe the 

DHS memoranda issued in November has put us on the right track 

to a commonsense approach on immigration enforcement and I look 

forward to working with the director to ensure that the memoranda 

are being implemented in their entirety. 

And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to put 

two things in the record. One, a letter from We Belong Together 

about this hearing. And also the appropriations language that does 

not specify 34,000 people in detention. It says, ‘‘The department 

shall maintain a level of not less than 34,000 detention beds.’’ 

That is not people but beds. And I think we need to make clear 

what the statute requires. And I would ask unanimous consent to 

put both of those in the record. And I would yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Without objection, her unanimous consent request will be granted. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And, without objection, I would like to place 

into the record a break down of criminal convictions associated 

with criminal aliens that ICE released in 2014, a breakdown of 

criminal convictions associated with the 2,457 Zadvydas releases in 

2014, and the enforcement and removal operation’s weekly report 

for the week of March 29 to April 4, 2015. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair now is pleased to recognize the 

Chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, 

the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As we approach this hearing, Mr. Chairman, we are wise to keep 

in mind the primary duty of government, at least to my judgment, 

is the security and protection of the American people. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement is a key part of fulfilling that duty because we entrust them with the enforcement of our immigration 

laws. In fact, Mr. Chairman, on the ICE website, the mission reads, 

‘‘U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement enforces Federal laws 

governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety.’’ 

Given the critically important mission entrusted to ICE, we take 

our oversight of that agency seriously and ICE’s work has an immense impact on the people that we work for. But internally, as 

an agency, ICE has been plagued by low morale, tied for dead last 

for agency subcomponents in best places to work in the Federal 

Government. So one would have to ask himself or herself, even accepting the challenges of being in law enforcement generally, why 

is morale that low? Could it possibly be that women and men who 

signed up to enforce the law are now being asked not to? 

We also know there is a deep deficit of trust among our fellow 

Americans with regard to the immigration system. For years, they 

have been promised an immigration system that works and a secure border and those promises have not been kept by either party. 

Decisions by Administrations from both parties to selectively enforce our immigration laws have had a negative effect on our system; such is the case any time one selectively enforces the law. And 

you would think we would have learned that lesson by now but, apparently, we have not. 

Last year, President Obama declared unilaterally almost 5 million undocumented aliens would receive deferred action under some 

new fangled definition of prosecutorial discretion. Moreover, in addition to using prosecutorial discretion as a license to rewrite the 

law, he also conferred benefits on these same people. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I want people to just understand this. The decision to avoid the application of consequences through a prosecutorial discretion is very different from the affirmative decisions to 

confer benefits on that same class or group. Those are two very different concepts. One, it can easily be argued is constitutionally 

rooted, albeit on a case-by-case basis; and the other, the conferring 

of benefits is a purely political calculation without much grounding 

if at all in the law. 

Mr. Chairman, folks may like the President’s policy, they may 

wish the policy were the law, but one person does not make law 

in a republic and we should take heed that those who benefit from 

the non-application of the law today will be crying out for the full 

application of the law tomorrow, because such is the nature of the 

law. Once it is eroded, you do not restore it without great consequence. 

In fact, the President himself agreed with that and said, ‘‘The notion that I could just suspend deportation through executive orders 
21 

is just not the case.’’ He told us time and time and time again. He 

also reminded us that he was not a king. His position may have 

changed but the Constitution has not. Prosecutorial discretion is 

real and constitutionally valid, but it is not a synonym for anarchy. 

As U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in his recent 

opinion, ‘‘DHS does have the discretion in the manner in which it 

chooses to fulfill the expressed will of Congress. It cannot, however, 

enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively moves to thwart them.’’ 

In effect, the Administration has asked ICE officers to stop enforcing entire categories of our immigration law. And not only that 

but, under the current Administration’s new enforcement priorities, 

millions of aliens who are not even eligible to benefit from Administrative Amnesty can simply remain in the U.S. in violation of the 

law without fear of enforcement. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, you have touched upon the detainer issue, 

and I look forward to going to that in more question. I would also 

like to say, and I do welcome the new director who is a former U.S. 

Attorney and I will hold anyone who has had that title in extremely high regard, but I am interested in hearing, because of her 

unique background, I want to hear her address the limitations on 

the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion. And I would like to hear 

the new director explain why the President was wrong the 22 different times he said he could not legally do what he just did. And 

I am eager to hear the new director discuss whether prosecutorial 

discretion can be applied in all categories of the law. And I am 

eager to hear her address the number of aliens who abscond and 

what is being done on the frontend to reduce the chances of that 

happening. And I am interested, Mr. Chairman, in hearing with 

particularity what she is going to do to restore morale and pride 

in the agency, because the folks I have talked to honestly, Mr. 

Chairman, would pick another agency or even another line of work. 

With that, I will yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and is now 

pleased to recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee, the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. 

I want to add my welcome to Director Sarah Saldan ̃a in her first 

appearance before the House Judiciary Committee. 

We are advised of your great experience in Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as a U.S. Attorney for the northern District of 

Texas, and as Assistant U.S. Attorney for northern District of 

Texas and your prosecution of a number of criminal cases. You 

have also worked at the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, the Department of Housing in Urban Development, and the 

Department of Labor. What a background. And I am confident that 

you will be an exceptional leader of the largest investigative agency 

within the Department of Homeland Security. 

Now, this presents enormous challenges but also opportunities. 

And we are looking to hear from you on that account. 

Now, the director comes to the agency at a time of renewed focus. 

Last March, President Obama directed the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, Jeh Johnson, to review our Immigration enforcement policies to ensure that we are carrying them out in the most humane 
22 

way possible. In November, the Secretary announced a series of 

commonsense reforms to not only ensure that our laws are enforced 

in a humane way but also that our limited resources are focused 

on enhancing the safety and the security of the country. 

Secretary Johnson issued a memorandum identifying three categories of persons as department-wide priorities for enforcement. 

The top priority includes people who pose a threat to national security, border security, and public safety. Notably, these priorities 

mean the agency will focus resources on deporting felons before 

raiding kitchens and fields for bus boys and farm workers. 

Focusing the limited agency resources on deporting criminals 

rather than families is simply good public policy. The memo also 

explains that enforcement always should be done in a sensible 

manner that takes into consideration the totality of the circumstances. In deciding whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion in a given case, immigration officials should consider factors 

such as the circumstances surrounding a conviction, the length of 

time that has passed since an offense was committed, and the deep 

ties that a person may have in this country. 

This is a humane approach that ensures enforcement efforts are 

focused on the worse offenders in our society and not on individuals 

with strong community ties in compelling circumstances. I support 

this approach. 

Director Saldan ̃ a comes to the agency at a time of some uncertainty. Two important initiatives have been preliminarily halted by 

a district court in Texas: deferred action for parents of Americans 

in lawful permanent residents and expansions to deferred action 

for childhood arrivals. But the court was clear that its decision had 

no effect on the memorandum to set enforcement priorities and provided prosecutorial discretion guidance. With so much uncertainty 

and distrust of the agency’s swirling in immigrant communities it 

is important for ICE to communicate clearly that it still intends to 

use its prosecutorial discretion in a sensible manner and as directed by the secretary. 

As always, actions ultimately speak louder than words. 

And, finally, as I noted before, the Administration’s use of prosecutorial discretion does not absolve the Congress of its responsibility to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Top to bottom, reform of our broken immigration system can only be accomplished 

through bold legislative action. It is time for us, the Congress, to 

start doing its job. 

And I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

We welcome our distinguished witness today. And, if you would 

rise, I will begin by swearing you in. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give shall 

be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help 

you God? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I do. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that the witness responded in the affirmative. 

Ms. Sarah R. Saldan ̃ a currently serves as Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement where she is tasked with overseeing 
23 

the enforcement of more than 400 Federal statutes, preventing terrorism, and combating the illegal movement of people and trade. 

Prior to becoming Director of ICE, Director Saldan ̃ a served as the 

United States Attorney for the northern District of Texas. Before 

joining the Department of Justice, she worked in private practice 

and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Housing 

and Urban Development under the Department of Labor. Director 

Saldan ̃ a graduated summa cum laude from Texas A&I University 

and earned her JD degree from Southern Methodist University. 

And, before you begin your testimony, I want to take a moment 

to thank you and your staff for the good work that has been done 

in helping us prepare for this hearing. The Homeland Security Investigations, the Enforcement and Removal Operations, the Office 

of Congressional Relations, and individuals in ICE’s front office 

who communicated with the Committee ahead of this hearing and 

provided responsive information to some of our substantial requests. This type of communication and coordination is new in our 

experience with your agency in recent years, and I hope that it continues. And I thank you very much for your efforts. 

When I met with you a few weeks ago, you committed to working 

closely with the Congress and you have fulfilled that in answering 

our request for preparation for the hearing. 

Your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety and I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes 

or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light 

on your table and, when the light switches from green to yellow, 

you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. 

Director Saldan ̃ a, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SARAH R. SALDAN ̃ A, DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Thank you so much, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking 

Member Conyers, other esteemed Members of this Committee. 

You are right, this is my first appearance before this Committee 

and also with respect to my prior service as the United States Attorney for the northern District Texas duty that I had undertook 

and I am very proud of. 

In that period of time that I was the United States Attorney, I 

had the great privilege of working with both Homeland Security Investigations, HSI, agents, a couple of whom are here today, and 

with the Enforcement and Removal Operations folks with respect 

to removals and the need for Federal intervention in connection of 

some of those. During that time, I personally observed the dedication, commitment, hard work of the women and men of Immigration and Customs Enforcement all through the ranks; deportation 

officers, international and mission support staff attorneys. All of 

them working very hard to keep our homeland safe. 

It’s a great privilege to continue my law enforcement career in 

this capacity as the director of the agency. As was mentioned earlier, ICE does enforce over 400 laws. In my work as the United 

States Attorney, somebody stopped counting at 3,000 that United 

States Attorneys enforce. It’s a difficult challenge to have so many 
24 

statutes, but we’re up to that—did you refer to that as an opportunity? 

Representative Conyers, I believe you did. 

And I consider it a privilege. I appreciate the importance of this 

mission. I assure you. And I know, as you do, that having a productive and collaborative relationship with you and the other Committees of this Congress is essential to us working together to meet 

the responsibilities the American public expects. 

My goals over the next 2 years are to enhance ICE’s important 

cybersecurity and counterterrorism initiatives, to focus our removals on the highest priority individuals who threaten our communities, to improve morale within the workforce, as Representative 

Gowdy pointed out, and to improve communication between ICE 

and all of its partners. 

For today’s hearing, let me just provide an overview of what ICE 

does, a little bit of a highlight with respect to our accomplishments, 

and our challenges. 

In ERO, Enforcement and Removal Operations, there are two 

parts to ICE principally. Besides the lawyers, we’ve got Enforcement and Removal and Homeland Security Investigations. In ERO, 

we have 6,000 very dedicated law enforcement officers who go 

about the business of removing, apprehending, and removing those 

people that present the greatest risk to the American public. 

In carrying out this responsibility, they have a wide array of important and complex responsibilities including operating ICE’s detention facilities, making arrangements for transportation across 

the world in removing individuals from the United States, and obtaining travel documents from other countries with all kinds of requirements connected to them. ERO works very closely with its sister agencies, Customs and Border Protection and with Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, all within Homeland. 

HSI, on the other hand, focuses on criminal, international criminal investigations. And anything dealing with the illegal movement 

of people and things in and out and within the country for that 

matter. While ERO enforces civil litigation, HSI focuses on the 

criminal aspects. That is the area with which obviously I dealt 

mostly as United States Attorney and Assistant United States Attorney. 

A couple of words on our successes. And this isn’t the end of the 

story, this is the beginning of it. I look forward reporting even better results in the future. ERO removed nearly 316,000 individuals 

unlawfully present in the United States in 2014; more than 

102,000 were apprehended in the interior of the United States; 

and, perhaps more importantly, 85 percent of those were immigrants previously convicted of a criminal offense. This demonstrates our renewed focus on the worse criminals: convicted felons, gang members, and other threats to our national security. 

That number, 85 percent of immigrants who were convicted of a 

criminal offense, is an 18 percent increase over prior years, 2011 

in particular. HSI, the investigative arm, arrested more than 

32,000 criminals and seized more than 1.3 million pounds of narcotics, 35,000 weapons, and $772 million in currency. 

The challenges. You all know about last summer and the influx 

of, overwhelming and unexpected influx of families and unaccom-
25 

panied children, which tax the resources of many Federal agencies, 

not just ICE, but certainly ICE. ICE, in fact, had to assign about 

800 personnel to the Rio Grande Valley crisis and, obviously, that 

takes time away from the work that you do day-to-day. 

Secondly, the dramatic increase in the number of jurisdictions 

that you all referred to earlier, with respect to our detainers. Last 

calendar year, almost 12,000 detainer requests from ICE were not 

honored by state and local jurisdictions. One of my priorities is to 

reverse that trend. To that end, we’re implementing the Priority 

Enforcement Program, PEP as it’s known and that you all have referred to, which clearly reflects DHS’s new priorities. 

And let me say, Chairman, I terribly regret if I had added to the 

confusion with respect to detainers. My principal interest is in public safety. It is not in quibbling with people over how we accomplish 

that goal. And I believe I want to be sure that everyone understands that I am committed to the Priority Enforcement Program 

that the secretary has directed us to enforce. 

Finally, of course, is the change in the demographics of the migrant community. People coming from South America takes more 

resources, more time, more people. A greater challenge is in repatriating them to their countries rather than to Mexico or Canada. 

My first months as director have been full. Not only in becoming 

familiar with these challenges and the accomplishments of the 

agencies I just described but in developing plans to address all of 

these challenges. Like so many of you, I left my family, my friends, 

the great state of Texas, of which I’ve lived all my life, to come to 

the District of Columbia to participate with you all in an effort to 

try to bring some rationality to this very important mission of ICE. 

That is the only reason I’m here. It’s not for the glory and it’s not 

for the big bucks. I will tell you that I need your help to accomplish 

that goal and to move the agency forward in that regard. So I ask 

for your help in doing so. 

I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Saldan ̃ a follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, thank you, Director Saldan ̃a. 

I will start. And I will start with some recent quotes; one by the 

President and one by you that I find disturbing. You just alluded 

to one a moment ago. Bur first, the President recently at a town 

hall stated, regarding the new DHS enforcement priorities that, 

‘‘The bottom line is that if somebody is working for ICE and there 

is a policy and they don’t follow the policy there are going to be 

consequences to it.’’ 

And he analogized it to the U.S. military in the requirement that 

you follow orders. ICE officers are required to enforce the laws that 

Congress enacts. 

Do you agree with that? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Absolutely. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Please explain to the Committee the type of consequences that ICE officers may face if they do not execute the new 

policies, which in instances contradict those laws? 

Don’t you think an ICE officer hearing threats from the President would be scared to enforce the law? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I give them more credit than that, Mr. Chairman. 

I will tell you that, with respect to enforcement, any policy of the 

Department or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, new or old, 

certainly just as you do with your staff, we expect compliance with 

that policy. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If they detain somebody who doesn’t meet those 

priorities but is in violation of a law enacted by the Congress, are 

they going to be punished for doing that? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. The word is not punish, sir. It is enforcing the law 

and the policies that this Administration—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What’s going to happen to an ICE agent who 

enforces the law that are contradictory to the President’s policies, 

which says don’t enforce the law, with regard to certain people? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is not my view of the President’s policies, sir. 

The executive action actually is—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. He said it. Not me. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is not my view of the President’s policies. I 

believe they are actually directed in a very rational way. I mentioned earlier that—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Right. 

But the point is, though, that the law encompasses far more illegal activity than simply those that are set forth in the President’s 

policies. And I want to know what happens to an ICE agent, may 

have been working for the agency for years, following the law, upholding the law, who detains somebody who is not covered under 

that policy. What is going to happen to that ICE agent under those 

circumstances? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Let me tell you, sir, you mentioned something 

about the full extent of the law, and the Constitution does require 

us to faithfully execute it. Part of that, in my view and as in my 

experience as United States Attorney, I mentioned 3,000 laws 

when we stopped counting, I could not enforce every one of those 

laws as the main prosecutor for the United States. But I could actually make priorities within my office and did. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, you are not answering my question so let 

me go on to one that involves a statement made by you. 
53 

You testified before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on March 19 expressing your support for mandatory detainers. The very next day, you retracted that statement made under 

oath and called mandatory detainers highly counterproductive. In 

2014, local jurisdictions declined to honor approximately 12,000 detainers. So far in 2015, there have been approximately 3,000 detainer denials. There are now more than 200 jurisdictions that 

refuse to honor ICE detainers, effectively releasing criminal aliens 

out onto our streets. 

While you flip-flop before Congress and the American people, 

ICE officers go out into the community and conduct at large operations in order to apprehend released criminal aliens. It makes 

their job much, much harder. Right? Instead of just going to the 

jail and getting the detained alien to put him through the deportation process, they had to go out, find them, apprehend them, sometimes under very dangerous circumstances. This puts their lives at 

risk, threatens public safety, and expends limited Federal resources. 

If a detainer was issued, a simple and cost-effective custodial 

transfer would have occurred. This is a problem. And your solution, 

the Administration’s solution, is a failure. Politely asking for cooperation from recalcitrant jurisdiction’s so-called ‘‘Sanctuary Cities’’ is a fool’s errand. Isn’t the clear answer to this problem a requirement for everyone to honor ICE’s detainer authority; an authority that keeps our communities and our law enforcement officers safe? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That authority is being challenged in court, sir. 

There is a morass of lawsuits across the country on that very issue. 

I will tell you—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Why hasn’t your agency and the Department of 

Justice and the Department of Homeland Security defended those 

lawsuits against these detainers? 

Why haven’t you taken affirmative, aggressive position to say, 

‘‘Yes, the detainers need to be honored?’’ 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I will tell you that I have the same concern you 

do, sir. Public safety of our officers is paramount, in my estimate. 

I went on Operation Cross Check back in February wearing a 

bulletproof vest, there to watch the operation in-practice where we 

are actually trying to reach out and find criminal undocumented 

immigrants. I am very concerned about the risk they face. But, I 

will tell you that I believe that the PEP program, if we give it a 

chance—and, again, I do regret that confusion I caused with respect to my statement. And the only reason for the statement the 

following day was because I had been asked whether it would help 

law enforcement. And let me tell you, sir, my reaction was focused 

on that: What helps law enforcement? 

But I am committed to PEP. I am committed to asking communities to assist us. I am committed to persuade them that the best 

thing for the safety of their own communities is to cooperate with 

United States in its effort to enforce the immigration laws in accordance with the President’s priorities. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Madam Director. 

My time is expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his questions. 
54 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. 

Director Saldan ̃ a, you make me feel more comfortable now that 

we have read and listened to your performance here before the 

House Judiciary Committee. 

The three things that I wanted to bring to your attention and get 

your comments on. One is the idea that the memorandum was not 

affected by the court’s ruling and that ICE intends to fully implement the Secretary’s memorandum. 

Could you comment on that? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I believe what you are referring to, Congressman, 

is the fact that there is a ruling that stops, calls to a halt, expanded DACA and the new DAPA program. And we are obviously, 

all the agencies to my knowledge, CIS, CBP and ICE, are complying with that ruling. And it will make its way through the appellate courts. But it did not effect, it did not effect the November 

20 enunciation of our priorities by the Secretary in which we clearly implemented to our people. 

We have actually put out in the field substantial training on this, 

sir. And every officer uses one of these cards, which clearly outlines 

those priorities. They carry it with them. Quite frankly, I carry it 

myself and try to make sure that each of these priorities, both respect to the first—the first one is outlined in the front. The second 

and third priorities on the back. Again, trying to make an effort to 

clarify for law enforcement where our priorities should be. 

So that is what is meant by that. The only thing that was affected by the injunction was the expansion of DACA and the new 

initiation of the DAPA program. 

Mr. CONYERS. Very good. 

Now, what steps is ICE taking to ensure the persons who are not 

a priority for removal are not targeted for enforcement actions or 

are not inadvertently swept up in enforcement actions? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, one of the steps, sir, is the training. And it 

was substantial and we just completed it in January, which was 

the initiation kickoff of the executive actions; and that includes 

those priorities. I have met with every one of the field office directors in the entire country by video. I have directed them that if 

they have any questions they are to raise it up their chain and ultimately to me who bears the ultimate responsibility with respect to 

the appropriate enforcement of those priorities. Our training 

doesn’t stop with that, that was completed initially; it is continuing, kind of, a spectrum. 

And I have also met with our lawyers. There are about 900 of 

them across the country who has worked with the immigration 

courts in order to ensure in their review of the priorities and the 

people who have been targeted for enforcement that we are complying with those priorities. 

Mr. CONYERS. Very good. 

Let me ask this question about some reports that have come to 

our attention about mothers and children in family detention. 

There was a memo drafted by the secretary explaining field officers 

and directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who 

are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness. 

In light of this memo, how, if you know, does ICE justify detaining 
55 

mothers and children with such serious physical or mental illnesses? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I think you are also aware, Representative, of the 

injunction that was imposed by the Washington, D.C. court with 

respect to the detention of families and not to use deterrents as a 

factor. Every one of those families, just like others, is afforded the 

opportunities provided by law with respect to seeking asylum, seeking some relief from the United States with respect to their presence here. 

I will say I have met with the secretary many times discussing 

this very same subject. I just met on Thursday of last week with 

religious leaders from all sectors of the religious community who 

have expressed very serious concerns about the detention of families and children. And we are doing our best right now. 

I know the secretary has considered it. I know that we have released, with respect to that injunction, quite a few of these families. Some of them continued because they cannot meet a detention 

bond, but it is something that has been well considered by the Secretary. And, for now, we are going to hold, with respect to particularly new entrants, sir, which is part of our priorities, that line. 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Director, I thank you for your candid responses. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Director, a recent public opinion poll apparently shows that the 

American people repudiate President Obama’s immigration policies. This was a Rasmussen Reports national survey just a few 

days ago that found that 62 percent of the American people believe 

the Administration is not doing enough to deport illegal immigrants. This is up ten points from just a year ago. I think this is 

the American people’s response to the President’s executive amnesty orders. 

Contrary to what the American people want, it appears that deportations are down again this year. I think there were only about 

100,000 from the interior. You said a while ago that about 85 percent are those who had been convicted of crimes. But that means 

that only about one out of 300 other illegal immigrants are going 

to be removed from our country. In my opinion, that is not enforcing immigration laws. In fact, it is ignoring immigration laws. 

Furthermore, the Administration, as you also mentioned, released about 30,000 convicted illegal immigrants and allowed them 

to be returned to our communities. One quarter of these 30,000 

criminal aliens had been convicted of Level 1 crimes, such as murder, rape, and sexual abuse of a minor. Of those 30,000, only 8 percent were Zadvydas cases. Thousands could have been deported. 

Why did the Administration intentionally endanger the lives of 

innocent Americans by releasing thousands of criminal aliens into 

our neighborhoods? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Representative, this is an area of great concern for 

me when I first started in January. 

Mr. SMITH. If it is of great concern, why did you do it? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I would like to explain—— 
56 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A [continuing]. Why we are moving forward as we 

are. 

We do not have a policy—our decisions, whether they are detention decisions, bond decisions, release decisions, are governed by 

several things and often involve the courts. As you know, and I 

think that the Chairman noted, about half in 2014 of the releases 

were as a result of Zadvydas and which requires us to release people after a certain time—— 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. My statement was, and you haven’t contradicted it, that the Administration is intentionally releasing thousands of individuals. These are convicted individuals of serious 

crimes, back into our neighborhoods and communities. It actually 

increased over the last year from the year before. Why are you 

doing this to the American people? You know their recidivism rate 

is high. You know these individuals are going to be convicted of 

other crimes. Why are doing this to the American people? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. If I may answer, sir? If I may complete my answer. What I am saying is; again, let’s make sure we are comparing apples to apples. We are talking about about 55 percent of 

those having been ICE discretionary decisions which I think is the 

heart of concern. 

Mr. SMITH. I am willing to concede several thousand are in that 

category. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. I am also willing to concede that 8 percentage of 

Zadvydas. That still leaves thousands of people that should be deported, in my opinion, that are not being deported that are endangering innocent Americans. Again, why are you doing this? Why 

aren’t you—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Because the Congress lays out due process, sir, for 

every person that is detained. 

Mr. SMITH. Are you disagreeing? Are you saying that you could 

not deport these individuals, thousands of these individuals? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I cannot deport any individual without an order 

from the court, either an immigration court or a Federal court. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. And if you sought that order, you could deport 

thousands of these individuals and you are not trying to do it. 

Again, why not? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. We only make decisions with respect to—you 

know, the criminal justice system releases murderers, rapists, sexual assaulters every day when a Federal judge decides, you know, 

this person does not present a flight risk or a danger to the community. That is the same considerations the law and the regulations prescribe from us. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. The law allows you to deport these individuals 

if you want to. 

Director, you are not giving the American people a good answer. 

I hope you will come back with a better answer in the future. And 

let me go to the next subject, which is Secure Communities. 

You said in your testimony that one of the reasons that the Administration terminated Secure Communities is because local jurisdictions refused to comply with it. Well, this is interesting that you 

don’t feel that if local jurisdictions want to comply with Federal 
57 

laws, they don’t need to or you are going to not force them to do 

so. But, have you ever challenged any of these local jurisdictions 

to comply with the current Federal law? 

And let me read you that Federal law real quickly. It says, ‘‘If 

Federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from 

sending to, or receiving from——’’ 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Sir, I am sorry. I am having difficulty—— 

Mr. SMITH. ‘‘The Immigration and Naturalization’s service information regarding the citizenship of immigration status lawful or 

unlawful——’’ 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Representative Smith, I am having difficulty hearing you. I am sorry. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Just take my word. The current law says that 

local communities should be able to work together with local and 

Federal officials to remove individuals. And you yourself had said 

one reason you are not enforcing laws is because local communities 

failed to comply with it. Why aren’t you trying to enforce it? In 

what ways have you tried to force local communities to follow Federal law? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Again, that is a subject of litigation you yourself 

just said should cooperate. 

Mr. SMITH. What has the Administration done to try to enforce 

current law in regard to Secure Communities? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. We have met the secretary—— 

Mr. SMITH. You haven’t filed any lawsuit against any entity. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I have not filed any lawsuit, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. And that is my point. Why didn’t you try to force—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. There are plenty lawsuits out there—— 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. To comply with Federal law? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Excuse me. I am sorry, Representative. 

There are plenty of lawsuits out there that are still in the middle 

of litigation. I am not going to opine or get in the middle of those. 

Mr. SMITH. No, no. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. What I am trying to tell you is—— 

Mr. SMITH. I am not asking you to. 

The Administration has not done anything to try to enforce the 

current Secure Communities law. Do you have any evidence 

that—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That comes as a surprise to me because I personally have been engaged in meeting with representatives—— 

Mr. SMITH. The Administration has done the opposite. They have 

said you don’t need to comply. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. May answer the question, please? 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I really do want the American public to understand that I am not sitting on my hands. I actually have gotten out 

to meet with the major city police chiefs, the major county sheriffs, 

the California corps of sheriffs when they were in town a couple of 

months ago, and other jurisdictions to personally advise them of 

what the parameters of the law are, what we are trying to do to 

work with them to get—— 

Mr. SMITH. But you said in your own testimony—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 
58 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. You weren’t going to enforce the law because they—— 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman, but I am so sorry that the 

American people aren’t getting good answers today. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I think it 

is disappointing that the witness, the Director, was not really given 

an opportunity to answer the questions. And I don’t want to use 

all my time on Mr. Smith’s questions, but I will say that so far as 

I know, and you can say yes or no, the fingerprints that are taken 

in county detention facilities are still being received by the Federal 

Government and ICE. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, that hasn’t changed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That has not changed. What has changed is the 

litigation, and I will use the State of California as an example. The 

State of California passed a law called the Trust Act that says that 

counties are not to deliver people who have committed no offense 

or a minor traffic offense of that sort. Why is that? 

I mean in my own county, the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff 

decided that they will turnover individuals or hold them if they are 

indemnified. Why? Because they can’t lawfully hold somebody without probable cause that a crime has been committed. So what you 

have done is to try and fix that. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. And I have offered to you during our meeting earlier—I am sorry. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am sorry. I am getting a cough drop here. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I have got cough drops here. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I do too. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. And I have offered during our meeting—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A [continuing]. Come and visit with your local officials and—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. But the point is you are being asked to violate 

court orders and you can’t do that. 

That is correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am here to enforce the law. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is correct. 

I want to talk about a family detention. And I know that you 

mentioned the meeting that you had, but I am concerned. Our policy that was adopted in November basically says that we should 

prioritize felons not families. However, we have now increasing 

numbers of families not felons being held in detention centers, and 

I am concerned about the contractor that is in charge of much of 

this. 

I understand that there were women who were either on a hunger strike or a religious fast—I don’t know how you want to—at the 

Karnes County Residential Center. We had staff down there over 

the Easter break who observed and discussed with some of the 

women that they had been put in medical isolation. Some of these 

women have been held for six, seven, 8 months with their children. 

We have, and I would ask unanimous consent to put into the 

record, an affidavit from Luis Zayas, the Dean of the School of Social Work at the University of Texas in Austin. And in his declara-
59 

tion, the Dean explains that he has interviewed several families at 

the Karnes Detention Center and found that ‘‘detention has had serious and long lasting impacts on the health and well-being of the 

families I interviewed at Karnes.’’ 

So I am just concerned. We don’t have a pediatrician on site at 

Karnes nor at the facility in Berks, Pennsylvania. We have over a 

hundred children being detained. We have some evidence of lasting 

and serious adverse impacts on the well being of the children that 

are being held in jail. I want to know what process we are going 

to use to review that. Obviously, the court in D.C. issued an injunction, which I know that you are complying with, but the problem 

is that the bonds have been set so high. If you are, you know, basically an asylee from Central America, being held in prison for six, 

seven, 8 months with your children, you don’t have $10,000 to get 

out. 

So are we taking a look at the alternatives to detention for people whose cases, whose credible fear findings have already been 

made? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. We certainly are looking at alternatives for detention. As you may well know, we have quite a few families on the 

ATD program. It is essentially release but with some increased supervision, and we have enjoyed some success with that program. 

I will say that every decision, Congresswoman, that our officers 

make, and they use their best judgment, they are trained, they are 

seasoned, to try to determine what the appropriate bond is once 

they say, ‘‘Okay, you should be released but we need some—’’ 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I would like to follow up with you because 

we are hearing something quite different—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I would be happy to. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. In the advocacy community. And, you 

know, we will get to the bottom of it later. 

I would like to use the remainder of my time to let you answer 

Mr. Smith’s question about who you are releasing, the Zadvydas 

decision, and the other circumstances that require you to release. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. As I said, the Congress, not this particular Congress but the Congress, has laid forth due process for any individual whether they have come into our country illegally or not 

with respect to their claims for relief from deportation. So often, 

they go through these proceedings and we comply with those requirements. The considerations that the statute and the regulations themselves contemplate, contemplate the release of criminals 

because it says, as one of the factors to consider in determining, is 

the person’s criminal history. How long ago was it? What was the 

severity of it? How extensive is it? Those kinds of considerations. 

So even the Congress has contemplated that some people were 

released and it is certainly part of the criminal justice system. 

Ms. LOFGREN. So you are saying—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. 

Ms. LOFGREN. But if I may please have 30 seconds additional? 

If the judge—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. An immigration judge, orders an individual released, do you comply with that order? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I do. 
60 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, 

Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Madam Director, for being here this morning. 

ICE released, as we have heard before, over 36,000 criminal 

aliens in 2013 and nearly 31,000 in 2014. Many of us are really 

shocked and consider this to be a quite appalling policy. You mentioned in your testimony that one of the new policies addressing 

this problem is a ‘‘Senior Manager Review of discretionary release 

decisions for individuals convicted of crimes of violence.’’ 

How is this an improvement? Instead of allowing people in the 

field to make decisions, you have a bureaucratic headquarters. 

And, let’s face it, there are oftentimes the folks out in the field are 

already micromanaged by folks at the headquarters on decisions 

that agents oftentimes have to make in the field when they are facing a situation; which it is hard to know back at headquarters 

what they are actually dealing out there in real-life situations. And 

then, ultimately, approving the release of a violent criminal alien. 

Shouldn’t the policy response to ICE releasing violent criminal 

aliens be not to release violent criminal aliens? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I have mentioned the due process requirements. I 

talked about it earlier. But, sir, the policy that I initiated is a response to this Committee and every Member of Congress, I believe, 

to the release of criminal aliens. I myself have a concern. Are we 

making the proper decisions? Do we have a process in place to review those decisions? 

And that is what exactly I announced last month in March. That 

is you will have a local supervisor including the field office director, 

the top person in the field, reviewing the decision. You will also 

have a group, a small group, of very well seasoned managers who 

will review these decisions. I want to be sure that the process is 

followed to ensure that we are not putting, we are not as an institution putting dangerous criminals on the streets. So that is why 

I have asked for this additional review to satisfy myself and you 

all. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

To the extent possible, I would encourage you to allow the experienced men and women that are actually on the street and dealing 

with these life and death decisions sometimes to make those decisions, if at all possible. 

Let me move on to another area. While I appreciate that the use 

of new technologies are potentially useful law enforcement tools, I 

do have some concerns with the Department of Homeland Security’s recent announcement that it is offering up a contract for companies to monitor people’s license plates. In particular, I am concerned that government programs, which track citizen’s movements, capture images, and collect data of, oftentimes, innocent 

Americans, raises serious privacy concerns. 

Just a year ago, DHS and your agency cancelled similar plans for 

access to a national license plate tracking system. Your agency’s 

more recent request comes at a time when your agency has failed 

to enforce current laws that have resulted in an 18 percent decrease in criminal alien removals and the release of over 36,000 
61 

criminals, as we have already discussed to some degree. Why are 

we to believe that your agency will properly use this new license 

plate data and technology when your agency has a track record of 

not enforcing U.S. immigration laws and the collection of a person’s 

location while in public and collected over time is sensitive information and should be treated as such? 

What assurances can you give that the personal information of, 

for the most part, innocent people, because that is who will usually 

be tracked is people that have done nothing wrong and that are 

citizens? How can we ensure that their rights are going to be protected and their civil liberties maintained? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, obviously, that is of great concern to the 

American public and to myself, sir, given recent revelations. But 

that is the very reason. I wasn’t here at the time that the decision 

was made to withdraw the bid but it is my understanding that that 

is the very reason it was withdrawn; so that it can be given greater 

study, make sure that there were safety measures in place, that 

the information is handled properly, that privacy concerns by paramount. 

But I will tell you, again, as an Assistant United States Attorney, prosecuting cases with agents, FBI, Homeland Security, Education, agents from all Federal agencies, that the more information 

you have with respect to a person who is actually in the middle of 

an investigation not the innocents but in the middle of an investigation, it is helpful to the investigation to have that. 

So we are going to be balancing both the investigative utility as 

well as the privacy concerns of individuals on information we have 

gathered and possess. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. My time is about to expire. Let me just 

conclude by stating there is obviously a lot of skepticism about the 

way the law is being enforced and the fact that it is actually not 

being enforced by this Administration and we certainly hope that 

the Administration will reconsider the way it has been enforcing 

the law. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, to the 

the Ranking Member. 

And thank you very much, Director Saldan ̃ a and particularly for 

your service to the Nation and being an outside Texan. We are all 

very proud of you, delighted to see you sitting before us today. And 

know that you bring a sense of knowledge and passion to this position. Let me first of all indicate my appreciation for ICE. I have 

worked with them over the years, if I might say, and find them to 

be commendable and to be concerned about the security of this Nation. I think that is very important. 

You will find, as you come to Congress, that there are the First 

Amendment rights of members allow them to have different perspectives and views, and also representing their constituents. And 

that is what this House represents, this Committee represents, and 

democracy represents. But we also have an order of the three 

branches of government and the responsibilities of the President. 
62 

And your responsibility in the compliance with the guidelines of 

the Administration. 

And so, my first question to you is do accept the concept of prosecutorial discretion? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I do and I have—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The mike, please? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I do and I have for the last several years as an 

Assistant United States Attorney and the United States Attorney; 

it is vital. I do know that there were aspects of the proposed executive action, which my former department, the Department of Justice, opined about and carefully studied with respect to the entire 

scope of the request. And they made recommendations regarding 

parts of it that were not appropriate, which were honored—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But ultimately—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A [continuing]. And parts that were. 

As I said earlier, I could not, as a United States Attorney, enforce every law in the books. It makes total sense. It is rational to 

say we need to focus our resources. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

My time is short so I am going to have to go on. With that 

premise then, I think it should be very clear that the present court 

proceedings deal with the President’s executive actions. Is that 

your understanding; the state? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. The ones in South Texas have to do with DAPA 

and DACA. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is correct. 

And so, they do not deal with the overall order or action regarding the use of prosecutorial discretion that ICE can utilize. I understand. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is true, and I made that very clear to the 

field. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think that is a very important point because 

I ask that you make that point over and over again. 

As I understand, I would like to read into the record priority one 

under the Humane Enforcement Policy; deals with suspected terrorists, national security threats, persons apprehended at the border for enumerated felons. Priority for ICE, two, would be persons 

convicted of three or more misdemeanors other than traffic offenses 

and state or local offenses predicated on immigration status. I am 

reading very quickly but—priority three would be persons issued a 

final order of removal after January 1, 2014. 

Does that comply with the sense that you have? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Absolutely. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well then, let me ask these two questions. 

First of all, I had a gentleman, by the name of Mr. Alvarado, who 

was not an enforcement priority yet he was detained in October 

2014 and removed to Honduras in February 2015. He lived in 

Houston. He had lived here since 2005. He had a voluntary return 

in 2005 to Honduras but came back. He had no deportation order, 

to my understanding. He was being driven by his wife when his car 

was pulled over. He was put into custody. He is married to a legal 

permanent resident; he has a citizen child, stepchild, but he was 

deported. 
63 

I think there is a disconnect between here, in Washington, and 

the appropriate procedures that our ICE officers need to use. Tell 

me what you are doing to make sure that they are fully educated. 

My second question is can you tell me what you are doing to ensure that detention centers, one I know in the San Antonio area 

in Texas, are hospitable and humane to our families and children? 

And I would appreciate your answers on those questions. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes. 

Let me start with the latter. I personally went to visit the Dilley 

Facility outside of San Antonio in Dilley, Texas. I have not made 

it to Karnes or Berks yet but I intend to. I observed for myself, and 

that is the only way I satisfy myself that things are as they should 

be, that our requirements and safety measures and humane treatment of folks is satisfied there. 

With respect to fully educating—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And Mr. Alvarado’s case, but go ahead. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. And I cannot comment on a specific case. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I understand. Your staff can take it down. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. But I continue to train. I continue to meet personally, either by VTC or personally, with field office directors to make 

sure that these priorities are being enforced equally and properly. 

And by the way, on our website we do have a complaint process. 

That, if somebody has, even a detainee, has some concern, that 

they have got a process to go through; even up to, I don’t encourage 

this every day, but with respect to concerns that can’t be satisfied, 

that they start locally and work themselves up. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Lawyers can then adhere to the fact that the 

executive discretion, prosecutorial discretion, does exist and they 

can raise this with the ICE officers or their clients. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, that is correct. And I have met with the Chief 

Counsel to make that clear. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. I thank the gentlelady for her 

service to the Nation. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Director, thank you for being here. As my colleague, Mr. 

Gowdy, said, we hold you in high esteem for your expertise for 

serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. And this Committee works a 

lot on policy in trying to get policy correct. 

So let me ask you this question: If I have an individual that is 

speeding on our highways, should they be apprehended and 

charged differently if they have lived in the country longer than 

someone else, or if they go to school here, or if they have a job, or 

if they are pregnant, or if they have a serious health problem? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Should they be treated differently? No. That officer 

has discretion to give a ticket or not give a ticket. 

Mr. FORBES. But should they be apprehended and charged the 

same whether they have those conditions or not? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That should not be a distinction with respect to an 

officer pursuing and issuing—— 
64 

Mr. FORBES. He should charge him and apprehend him the same 

way? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Recognizing, sir, their discretion. Officers, police 

officers have discretion whether to give a ticket or not. I have never 

been the benefit—— 

Mr. FORBES. But they have the discretion based upon whether or 

not someone is pregnant to give them a ticket or not? Should they 

not give a ticket if that person is pregnant? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. No one should be treated differently in that—— 

Mr. FORBES. No one should be treated differently. And is that a 

basic theory of law? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes. We try to be fair and consistent. 

Mr. FORBES. Then tell me why that is different when you would 

suggest that you have prosecutorial discretion? That I could enter 

a blanket order or regulation that would say that anyone who was 

in the country longer or went to school here or had a job or were 

pregnant or had a serious health problem would be treated differently if they were speeding on a highway. And I think you would 

object to that but let me go to another point. 

We have had testimony before this Committee that, as in some 

of our violent criminal gangs, as many as 85 percent of the members are here illegally. Would you agree that if somebody was here 

illegally in this country and they were a member of a violent criminal gang that they should be apprehended and deported? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, sir. And that is actually part of priority one. 

Mr. FORBES. So you would agree with that. 

Then, with all of the individuals the criminal aliens that were released in 2013 and 2014, can you tell me how many of those were 

members of violent criminal gangs or members of criminal gangs 

at all? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I can’t off the top of my head but I am certain—— 

Mr. FORBES. Do you have that record? Do you have that information? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am not sure, sir, but I will—— 

Mr. FORBES. But you were just telling me, as the Director of ICE, 

that it is a priority to get violent criminal gang members out of the 

country. That is one of your top priorities. And yet, you are telling 

me you don’t even know whether we have records of how many we 

released or did not release. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. There may be a way to do it manually, sir. I 

can’t—— 

Mr. FORBES. But now that is not what I am asking, Madam Director. You are coming in here today telling us that one of the top 

priorities you have is getting criminal gang members out of the 

country who are here illegally. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is correct. 

Mr. FORBES. But, yet, you can’t even tell this Committee that you 

have the data to tell how many of them you released back then. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I can’t give you that number. I suspect, manually, 

one can make that search and give you the answer. 

Mr. FORBES. But you don’t know whether you can do it. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Off the top of my head, I can’t tell you what the 

number is, sir. 
65 

Mr. FORBES. Madam Director, I am not asking for the number. 

I am asking do you have any way of even telling which of the individuals you released in 2013, 2014, are you releasing currently, are 

members of criminal gangs. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I believe so but it may require a manual search 

and a little time to come up with that number. 

Mr. FORBES. But right now, you can’t testify before this Committee that, as the Director of ICE, you know of whether you have 

a process of determining the criminal gang members that are being 

released by ICE back into the streets of the United States of America? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I believe that is the case, except I believe it would 

require a manual search. We don’t necessarily have that but we 

can pull up. 

Mr. FORBES. If you did the manual search, what would you 

search? How would you find—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. The files. 

Mr. FORBES. The files would necessarily be conflicted—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. If I may finish my answer, sir? 

Mr. FORBES. Sure. Please. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. The files in which the, we refer to them as an Afile, that has all the information, immigration information, of a 

particular undocumented immigrant. 

Mr. FORBES. But you are looking back at a criminal record that 

may not show that they were convicted under being a criminal 

gang member. Do you have anything where you are asking these 

criminal aliens before they are being released if they were members of a criminal gang? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. We don’t just rely on the answer of a particular 

undocumented immigrant. 

Mr. FORBES. But do you even ask? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. We may ask and we will rely on our investigative 

resources to find that out, sir. It is not just accepting the word of 

a person. 

Mr. FORBES. But can you tell this Committee that you are at 

least asking? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Again, I can’t tell you in every case—— 

Mr. FORBES. But, Madam Director, my time has run up. It bothers me tremendously when as the Director of ICE you come in here 

and tell us one of your number one priorities, you basically don’t 

have a clue whether you can do it, you are doing it, or how many 

you are releasing. And that is something that frightens all of us. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I believe I answered otherwise, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. I think the record will show differently. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, recognizes the 

gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ma’am, the Karnes County Residential Center is actually a privately run, for-profit detention center. Is that correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I believe so. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so, it is actually the Karnes County Detention 

Center not the Karnes County Residential Center, which sounds a 

whole lot nicer. But the Karnes County Detention Center has been 
66 

accused of being a place where countless women have been raped 

by male guards. Are you aware of those reports? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am aware of those allegations and I am aware 

of the—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. And also, as a residential center, families are held 

in detention. And when I say families, I basically mean women and 

their minor children. That is who is housed at Karnes Detention 

Center; correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes. I would like to provide to you, sir—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will let you come back in just a second. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Okay. 

Mr. JOHNSON. When a mother is put in a medical isolation room, 

the child or her children are assigned to that room with her. Isn’t 

that a fact? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Are you talking about a particular case? I am not 

aware of that. I am not aware of that. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Generally, when a woman is assigned to a medical 

isolation room, her child would be assigned to that room as per the 

reports that I will put into the record at this point. The mothers 

and children are allegedly locked in a dark room for protesting detention conditions and also that is a ThinkProgress article. And 

also, for the record, I would like to tender a New York Times magazine article entitled ‘‘A Federal Judge and a Hunger Strike Take 

on the Government’s Immigration Detention Facility.’’ 

Mr. FORBES [presiding]. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

Mr. JOHNSON. And you are aware of those reports of the hunger 

strike and the woman with the 11-year-old child that was placed 

into a medical isolation unit? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. And the insertion in the New York Times article 

that there is barbed wire at our family facilities, which is not the 

case. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But in those medical isolation units, those units 

are, or the unit that this woman who had the 11-year-old child that 

was assigned to the room with her, is a cell with a bed bolted to 

the wall and an open shower and an open toilet in that room, and 

is basically a detention jail cell. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am not aware of that incident, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You are not aware of that? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Would it trouble you to know that women and 

children, because the mother participated in what is called a fast, 

others called it a hunger strike but she participated in it, and was 

assigned as a punitive measure to that medical isolation unit? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Is that something you also got out of that New 

York Times article, sir? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I have received the information from Republican as well as Democratic staff who actually took a visit within 

the last 2 weeks to that facility and spoke with the woman and the 

11-year-old son. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Congressman, if that is a fact, that disturbs me 

greatly. And I am happy to visit with you regarding a specific instance. I cannot, on the record, go into the specific facts of individual cases. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, ma’am, you have taken an oath and I would 

like to ask you, pursuant to that oath, that would you supply me 

with the quarterly reports compiled by the detention monitoring 

council’s subcommittee per 7.5, subsection 7, of the directive titled 

Review of the Use of Segregation for ICE Detainees that was 

issued on September 4, 2013; as well as a list of all facilities designated for heightened review under Section 7.5, Subsection 5 of 

that directive? And also, all surveys, audits, reviews, memos, or 

other reports by ICE OPR, ICE ODO, ICE ODPP, DHS, OIG, or 

DHS CRCL regarding, one, the use of segregation in ICE facilities; 

and, two, the use of medical isolation cells in ICE facilities, and 

also the full contents of the Segregation Review Management system, the database created by ICE to monitor use of segregation following implementation of the directive? Would you be willing to 

supply my office with those copies? And I will send you a written 

request because I want—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Thank you very much, sir, because I stopped writing. I couldn’t quite keep up. And included in that IG report, I just 

wanted to mention to you, Congressman—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. You will supply me with those? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. To the extent that they exist. I couldn’t keep up 

with the entire list but, if you provide it in writing, I will certainly 

try to run them down. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. And included in that, what I wanted to mention 

to you was the IG report on those Karnes sexual allegations that 
75 

made an investigation and decided that there was not sufficient 

evidence to support those allegations. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I have heard—— 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. But I will include—— 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Director, for you testimony and I appreciate especially the Chairman’s remarks about cooperating with the Committee prior to this hearing. And I understand that you are in a 

difficult position in this job. I would note the irony that one side 

is angry when you enforce the law, the other side is angry when 

you don’t enforce the law. And so, I happen to be on the side of 

the latter. 

But I am curious about a few things here, and one of them is I 

noticed in your written testimony that you have participated in 

high level discussions with Mexican government officials discussing 

opportunities to more rapidly repatriate Mexican nationals. And 

then, it goes on into the interesting part: ‘‘I have also met with government officials from Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador 

where each pledged to do our part to stem the tide of citizens of 

those countries.’’ 

Okay. I think we understand in this Committee what all that 

means. And I am curious on what you learned because we have 

passed legislation here in the House, I think a couple of times, that 

would require those kind of negotiations to establish, I think I will 

use a term, an expedited return for those unaccompanied alien juveniles to the non-contiguous countries that I have mentioned are 

in your testimony. 

Did you see a level of cooperation there that do you think it 

would be possible to negotiate those terms of return for the unaccompanied alien juveniles to those countries? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, and actually, I think I mentioned in my written statement, if I didn’t I was remiss in overlooking it, that we 

have actually in Guatemala and in Honduras initiatives, pilot initiatives, in which we have representatives of those countries here 

in order to expedite removal of people from those countries. 

Mr. KING. Is there anything in statute that prohibits us from 

doing that right now if we can reach that agreement? We don’t 

have to wait for Congress to do that, do we? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am not waiting on it. We are discussing this, as 

I said. That is one of the things I did early on was to go 

through—— 

Mr. KING. Whose decision would it be then? Could Secretary 

Johnson then issue a directive that we complete those negotiations 

and begin to return those unaccompanied alien juveniles to their 

home countries? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. We are actually doing that now. We are negotiating. We are talking. We are working hard with them. 

Mr. KING. Does he have the authority to issue such an order? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Legal authority, sir? I just haven’t studied that 

question. 

Mr. KING. Okay. 
76 

Then, are you aware of agreement between Guatemala and Mexico to provide for expedited transit for Guatemalans who are on 

their way to illegally enter the United States and to grant, in Mexico, that 72-hour transit permit? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I believe there were discussions when I met with 

those countries in February to that effect. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And I recall a press release from a press conference 

held between the President of Mexico and the President of Guatemala who announced this agreement, and I recall the President of 

Mexico saying they hope to be able to complete such agreements 

also with El Salvador and Honduras. Has that come to your attention? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. It has, yes. 

Mr. KING. Then, I would ask how do we consider them to be cooperative countries if they are cooperating with each other to expedite the removal of their own citizens across, through Mexico, and 

illegally enter the United States? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, sir, actually the Mexican authority stopping 

Central Americans from coming benefits the United States greatly. 

I see that—— 

Mr. KING. I agree with that but if they are giving permits for 

Guatemalans to have 72 hours as long as they are in transit to 

McAllen Texas, I don’t call that cooperating with our policy. I call 

that contravening. So are they talking out of both sides of their 

mouths or is there something I am missing through the translation 

in the agreement? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I can’t say that. I can’t say that they are talking. 

What I saw in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador were sincere 

efforts to try to help get their people back. The First Lady of Guatemala looked at me very closely and said, ‘‘Please, until we do, 

take care of our children.’’ 

I took that to heart because I think it was a sincere comment. 

And that is what we try to do. 

Mr. KING. Of course. We are taking care of their children. We are 

flying them to places like Guatemala City into the United States 

now, completing the human trafficking. I find it ironic that just a 

year and half ago, December 2013, when Judge Hanen wrote an 

opinion that there was a coyote who had smuggled a 10 year-old 

girl into the United States. They were interdicted. They prosecuted 

the coyote for human trafficking and ICE delivered the 10 year-old 

girl to her birth mother in Virginia. And to quote from the opinion 

of Judge Hanen, ‘‘thus completing the crime of human trafficking 

by ICE.’’ 

Now, we are doing it hundreds and thousands of times and buying plane tickets to do that. That is a bit breathtaking to me and 

I think it has got to be very difficult to take an oath to uphold this 

Constitution and support the rule of law when you are watching 

above you at being subverted in the fashion that it is. And I will 

give you an opportunity to correct me on my analysis. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Sir, we also have a humane approach to the law 

in the United States, unlike many countries. That is why I am so 

proud to be a member of this country. And, as part of that, if there 

is a situation, I am not particularly familiar with this one that you 

are talking about, where a family is reunited who doesn’t present 
77 

a risk to public safety or a risk of flight, than I agree with that 

approach. 

Mr. KING. I will just say our policy reunites them in their home 

country. Thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. FORBES. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good morning, Director Saldan ̃ a. Welcome to the Committee. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I like the way you say that. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. I am sorry? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Saldan ̃a. I like the way you say that. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Saldan ̃ a, yes. [Laughter.] 

Understandably, a lot of the questions so far in this hearing have 

involved ICE’s mission to enforce our Nation’s immigration laws. I 

want to discuss ICE’s equally important mission to disrupt and dismantle drug trafficking organizations. As part of this mission, I 

know that ICE works in partnership with other DHS component 

agencies like CBP and the Coast Guard, DOJ component agencies 

like the FBI and DEA, and state and local law enforcement. You 

are an important player in a whole of government effort to combat 

drug trafficking and the violence associated with it. 

In January 2012, I met with your predecessor John Morton. 

Puerto Rico had just experienced the most violent year in the U.S. 

territory’s history. In 2011, there were 1,136 homicides in Puerto 

Rico. That is the equivalent of over three murders a day every day. 

It was roughly the same number of annual homicides as Texas, 

which has a population seven times greater than Puerto Rico’s. 

As my colleagues can attest, having heard me question senior official after senior official who have appeared as witnesses before 

this Committee, I have been on a campaign since 2009 to persuade 

Federal law enforcement agencies to increase the level of attention 

and resources that they dedicate to Puerto Rico, so that these resources are commensurate with the threat. The reality was that 

the level of attention and resources from the Federal Government 

was, and I emphasize the word ‘‘was,’’ clearly deficient. And too 

often, my constituents were paying the price with their lives. 

Starting in late 2012, however, the tide began to turn. Under the 

leadership of Secretary Napolitano, DHS component agencies began 

to substantially increase the resources they assign to Puerto Rico. 

For example, the Coast Guard has dramatically increased the number of hours its planes and cutters spend conducting counter-drug 

operations around Puerto Rico, and will completely replace its current fleet of cutters with faster, more modern vessels by mid-2016. 

Moreover, in 2013, you agency, ICE, sent 30 additional agents to 

Puerto Rico where they arrested about 900 violent criminals and 

seized a great deal of illegal narcotics and weapons. In addition, 

DHS assigned to San Juan a Border Enforcement Security Task 

Force; a multi-agency team of Federal and local officials designed 

to dismantle criminal organizations. 

Furthermore, CBP repaired the counter-drug radar system in 

southern Puerto Rico, which had been destroyed in 2011. Along 

with Congressman Mike McCaul of Texas, I led the successful effort in Congress to save the aerostat program from elimination and 

to transfer the program from DOD to DHS. Moreover, TSA has en-
78 

hanced searches of luggage, parcels, and cargo transported on 

flights between Rico and the U.S. mainland for illegal narcotics and 

weapons. 

Finally, this year, the Office of National Drug Control Policy 

within the White House published the first-ever Caribbean Border 

Counternarcotics Strategy as required by Congress. 

Collectively, these efforts have produced remarkable results. In 

2014, there were 681 homicides in Puerto Rico. That is 40 percent 

lower than in 2011, 30 percent lower than in 2012, and nearly 25 

percent lower than in 2013. You and your colleagues at DHS 

should feel very proud of this accomplishment, because you played 

a major role. 

Nevertheless, as I am sure you would be the first one to say, we 

cannot relent. Rather, we must sustain and build upon this hardearned success. Puerto Rico still has a murder rate that is far higher than any U.S. state or the District of Columbia, with an average 

of roughly two homicides each day. 

So, I would like to give you an opportunity to tell the Committee 

what ICE is currently doing to fight drug trafficking and related 

violence in Puerto Rico, our Nation’s Caribbean border, and what 

plans ICE has for the future. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, you have identified, I think I mentioned earlier, some of the HSI successes in this regard including 32,000 

criminals and 1.3 million pounds of narcotics. A substantial part of 

what we do in HSI, because we are focused on transnational criminal investigations, is in the drug area. I don’t have the specifics 

with respect to Puerto Rico, I can certainly share those with you, 

but those outlying posts are of great concern to me because obviously it is harder to manage. 

But under the Secretary’s Unity of Effort Initiative, you have 

mentioned the Coast Guard, you mentioned ICE, HSI in particular, 

obviously Border Patrol, all of these people and Customs and Border Protection, all of us work together pursuant to the secretary’s 

direction to try to make sure that these transnational drug-smuggling gangs are not successful. And we have had a number of operations in that regard; Operation Coyote, Operation Identity Crisis. 

All of these operations that go to focus on these of kinds of smuggling operations of people and things. 

Mr. LABRADOR [presiding]. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has 

expired, and I recognize the gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Director Saldan ̃ a, for coming to be with us this 

day. I know that your job is a difficult one and one that I would 

find formidable beyond words. 

I also know that a lot of they focus of the hearing has been the 

constitutional questions of the President’s actions. And for a moment, if you could—and I understand that you have suggested that 

perhaps his actions were within the constitutional purview. So for 

a moment, let us put that aside. 

You took an oath to uphold the constitution. That was part of 

your oath. If there were a situation from this Administration or 

from any other Administration that you found yourself serving and 

there was an executive order that you were convinced in your heart 

was clearly unconstitutional, which would hold your commitment? 
79 

Would it be your oath of office to uphold the constitution or would 

it be to subordinate the constitution to that executive order given 

that the President would be essentially your boss? How would you 

deal with that subject if it were circumstances where it was clear 

in your mind that the directive from the President was unconstitutional? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, that is not a difficult question. I mean I have 

always, in both my U.S. Attorney, my Assistant U.S. Attorney, and 

my director oath, have sworn to uphold the law, and if it were a 

matter as clearly as you say, that something was clearly unconstitutional, I can’t be apart of that. If you are implying that that is 

part of executive action, which I think you set aside, I don’t agree 

that that is unconstitutional but with respect to your general question, of course I would. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I appreciate your answer to that and I think 

that is an honorable answer. And I hope I would have answered 

the same way in your circumstance. And I know that there is the 

disagreement, you know, given and that is the issue at hand. But 

you understand that some of us, given that the President said 22 

times himself that what he was doing was unconstitutional, I think 

he has put you in a very difficult position. And I say that sincerely. 

I think he has, if I were in your place, I would feel in an uncomfortable position. Article 1, Section 8 calls for the Constitution specifically, specifically bestows on Congress the duty to create immigration law. And this president has rewritten that and I think that 

it puts you in a very awkward position. And just for your sake, I 

am not going to ask you to even respond to that because I don’t 

know what I would do if I were you. But it seems clear to me that 

he has put you in an awkward position. Awkwardness being a very 

significant understatement. 

The President also said, and I know this question was proffered 

earlier, but if somebody is working for ICE and they don’t follow 

this policy, there is going to be consequences for it. Have you enforced that? I mean are there consequences for not following that 

policy? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. There are consequences for not following the rules 

of an employee’s status with the agency. I have a whole manual on 

this. 

Mr. FRANKS. What would the consequences be if someone in the 

position that was required to follow through with the President’s 

directives? And, again, we will set the constitutional issue aside for 

a moment. Certainly, if the President has done that, I guess we 

could do that. What would be the consequences for doing that? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, whether it is that directive or assaulting an 

employee in the office or not abiding by some other rule or policy, 

the range of punishment can range from anything to a verbal meeting where you counsel that person to ultimately what is available 

to any employer, and that is termination. 

Mr. FRANKS. So, in other words, there are employees that work 

with you that are potentially subjected to termination for not following the President’s directive in this particular case? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. For not following any policy or directive or rule of 

employment—— 
80 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, which includes the President’s directive. All 

right. I understand. 

The difficulty of your position becomes even more apparent, I 

think. Is it true that under the Administration’s new guidelines 

that aliens, unlawful aliens, I should say, has to be convicted three 

times for three separate incidents in order to be deemed a priority 

for removal? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. They are all categories. It can be one serious offense; it can be three misdemeanors if that is what you are talking 

about. That is one of the elements in this card. 

Mr. FRANKS. In this case, you are saying that potentially it is not 

true. In other words, if they are convicted of a serious issue, that 

could be basis in and of itself to be required or deemed a priority 

for removal? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. The offenses are listed in here. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay. 

Is it also true that border crossers, who came to the United 

States after January 1, 2014, illegally, or those who overstayed the 

terms of their visas and fugitives from that law are not required 

to be processed for removal through the program? 

Mr. LABRADOR. The gentleman’s time has expired, if you could 

just answer the question. 

Mr. FRANKS. Quickly. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. 2C addresses recent border crosses, sir. 2C, would 

you like me to read it? 

Mr. FRANKS. Please. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Aliens apprehended anywhere in the U.S. after unlawfully reentering or entering the United States and who cannot 

establish the satisfaction of an immigration officer that they have 

been physically present in the United States continually since January 1, 2014. And I also want to remind this Committee that there 

is a general provision with respect to these priorities that give an 

officer flexibility in making a decision, whether someone fits within 

the priorities and should not be removed, should not be put in removal proceedings, or does not fit and should be because of their 

public safety concerns. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. 

I will now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Director Saldan ̃ a, the recent expansion of family detention for 

approximately 80 detention beds to now more than 2,400 beds at 

the new Dilley Detention Center is truly alarming. A vast majority 

of these women and children escaping the northern triangle region 

are fleeing domestic and/or gang violence and abuse. In 2011, El 

Salvador had the highest rate of gender-motivated killing of women 

in the world followed by Guatemala and the Honduras. These 

women are escaping some of the most dangerous countries in the 

world to seek protection in the U.S. and, instead, they and their 

children face prolonged detention while they fight their asylum 

claims. 
81 

In my view, there is no way to detain families humanely. When 

I first learned that the average age of a child in family detention 

is 6 years old and that there are even babies and toddlers being 

detained, I was truly shocked. As a psychologist, I know the mental 

health concerns that children and families in detention face. 

Detention in jail-like facilities re-traumatizes victims of violence, 

and children in particular. Reports show that children in detention 

experience weight loss, gastrointestinal problems, and suicidal 

thoughts. In fact, Doctor Luis Zayas, Dean of Social Work at the 

University of Texas Austin, interviewed several families at the 

Karnes Residential Center and found that mothers and children 

showed high levels of anxiety, especially separation anxiety for the 

children, systems of depression, and feelings of despair. Children 

showed signs that detention had caused developmental regression 

such as reversion to breast feeding and major psychiatric disorders 

including suicidal ideation. 

Dr. Zayas further states in his affidavit that ongoing stress, despair, and uncertainty of detention significantly compromises the 

child’s intellectual and cognitive development and contributes to 

the development of chronic illnesses in ways that may be irreversible. These very serious psychological concerns combined with the 

many due process concerns, like prohibitively high bonds and difficulty accessing lawyers, makes family detention a truly, truly 

troubling institution. 

In fact, it runs contrary to the 1997 Florida Settlement Agreement regarding, at that time, INS’s detention of children. The 

agreement said that juveniles should be held in the least restrictive 

setting appropriate to their age and special needs, and generally in 

a non-secure facility licensed to care for dependent minors. And it 

said that detaining children in prison-like facilities that are both 

secure and unlicensed runs contrary to the very heart of the Flores 

Agreement. In fact, as we speak, Flores Class Council petitioned 

the court to reinforce the agreement in light of the expansion on 

family detention. 

Director Saldan ̃ a, given the concern regarding the mental and 

physical health effects on children in prolong detention, I urge you 

to adopt a family detention policy that minimizes the lengthy detention of children, and use more humane alternatives like alternatives to detention. I also want say that my staff attended a live 

bond proceeding for a mother and her 5-year-old child who had 

been sexually assaulted. The child was suffering from severe psychological distress while being detained at Artesia including nightmares and bed-wetting. The family had already been detained 3 

months before the bond hearing and yet the 2014 priorities memo 

from DHS states that field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious 

physical or mental illness. 

So how do you reconcile detainee mothers and children with such 

serious physical and mental health illnesses in light of the directives in the priorities memo? 

So if you could answer these two questions of the lengthy detention of children as well as the detention of children with mental illness. 
82 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, I am not going to comment on the litigation 

but there are two separate issues. One is unaccompanied children, 

which who we do not detain, and those that are coming over with 

families. 

I said earlier that I wanted to satisfy myself that our detention 

facilities for families were operating securely, safely, and humanely. So that is why I visited Dilley back in February just a 

month after I came onboard. And I found that to be the case. In 

fact, I was very impressed with two teachers I met for these children who are there in the facility and the openness of the facility. 

And these teachers who I visited with whose commitment and love, 

and mind you I was a school teacher at one time, whose commitment and love for their children, the children that they were educating, was very evident. 

The facility was wonderful and, actually, the technology they had 

for these kids was incredible. I am not sure I could operate some 

of the interactive items that they have. But that is an issue of 

great concern to us, ma’am. Under that order that we are under 

with respect to family detention, we have reviewed all of those people that are members of that class, a number of those families have 

been released. 

You know, one of our problems is the immigration courts in trying to get a resolution and a decision based on credible fear or 

whatever there is to move on with respect to these families and 

have them know what is going to happen with them. And that is 

a matter of—I think the last number I saw was something like 

480,000 backlog cases in the immigration courts that are under the 

Department of Justice. And so I urge this Committee, to the extent 

there is anything you can do to help those courts, to get more 

judges that would help us with our disposition and our request for 

2016 for more lawyers to assist us to get these people through the 

process so they don’t have to be waiting or be detained. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

I now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Director, I want to thank you for your service as a prosecutor and as a schoolteacher. I am biased toward both. So I hope 

that our questioning does not reflect that bias but I do thank you 

for doing a very—both of those jobs are incredibly hard. I thank 

you for your service. 

You have cited the Zadvydas case and that explains 8 percent of 

the releases. How about the other 92 percent? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am sorry, sir. Eight percent of any releases? 

Mr. GOWDY. Eight percent of the 30,558 convicted criminal alien 

releases were under the holding of Zadvydas. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is in 2014. 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. So there are 92 percent were not. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. No, another 10,000 or 35 percent were under orders from the immigration courts that we have to comply with. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. 
83 

I want to back up and ask you to put on your oval hat. Prosecutorial discretion, what are the limits of prosecutorial discretion? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. On a situational basis, sir, I think you are very familiar with the process where you kind of have to decide can you 

take a fraud case with a million-dollar loss which is substantial to 

many victims or do you have to limit it to cases above 5 million: 

It depends on resources and the safety issues in your specific community. 

Mr. GOWDY. Right, and there would be declination levels based 

on the amount of loss, and there would be declination levels based 

on drug amounts, and bank robberies could either go state or Federal; usually depending on how good the case was. But immigration 

cases can’t go state or Federal. They can only go Federal. 

So you mentioned in your testimony that you counted 3,000 statutes that you were responsible for enforcing as the United States 

Attorney. How many of those 3,000 did you announce ahead of time 

that you were not going to prosecute anyone under that particular 

statute? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Announce it to the general public? 

Mr. GOWDY. Ahead of time. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. No, I didn’t do that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I think many people knew what they were somehow. You know, you can’t limit everybody. We shared those priorities with the Federal agencies that we work with. 

Mr. GOWDY. Sure, but again, you always have the recourse of 

going through the state. The state can vindicate its—I mean Texas 

has narcotic statutes. Texas has fraud statutes, bad checks statutes, so there is always a safety net if it didn’t meet your declination level, the state could step in. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. And I am stunned, and I am sure you may be too. 

I don’t want to put words in your mouth. You worked with state 

and local law enforcement as a prosecutor. Right? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOWDY. And you would have worked with them in the full 

range of cases from child pornography to OCDETF cases; you name 

it. There is a state and local officer at the table with Federal officers. Right? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is absolutely correct. 

Mr. GOWDY. So why are my colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle so resistant to giving state and local law enforcement officers 

any role at all in immigration? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. To the extent they are here, I guess you could ask 

them. I am not sure I can answer for anybody else. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, in their defense, I will give you the excuses 

that I get. That the statute is too complicated. That you can’t possibly expect state and local law enforcement officers to understand 

the complexities of our immigration law, as if DUI laws are not 

also complex or RICO. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I can’t speak to that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, the state and local law enforcement officers 

you work with, did you think that they were capable of understanding the complexities of immigration law? 
84 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am sorry. No, that someone on the other side of 

the aisle has that view; I don’t know that. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, they do. 

Let me ask you this. Prosecutorial discretion, does it apply in all 

categories of law? You know, some laws require you to do something like register for selective service, some forbid you from doing 

something like possession of narcotics, and some laws, for instance, 

Congress could make you issue us a report. Are you able to exercise 

prosecutorial discretion in all three of those categories of law? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, I certainly can with respect to the first one. 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I know you would be on my case if I did with respect to the third one. So I would say no. And I can’t remember 

what your second one was. 

Mr. GOWDY. The laws that force you to do something; register for 

selective service. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I mean, I don’t enforce that law, registration for 

selective service. 

Mr. GOWDY. I know. You are a smart lawyer and you have a 

broad background. I really, all politics aside, I think it is important 

that our fellow citizens understand whether there are any limits to 

this doctrine of prosecutorial discretion because—my time is up 

and I know that the gentleman from Idaho is going to gavel me in 

just a second. 

But there is a big difference between you exercising your discre- tion not to do a $20,000 fraud case in Texas and your decision to 

confer benefits on that same group. Those are two entirely separate 

legal concepts. And regardless of who is in the White House and 

regardless of what job you and I have, I do think it is important 

that we have some bright lines so people understand what the limits of this thing we call prosecutorial discretion is. 

And with that, I would yield to the gentleman from Idaho. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you very much. 

And I now recognize the gentlelady from Washington. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thank you, Director Saldan ̃ a, for being here with us today. 

Many of my colleagues have talked about the terrible conditions 

in family detention camps and in detention centers. We have a detention center in my region in Washington State, the Northwest 

Detention Center in Tacoma. I understand that currently in the 

middle of negotiating the terms of a contract, and it has had to be 

extended. The negotiations have had to be extended twice now. The 

firm deadline to wrap up is now the 23rd of this month. That is 

my understanding. There has been very little transparency in these 

negotiations according to some estimates. American taxpayers are 

on the hook for $300 a day per detainee with all that money going 

to private prison companies. 

So why is there so little transparency in the negotiations like 

this that are taking place across the country? And are you doing 

anything to open up the process so we can see what is happening? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am not familiar exactly with that. I can certainly 

give you some more background after this hearing with respect to 

that particular negotiation. But no, we do want to have transparency. 
85 

You know there are parties to a negotiation and usually it is up 

to those parties to come up with the final terms. But I will tell you 

that we do seek, through all our meetings with all of our stakeholders, whether they are in law enforcement or non-governmental 

organizations or others, their views on how things can be improved. 

And I certainly am intending to—I hope I can get out there but I 

want to get out to more facilities to make sure, and I think we have 

communicated pretty clearly to folks that are doing those negotiation, to make sure that we are doing them in a way that ensures 

security but also humane treatment of individuals; whether they 

are documented or not. 

Ms. DELBENE. If you have other information that you are able 

to give me, I would greatly appreciate it. And if you are able to 

come out to Washington State and visit the facility, we would appreciate that too. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Thank you. 

Ms. DELBENE. So that you can have that direct experience. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I would actually like to do that. 

Ms. DELBENE. As a follow-up, there was an October 2014 GAO 

report that I requested, with a number of colleagues, identified 

three areas where ICE is falling short in tracking and managing 

detention costs and expenditures. The three areas were, one, collecting and maintaining data; two, ensuring cost is considered in 

placing aliens in detention facilities; and three, preventing improper payments to two detention facilities operators. 

So do you agree that there are improvements that can be made 

in this area? And if so, what steps are being taken to improve? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I always think that we can be more efficient. I 

have preached that since I have joined the agency. That we need 

to look for efficiencies because as we well know funds are not guaranteed from year-to-year as we have experienced first-hand at the 

department. But know we are looking at all of those things. We are 

looking to make sure that costs are allocated properly, we have got 

staffed that has been trained in order to look for that specifically, 

and we do periodic audits of those contracts. 

And I am not familiar with the report you are speaking of. I 

would like to read it, also to make sure that we have addressed 

those areas you have identified. 

Ms. DELBENE. Okay. And if we could follow-up on that too, I 

would also appreciate that. 

And, you know, there are a number of counties in my state of 

Washington including King County, our largest county, that have 

firmly adopted policies to ignore certain ICE detainer requests. And 

so, I know you have talked about this a bit before, but I was wondering if you could explain your views regarding whether states 

and localities should be forced to comply with ICE detainers. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. We are in the middle, as you know and as I indicated earlier, of a cross-country tour of those jurisdictions that 

have refused to work with us. We are trying to assure people, we 

are looking at priority enforcement not just general undocumented 

immigrant enforcement. We are looking at requests. We are not 

asking anyone to detain someone, as we did before, beyond the 

term of their local jurisdiction sentence. We are working to identify 

the areas we can all agree on; murderers, you know, the sexual 
86 

assaulters, those folks that present a danger to the community 

based on all of the facts and circumstances pertaining to a case. 

It is a challenging job, presents opportunities for us to visit with 

our local and state officials. And not only them, but non-governmental organizations to help us allay their fears and assure them 

that PEP is different. PEP is different, and we are trying to work 

with communities to do it in the best way for that specific community. 

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

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you and I will recognize myself. 

Director Saldan ̃ a, it is great to have you here today. I understand 

how hard you work and the work that you have is very important. 

I was an immigration lawyer before I came to Congress and I actually worked representing aliens who are in the United States without documentation. So I worked a lot with your agents. 

How many agents does your agency have? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. On the ERO side, about 6,000. About another five 

on the HSI side, I believe. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So about 11,000 total. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Agents. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Agents. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Our officers. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Now you are saying that you are here to enforce 

the law. Is that correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yet, you spend most of your time explaining to 

us why you don’t need to enforce all of the laws, which seems really 

interesting to me. You go to the analogy of fraud cases. When you 

were U.S. Attorney, you would have decided that maybe a one million-dollar fraud case is not a good thing to pursue because of your 

resources but a five million-dollar fraud case would be something 

that would be worth wild pursuing. Is that correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is one example. 

Mr. LABRADOR. That is one example so let us use that example. 

What would have happened to the crime in your area if you would 

have announced that anything between zero and $5 million in 

fraud you would not be enforcing as a Federal agent, as a Federal 

officer? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. And again, I use that as an example. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But it is a great example. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, we would work to try to find a local jurisdiction that might take the case, but they are strapped as well. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But what if you had the sole authority as a U.S. 

Attorney to enforce the law regarding fraud? We know that is not 

the case but if that was the case, that as a U.S. Attorney, you had 

the sole authority to enforce the law in that area and that region 

that you are covering, what would happen to the fraud rate in that 

region if you announced publicly, that between zero and $5 million 

in fraud, you are no longer enforcing? 
87 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I presume there might be more activity in that regard. 

Mr. LABRADOR. You would presume or doesn’t your experience 

tell you that it will be a fact? That there would be more activity 

in the commission of fraud between zero and $5 million. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Using that analogy, I would say so. 

And let me just correct something. I am sorry. It is very hard for 

me to let things like that go by. I have not spent my time expounding on the reasons why executive action is a good thing or not a 

good thing. I can respond to your questions. That is all I am doing 

here. 

Mr. LABRADOR. That is fine but that is what you have spent most 

of your time doing. And my concern is that that is exactly what 

this Administration has done. They have told the people from other 

countries that there is a limit. There is a threshold that they are 

not going to enforce the law. In fact, you just showed us a card. 

Can you show me that card again? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Sure. 

Mr. LABRADOR. That card is what you use. Can you imagine if 

you had a law enforcement agent in your area that decided to have 

a card like that about fraud? And on that card about fraud it would 

say that no case below $5 million would be enforced in that area, 

and that every time they arrested somebody with fraud, they were 

taking that fraud card out, that card out, showing that these 

crimes are no longer going to be enforced by the law. You know 

what would happen in that area. The number of fraud cases would 

go up. The number of people that are committing fraud would go 

up. The number of people who would think that they can get away 

with fraud would go up. Would you not agree with that? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, except you are talking about criminal activity 

in fraud and you are talking about a civil enforcement system in 

the immigration laws. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But what if fraud was just a civil activity, would 

the number of civil activities go up? A civil violation is still a violation of the law, whether it is a criminal activity or not, it is still 

a violation of the law. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is true but I am worried about the impact on 

public safety. A civil violation is not the same as a criminal violation. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So you are saying that the United States is now 

safer because we are allowing more people to come into the United 

States illegally. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I disagree with the premise. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But that is what you just said. You just said that 

you are worried about the safety of the community. I am worried 

about the safety of the community. 

One last point. You have said several times that Congress has 

extended due process to the people that are here without documentation. Is that correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And you are aware that the INA Sections 235, 

238, and 241 explicitly state when we should have expedited removal of people that are here without documentation. Are you not 

aware of that? 
88 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So that is what you should be doing. 

And one last question. It is really important. I keep hearing 

about all these stories about what is happening in all these detention facilities. Would you not agree that if we did expedited removal, if we actually took care of the law, if we actually were enforcing the law, that these families would not be held in detention 

for a long time? We would be able to expedite their cases; we would 

be able to figure out who should be here, who shouldn’t be here, 

and they could go back to their home countries and actually live 

in a better environment than in a detention facility. Would you not 

agree with that? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I agree that we need to prioritize and that the 

families are not, in general, going to create a public safety risk. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Not in general. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. No. 

Mr. LABRADOR. So we should allow, then, any fraud under $5 

million. Thank you very much. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Our decisions are on a case-by-case basis, Congressman. 

Mr. LABRADOR. I don’t believe that they are. They are not on a 

case-by-case basis. You just showed me the card and that is not a 

case-by-case basis. You are deciding where a whole class of people 

should stay in the United States and, frankly, the people who work 

under you are not happy about that decision. They are not happy 

with what the President decided to do and it is unfortunate that 

a law enforcement officer would come here and testify before this 

Committee to say that it is okay to allow people to violate the law 

whether it is civil or criminal. And I am done with my time. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. That is a misrepresentation of my testimony. 

Mr. LABRADOR. We now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, 

Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Thank you very much. 

Welcome, Director Saldan ̃a, and I thank you. I have been listening to the testimony up in my office that you presented here today. 

And I guess I am very interested in this DHS civil immigration 

enforcement priorities, this card. So you say you carry this card 

with you? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Has it been entered into the record? The card? 

I would like to officially enter the card. And who has this card 

with them? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. All our officers that are out there making these decisions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. All of your officers. So all of your ICE agents 

have this card with them? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Generally. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And it states the priorities of the Administration. 

Let me ask you something. Does the lawsuit in the Fifth Circuit 

have any implication in terms of your ability to carry out these enforcement priorities? 
89 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. The one in south Texas deals only with expanded 

DACA and the initiation of DAPA. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. It only has an impact on expanded DACA and 

DAPA. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. And that is my sister agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And that is your sister. So it doesn’t have any 

impact on these priorities. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Not on enforcement. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And these are the priorities that were issued by 

the Secretary of Homeland Security on November 20 of last year? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. So those are still in place? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. And you are carrying them out. 

So a couple of things. Number one, there is concern among those 

of us that have advocated for a changing of the priorities and then 

thankful for the changing of the priorities. In terms of making sure 

that there is a clear line between ICE and immigration and local 

police departments. We understand that you have a new program 

that you have yet to unveil. PEP, I think you are calling it. We look 

forward to that program. 

I just want to state for the record: I think if somebody is selling 

drugs, somebody is gang-banging, somebody is out there murdering, somebody is doing harm, somebody is creating or committing a serious felony, I think we should just lock them up, give 

them a fair trial. But, if he is found guilty, sentence him, jail him, 

and, as soon as he has finished his jail time, deport him immediately from the United States of America. 

Now that is very different than if I am driving my children to 

school, I have been here on extended period of time, they are American citizens, and had a tail light out; which unfortunately Secure 

Communities and many local law enforcement departments were 

using. They were using Secure Communities as simply another way 

of going out and taking their immigration policies locally and saying, ‘‘Well, we are going to arrest everybody that we know lives at 

this trailer park that probably is undocumented and works in this 

community.’’ 

And then, hand them over to you without any discretion. 

So I am happy to hear the clarifications you made before and the 

clarifications you have made today in terms of making sure that 

there is a difference and that local jurisdiction—because, many of 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will always say that 

the experiments of democracies are always best conducted at the 

local level of government. 

Well, at local level of government in Chicago and throughout jurisdictions in the United States of America, we do not want immigration policy carried out by our local police department. We think 

that that creates a division between the population and their safety 

and their security and the police department’s ability to be able to 

carry out. When they say serve and protect, we want them to know 

that it is to serve and protect. 

So I am very happy to see that you brought this list of priorities 

that each of the agents, because a group of us last week put out 
90 

this Family Defender Toolkit that we are issuing. People can 

download it from my website and from the websites of other Members of Congress. And at the bottom, it says, and you can tear this 

out, it says, ‘‘Do not deport me because I am eligible for DACA or 

DAPA.’’ 

And then we put, and we give all of the things that people should 

put together just in case, because I think this is wonderful. You 

take the Gutierrez Toolkit on the one hand and you put the birth 

certificates of your American citizen children, for example, and you 

put your work history and you put your VISA or your ID from your 

country, and if you get stopped by one of the agents, he looks at 

this. You have got the information, you have put them together, 

and you are not a priority for deportation. 

I think that is the kind of discretion we should be using. Now, 

again, just so that we don’t get confused, if you are driving your 

car and you are drunk, you go to jail and you get deported. If there 

is a tail light out and you are taking your children to the emergency room because they are sick, then you should be able to proceed if you can prove that you are not a threat to this society and 

not a threat. 

I will just end with this and I thank the gentlewoman for 

being—— 

Look, Director Saldan ̃ a, you have got a tough job. You have got 

to keep the criminals at bay but, at the same time, you have to 

have an immigration policy that protects American families from 

the devastating effects of our broken immigration system. And I 

thank you for your testimony and for your incredible service to our 

Nation as a U.S. Attorney and, today, as the Director of ICE. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I recognize the gentleman from Florida. 

Oh, sorry, Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Director, for being here. 

On November 20, Judge Andrew Hanen, I know you are familiar 

with the case and the order, but he said, ‘‘This temporary injunction enjoins the implementation of the DAPA program and to the 

three expansion’s additions to the DACA program, also contained 

in the DAPA memorandum.’’ He said, ‘‘It does not enjoin the previously instituted 2012 DACA program except for the expansions 

created in the November 20, 2014 DAPA memorandum.’’ 

There was an advisory, a DHS advisory, that said, and is dated 

March 3, specifically between November 24, 2014 and the issuance 

of the court’s order USCIS granted 3-year periods of deferred action 

to approximately 100,000. We now know that was 108,081 individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 

DACA guidelines and were otherwise determined to warrant such 

relief including the issuance of 3-year EADs for those 2012 DACA 

recipients who were eligible for renewal. 

These pre-injunction grants of 3-year periods of deferred action 

to those already eligible for 2012 DACA were consistent with the 

terms of the November guidance. Do you know who issued that November guidance that basically indicated that it would be okay to 

issue 3-year benefits? 
91 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. No, sir. You know, ICE does not have responsibility over the DACA and DAPA. That is our sister agency, Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. 

So you don’t care who issues the orders or the benefits that say 

you can’t do your job and deport people who are here illegally? You 

don’t care? You don’t look to see who is responsible for benefits that 

are violating a court order? You just say, ‘‘Oh, well, they have got 

the benefits even though it violated a court order. I don’t care if 

they are illegitimate?’’ 

You don’t care who issued those, the guidance or the illegal order 

or the illegal benefits in opposition to the court’s order? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I care about violations of court orders, sir, but that 

is not something that I was directed to do. That is those who confer 

the benefit, which is Citizenship and Immigration Services. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, but if someone has benefits that are fraudulent or illegal, do you say, ‘‘Oh, well, I guess we can’t deport these 

people because, even though they are fraudulent or illegal, I am 

going to recognize them because I never look beyond the face of the 

benefits that people that are illegally here have.’’ 

Surely, you don’t accept fraudulent or illegal benefits or visas, allowing people to stay, do you? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. No. I don’t like fraud. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I wouldn’t think so. So I come back to the 

original question. Your job is, in part, to deport people who are illegally here. Correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So let me just ask you, or don’t ever ask a why 

question, I want to know why you didn’t deport people who got 3- 

year benefits when those 3-year benefits were illegal. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am not aware of that being the fact. I have not 

seen anything that says that someone that was granted status or 

unlawful presence under the 108,000 has anything to do with me. 

We are enforcing the priorities. That is how we are going about our 

business. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, Judge Hanen made clear that, if this court 

had ruled according to government’s request as scheduled, it would 

rule without the court or the states knowing that the government 

had granted 108,081 applications despite its multiple representations to the contrary. Yet they, the government, stood silent. Even 

worse, they urged this court to rule before disclosing that the government had already issued 108,081 3-year renewals despite their 

statement to the contrary. 

If you don’t like fraud, does it bother you that your Homeland 

Security department that you work for has actually instigated a 

fraud upon the United States District Court for the southern district of Texas? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Representative Gohmert, with all due respect, I 

would appreciate you not yelling. I will answer your question as 

well as I can but I would tell you that—— 

Mr. GOHMERT.—Dilatory answer but I would like an answer. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. If I may? 

That whole issue of the 108,000, as you said, is in the middle of 

litigation. I cannot comment on that. I don’t represent the entire 
92 

panoply of Federal agencies coming within the United States of 

America. I can only speak to questions regarding ICE, and I am 

glad to do so if you have got one that connects the subject to ICE. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I asked the question but, Mr. Chairman, I 

would like to ask unanimous consent to give her one more chance? 

You are telling us in this hearing you have no idea where the 

November guidance came from that authorized 3-year benefits? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. As they say in Federal court, ‘‘asked and answered.’’ 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I just want to make sure, because I don’t believe 

that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Ms. Saldan ̃ a, just really quickly to correct the 

record. We heard from Mr. Gutierrez, who was very eloquent on 

this issue and is very good at making statements here in our proceedings. We heard that we are deporting a lot of people here that 

are with traffic offense but, yet, we should be deporting people with 

DUIs. 

Are you aware that over 13,000 people were released out of custody last year because of DUIs? In the previous year, it was 15,000 

people. So between the 2 years we have had close to 30,000 people 

being released into the United States because of the orders of this 

president with DUI convictions. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, I don’t know specifically the numbers you 

are talking about but I will tell you that, I explained earlier, that 

a good portion of those are court ordered releases. The others are 

made on a case-by-case basis depending on an individuals—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. But you are aware that this close to 30,000 people have been released from ICE custody with DUI convictions 

order? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I presume you are looking at something we provided you. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right, thank you very much. 

And now, I yield the time to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Hi, Director. Thank you for coming. 

November 20, Secretary Johnson issued the memorandum establishing priorities for apprehension, detention and removal of illegal 

aliens. My first question is, if an alien was illegally present in the 

United States but did not fall within the enforcement priorities, 

would that alien still be subject to removal? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. It could be, because, as I pointed out earlier, there 

is a provision in here that says even if someone doesn’t meet the 

priorities but you believe they are threat to public safety, you are 

permitted to go forward with that to speak to your supervisor and 

see if a different decision should be made in that instance. 

That is a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. DESANTIS. So if somebody is not in one of the criteria, you 

obviously would need some affirmative evidence that they were a 

threat to public safety. I mean there are people who are threats 

that we just may not have evidence for. So the absence of evidence 
93 

doesn’t mean they are not a threat, but in that situation, if there 

is no evidence, then under these enforcement priorities there would 

be no action whatsoever against that individual who was here illegally. Correct? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. If there is no evidence of a threat, that is correct. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. 

How many aliens who did not fall within the priorities have been 

arrested, detained, and removed from the United States since Secretary Johnson announced those policies on November 20? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, as I said earlier, they did not go into, at least 

with the apprehension and removal guidance did not go into effect 

until January 5. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. 

So do you know since January 5, do you have a number or is it 

something you could get for us? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I think I can get it for you, sir. 

Mr. DESANTIS. If you could do that and get it for us, we would 

appreciate that. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I would be glad to. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Has anyone in DHS determined how many removable aliens fall within the priorities for removal set forth in the 

November 20 memo? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. At large? In general? 

Mr. DESANTIS. That is correct. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. The estimated 11 million? 

Mr. DESANTIS. Right. What percentage of that would fall in the 

enforcement priorities? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I am not aware of a study in that regard. I can 

find that, but I am not aware of one. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And is it your opinion that you really couldn’t determine that? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. On 11 million? 

It would take a long time. 

Mr. DESANTIS. What do you think? I mean, what would be the 

ballpark? Could you get us into the ballpark just so we know the 

numbers we are dealing with? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. I think we are now in the area of pure speculation, 

sir. I am sorry. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. 

So if you can just give us whatever, I mean, if there has been 

anything done with that, that would be great. 

Is ICE going to do anything to remove aliens who receive a final 

order of removal before January 4, 2014? 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Do anything? 

Again, as I said, if that person doesn’t meet the priorities, as in 

someone who was here before January 1, 2014, if they are a public 

safety threat, yes. We can act on that to put them into removal procedures. But generally speaking, they don’t fit one of the priorities. 

And unless we have some, as I said earlier—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. So that should have even if so somebody has already received a final order of removal, say December 2013, it has 

gone through the system, the law has been enforced, you then 

would say, unless there is additional evidence, that the person 
94 

could propose a threat to society, that order of removal is essentially rescinded. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Well, keep in mind that there is always a process 

through the immigration courts that someone can even go and contest that order. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Right, but let us put that aside. So from the enforcement perspective, anything before January 1, 2014, it is final 

order of removal if not accompanied by evidence of a threat to public safety, that would mean that ICE would simply move on. 

Ms. SALDAN ̃ A. Or national security. That is correct. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. LABRADOR. All right, thank you. 

Well, thank you very much, Madam, for your time and for your 

service to the Nation. And I know you have been getting it from 

both sides here so it has been an interesting hearing. 

This concludes today’s hearing. 

Thanks to our witness for attending. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. 

The hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(95) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
96 

Material submitted by the Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Illinois, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary 

f 
97 

Response to Questions for the Record from the Honorable Sarah R. 

Saldan ̃ a, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 

Æ