[background sounds] regular betty could find their seats. We are now delighted to welcome our final witnesses. We thank you for coming today. We thank you for your patience. We are joined by Timothy S Robbins the acting associate director for enforcement and removal operations in the us immigrations company enforcement in the department of homeland concert security and daniel, the associate director for Field Operations director at the us citizenship and immigration immigration system. The witness it would be please rise and raise her right hand. I will begin by swearing human. The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. The record shows that the witnesses were all affirmative. That went out objection you entire written statements are part of the record and that went out, director robbins, you know now recognize to give a presentation of your testimony. Chairman rosman, Ranking Member roy and distinguished member of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. And clarify any public confusion arises role in this matter. As was stated in recent correspondence, from us eis, eight dhs may issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings on section 240 of the immigration and national act. Before immigration judge, against removable aliens. It is critical to understand that ice may only remove an alien from the United States when an alien hasnt issued a final removal order. Such orders are the result of a process provided for by law during which an alien has the opportunity to avail himself of a variety of procedural safeguards and to speak certain forms from removal. For example, in a alien in section 240 removal proceedings has a right to be represented by counsel to seek continuances and it can fit fast remove ability to apply for relief, to view and examine and object to a government evidence and witnesses into an appeal sent decisions to the board of immigration appeals. All while having the proceedings judge. Simultaneously translated at government expense into language that the alien understands. There are currently over 920,000 aliens in ina section 240 removal sections nationwide. Ice has broad discretion and exercise that discretion is appropriate. On a casebycase basis, throughout the Immigration Enforcement process, and a variety of ways. For instance, discretion may be exercised in the course of deciding which aliens to arrest. Which aliens to release from custody and in the removals proceedings what position of ice will be on a claim motion or appeal made by an alien in immigration court. And which aliens will be prioritized for removal. Ice does not exercise discretion on a categorical basis to exempt entire groups, 70 aliens from Immigration Laws enacted by congress. Deferred action, is the discretionary act of an administrative convenience by which dhs may be leg or declined to exercise Immigration Enforcement authority, in a given case. Its not a legal benefit and provides no lawful immigration status. In the United States. Ice does not accept applications for deferred action. However, consistent we put federal regulations and alien who become subject to a final removal, such as when his or her ina section 240 removal sit proceedings include. They may apply to ice removal using for my two his 46 application for say. A state of removal may only be saw it on by aliens subject final orders of removal. Ice will consider all relevant factors in deciding mother to issue a savory mill including a medical basis for this request. However, such assays are considered solely in isis discretion on a casebycase basis. Thank you again for inviting me today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have on ice his role in this matter. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss we put deferred action. In addition to the adjudication of applications and petition the required facetoface interviews, such as adjustment of status and naturalization, Field Operations is the directorate responsible for making decisions on certain deferred action request, made to us eis field offices, for both military deferred action and on military deferred action which of the subject todays hearing. My director does not decide applications or renewal roles of deferred application for child or children pride or other deferred action report was such as those related to the tea or you are class occasions. The asset, i want to restate what dhs related to the Committee Last evening. Because of a lawsuit has been filed against us eis, regarding the issues being discussed at todays hearing. I will be limited in what information i can provide in response to questions today. Deferred action is the discretionary act the administrative convenience by which deep hs and a delay or decline to exercise Immigration Enforcement authorities. In a given case. Deferred action is discretionary decision made on a casebycase basis. Deferred action its not an emigration of it or specific forum of relief. It is the decision not to act. Deferred action does not provide lawful immigration status. It does not excuse any periods, of an all lawful presence before or after the deferred action begins. Importantly, deferred action can be terminated at any time. At the agency his discretion. To better lying us eis we put his mission of administrating our nations lawful immigration system, on august 7th, 2019, us eis determined that field offices would no longer accept requests buying nonmilitary persons for deferred action. To be clear, this does not mean the end of all types of deferred action. This redirection of Agency Resources does not affect docket which remains in effect according to the nationwide injunction, while cases go through the court system. It also does not affect other deferred action request process at us eis service centers, on statute or on policy regulations or quarters. Keep in mind the us eis not enforce owners of removal. As deferred action is largely a Law Enforcement tool, used to lay removal from United States, they do not historical received many. For the past few years, us yes coverage received very few rate deferred request military. Received by us eis, are due to Family Support for medical reasons. This has been incorrectly reported or mischaracterized by the media as a medical deferred action program. To be clear, us eis does not and has never administered medical deferred action program. Again, deferred action relates to military families not affected by the audit august 7th redirection resources and consideration of those cases is ongoing. In addition, all cases that were denied in august 7, 2019, are being reopened and reconsidered. Again, i want to emphasize that because a lawsuit has been filed against us eis regarding different action, it will be limited in what information i can provide in response to questions today. I can tell you that i have had the privilege of working for us eis and its predecessor center of Immigration Services for 31 years. Im extremely proud of the work and professionalism i see every day. Service to our nation and i will answer your questions the best i can given the current litigation. Thank you. Thank you. Im going to begin by recognizing missus schultz to do the questions. Just one question before she starts, or both of you able to watch the witnesses and the fire panel. The. Some but not all. Yes or. Thank you mr. Chairman, chairman welcome, thank you to the Oversight Committee. We heard the argument today, that ice his ability to provide Administrative States of final deed of partition is sufficient to take the place of the deferred action process but that is just not true. An individual can only request an Administrative State of removal from ice after that person is completed paperwork. They may pay significant consequences for future benefits. Ice is also does not grant benefits as Work Authorization eligibility for Health Benefits and finally, i sit administered its days are only available in one year increments. Do you agree that an administrative say of removal from ice does not provide the same benefits to immigrants as the deferred action process at ics. I cant speak as to the benefits that it provided based on his statement it can tell you that prosecutor discretion, we use it from a point of arrest throughout the enforcement. Why cant you speak to the benefits. But i just laid out accurate as far as your understanding question. My understanding is that and i would have to deferred my colleagues when it comes to employment authorization, we do not adjudicate employment authorization we do say requests. We adjudicate them on a casebycase basis. And their only available in one year increments permit. It could be less than one year. We do not. Or eligibility for Health Benefits. We do not. Through the process, you do grant those things correct. Think every question, if someone were to receive deferred action, they have the opportunity to apply for employment authorization. It is the discretionary decision made on this case basis. Also potentially eligible to work Health Benefits as well in that process. They would be applying for deferred action. Im sorry cant speak to both of they are eligible for Health Benefits. We do not provide a. Not on a deportation order process. Correct . We do not adjudicate Health Benefits so i would not be able to answer that. Although you would not come right out and say, in detail you have just described that they are quite different and one provides benefits and the other just its not. One program is longer than one year potentially and the other its not. In fact before us eis into the deferred action process, they could apply before being ordered removed. Us can also provide a family we put Work Authorizations, allowing them to super themselves while the child receive the treatment they need. Us eis deferral lacks up to two years which allows for greater certainties for these families. Finally a person granted by its not considered to be unlawfully present in the United States which can be an important factor in future immigration proceedings. Mr. Do you believe those are meaningful differences . Not having expertise in Administrative States im not able to differentiate between the two forms. Have i said anything inaccurate about the differences between the two processes. Again i cant confirm specifically. You are not familiar we put your own agency his procedures. It is us eis able to provide families we put artWork Authorizations. While the wait for the childrens to get the treatment they need . As ive testified, someone who is the recipient of deferred action, any individual for any reason who happens to have deferred action. And it does last up to two years correct . Deferred action is granted for periods not to exceed two years. Finally, do you agree that those are besides the fact that when he just outlined that there are meaningful differences, speaking to the differences in details, thats very clear, are either of you know aware my plans for ice to provide benefits to families who have critically ill children or other events that you shift to a process that has ice dealt we put this enforcement mechanism . Dhs is still considering a pathway forward and other internal discussions where not prepared to discuss. I appreciate making sure that the information that arose during this entire hearing, makes it very clear that what mr. Homan indicated was not accurate and that these are very distinct and different programs. One that provides a lengthy stay. And in the other is an enforcement action. I yelled back. I will recognize myself or five minutes now. Both of you gentlemen have done a good job describing the legal architecture of deferred action at least from the perspective of the agencies discretionary better thats conducted on a casebycase basis. You dont categorically exempt entire groups. If im reading you you correctly. But what i dont get, is what is the motivation behind new policy. What is the rationale. I know some of my republican colleagues were asking me to relay the sin same question. Why did all of this happened. Can i other of you answer that. Unfortunately, we are not going to be old to answer that because of the ongoing litigation. We are not able to respond that today. What is the new policy as you understand it. There is so much confusion around it. Because of the litigation specifically, encumbers what the current policy is, as you know informed last evening by a letter, these are areas we are not going to be able to that im not going to be held to discuss. You cant tell me why theres a new one or what motivated it and you cant only we put the new policy is. Is that a correct assessment . That is my testimony, yes. Lets say mr. Robbins will become due, i can see theres an effort to find some shelter for the government and the idea of prosecutor to discretion. Over the prosecutorial and if it be in removing from the country departing from the country, the young person who has Cystic Fibrosis or cancer or another serious disease. So i think its safe that weekend agree that when it comes to very sympathetic cases, that is exactly what discretion is for. Ice his enforcing Immigration Law, has always use discretion and will always use discretion. What changed. I assume you saw the anxiety and pain these families are going through. What changed. Currently ice does not have a process, navigation processor adjudicated process or an affirmative stays of deferred action. We use our press israel discretion from a rest for removal then we have the ability to adjudicate say requests in this application process for that. And therefore, what is the answer to my question. What has changed. I cant speak to the rationale or what has changed in regard to the adjudication of the deferred action requested gis, i would ask that to my colleagues. Would you agree that theres been a change in the mood thats produce the writing of these letters. I cant. I cant answer that question. Homeland security just to reverse this whole disastrous road that went on when a sent out those letters. We are currently having ongoing discussions we put dhs of the outer pathway forward. When it comes to deferred action and we are just not prepared to comment on that. Those discussions are ongoing. I appreciate your candor and honesty about that. Can i just tell you, i know i speak for a lot of colleagues, certainly in my side of the aisle and i suspect that i dont want to say for sure the other side of the aisle. This really is the moral crisis in the country. I understand your describe numbers of people affected in terms of the overall number of people when he got a deal we put it. Understand that that but it is still a thousand more people and as representatives in congress, we hear from them. And their families and its our job to take into account those reallife situations. Anything that weekend do to work we put the administration to reverse this, to enter into discussions about new regulation or new legislation to bring greater clarity and transparency to the process. I think youd find a lot of support here. But the United States of america is the big country. It is the great country and it is the big heart. When the people of america see this kind of testimony, and we know they were in a very forefront of medical and scientific progress in the world, people come to america to get their lives saved, not to get their lives messed up. I think thats why its caused such crisis and anxiety not to just in the family, but across the country and in congress when we see this thing done in the name of our people. Let me just ask you finally, when will you be ready to conclude your deliberations we put or that went out our assistance and when will you be ready to answer a committee about what is the precise policy going forward. Mr. Robbins. I want him to be able to give you an answer when the conversation will conclude. Those conversations are ongoing and i dont have an answer. Can you refer us that none of the people that we saw today on the situation, will be removed from the country until you get back to us we put a policy as to what the policy is. I can assure you that when it comes to ice in our discretion, the people that the population, correct me if im strong, these are affirmative actions. They are not in proceedings. They are currently, not a population that we currently target but i do not have an exhaustive list of those people. Of actually who has previously applied for deferred action. And you can assure us, they are not targeting anyone in a situation removal at this. I can assure you that enforcing Immigration Law is the very devote responsibly the ices does very professionally and we put the passion. This is the very vulnerable population that is never been, we would use prosecutor discretion on cases very similar to these. I cant speak to these specific cases because i do not have the facts. I cant assure you that every case that is applied through cs Deferred Program or process, would not be removed. I just dont know all of the cases. I appreciate the fact that you know telling me you are not ready really to articulate what the policy is. But i want you to know that we are going to be zealous and diligent as the Oversight Committee and making sure the people in the situation have their rights and its rest consider consistent we put the values of the American People. [applause] thank you. I recognize now ms. Presley for five minutes. Hello gentlemen, i think we were able to have a committee today. I understand there was some frustration we put the urgency we put which we are asking all of you to come but i can you assure you that whatever inconvenience you may have experience certainly compares in pale in comparison that the letters have imposed on immigrant children and families. Im sure you both know the last month that i alone almost a hundred and 30 of my colleagues sent a letter to your agencies demanding the reversal to end the processing of deferred action. Can you confirm both of your agencies will be meeting reading the questions responding to our deadline of september 14th . I cant speak specifically about that. I cannot confirm. I did not receive a letter directly but i know we take those letters very seriously. Are you on the same this impression is robbins. Yes maam. Simple yes or no question. Again you know on the record year. This is the policy change that was a result from any highranking political appointee at the white house. I am not able to discuss the reasons for any change. Can you submitted in writing if you cant do it here an official record. I believe the issue that we are pending litigation, i can certainly go back and consult we put the legal team and determine both of we can provide that in writing. What office to disconfirm . Internal department which one did it come from . Im not sure that i can answer that question. You cannot answer the genesis of this policy. Maam im not an attorney i dont pretend to understand or know all of the aspects of law. When attorneys asked me or instruct me that there are some things we do are being in a litigation that you should not speak on than i will abide by that. I would just make my request again that you respond to the letter by the deadline that we have already submitted that outlines the number of questions that gets to not only our request but better understanding the origins of this policy. Also if you can respond to the questions that i am asking to you now. If you cant do it here. Officially. On the record. Okay. I understand. Very good. Now we are publicly ashamed. How many requests have your Agency Process since september 2nd announcement. Can you tell me how many you processed . Since september 2nd, we have not done any for nonmilitary. What is the criterion which is requests will be processed and have your agency ensure that there is no retaliation against applicants is and more. Again as mike kelly testified, what is the path forward is frankly the subject of litigation also and it is delivered at this. Can you provide a timeline which families can expect to hear . I know this is important and obviously an important issue, but i cannot give a definitive timeline. So these family heirs are just hanging in the balance. Can you provide a timeline in the letter that you will be responding to by september 14th . I do not know the answer to that question. What is the geographic breakdown of where these patients are currently residing in the us and are there particular areas that are more impacted. Im trying to see if there are any trends here. Some of the challenges we put how historically we have been looking at deferred action request, is that we do not have a forum, there is no fee, for the the grant of deferred action. We do not have a system in which you put these in. Data related to the basis for the request, which do vary, or the geographic distribution, we cannot be precise. In response to that question. Just to reiterate again, to be clear, the deadline to respond to the letter that was submitted, signed by nearly hundred and 30 of my colleagues, deadline is this friday. And again can you commit to answering our questions by then for the record. I think ive answered it, that we will do our best. I have not seen the letter, i do not know frankly if we received it yet. But i know that we take those letters seriously and obviously it is the serious let issue and we will do what we can to provide an answer. A moment ago you said is in your expense that you do respond by deadlines. So lets not create a new president. I look forward to your responses. The time is expired thank you, are recognized for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman on think the witnesses and i, your comment about moral crisis mr. Chairman, i think is important for all of us to think about individually and collectively. I am reminded of my favorite quotes from dante, when he says the hottest places in hell are reserved for individuals who remain neutral in times of moral crisis. I try to think about the people we have interacted we put your agency in san francisco, and how difficult it must be to carry out a policy and that turns out to cause the kind of anguish you shame across. Testified that when she got the letter from your department would you oversee as i understand department, her mother vomited in the hospital. And i cried because they knew that was a death sentence. How you respond that is a humane being . These are not easy jobs for us in the field. I was asking for you personally. You have the title you oversee this. Was it a mistake . I am certainly empathetic. Was that letter a mistake question or a waiter for my colleagues on the republican side. This policy was an active mistake. You think it was mistake . I am an operator, i am not a policy maker. Operationally, michael is is it too common a policy to the extent we can make it operationally sees feasible or to indicate when its not operationally feasible. I am not in a position professionally to pass judgment on both of i like or dont like a statute. A regulation or policy. Those are some of the hardest times in my career and it in those of the people work we put me, we are required to grant the benefit to someone we believe is the threat or we leave and secure to be of benefit through fraud despite our best effort. It is also hard when we have to say no to someone we put a very. I was asking specifically about a person. Are you implying that she is the threat to National Security . I am not implying that. No. You have said that you cant answer questions because of litigation. But weve been told by Supreme Court, the private litigation shouldnt inhabit your testimony in our investigation. Have you been told that by your attorney . That the Supreme Court actually contradicts the legal advice you are getting question and more. I was not told that by the attorney. Maybe should get your own attorney. Do you know who made the decision to stop accepting the processing deferred action request on august 7th the alleged letter . As you just indicated that is something that is on litigation and im not able to respond to. What role did the acting director play . Thats essentially the same question that im not able to answer. Mr. Robbins, was anyone at ice involved in the decision . Not that i am aware of. Why didnt you make any public announcement or communicate we put congress about the decision. I think that the nature of the announcement is also on litigation. So to gaza, i am not able to answer that. Did you do any internal studies about how many critical little children or adults might die because of a result to be forced to leave in the United States of this new policy question. I think its important to note that the denial of deferred action does not force the removal of any individual. No individuals to the best of my knowledge and even then issued a notice to appear which removes the procedural good last months or longer. I dont believe that if you are asking for we had an answer for many people would be impacted by this, we had an idea of a number of size of the population who received deferred action, but again, the reasons why, process was change, im not at liberty to say at this time. Before the letter was sent out, was there any discussion anywhere, about the consequences of that letter and in the case of my constituent that she existed and this might be to her removal from the country which meant a death sentence according to her dr. Is anyone aware of that . Again the letter did not order their departure from the United States. I think that your question is missing a few steps in the process. They could choose not to issue and that person would never be in proceedings. Have you ever issued this letter we put the content before . We have issued denial notices. In fact we have historically denied about half of the deferred action request that we receive. The question earlier from one of the members that indicated that we see about a thousand a year. Thats about a thousand applicants per year. We have denied the majority of those in the data that i see. Thank you of the time is expired. Thank you. The Supreme Court has ruled several times that ongoing litigation its not solid grounds for a sustained answer to congressional questions. Why are you siding on that. I am not prepared or capable of arguing legal precedent we put you. I am here representing the agency. So why did the agency change the policy. Is again as i mentioned earlier, that is something on litigation. This is been sued, this very question has been sued on, we dont have to debate it. That ongoing litigation its not grounds to resist an answer to a congressional question so i will ask again. Why did ice change the policy . Im going to answer again, at the advice of counsel, im not able to discuss that information. What reason are you siding. The advice of counsel, i am not answering that question. I hope you understand. I dont know oils to say. Typically when we consider a class benefit application, we will provide the opportunity to augment the record if there is additional evidence needed. Will reopen the cases be evaluated using the same standards and process that your agency previously applied to request for deferred action . That question im not able to answer. You cannot answer if you will be using the same standards that you used before . I cannot answer about questions regarding what standards we will be using going forward. Will field officers still follow the process outlined in uscis Standard Operating Procedures or will there be a new procedure . I dont know. I m. Able to answer that i think, i just dont know the answer. That depends on what the process will be. Its important to note i know it cannot last hearing standard operating procedure. That describes the mechanics of how to process the case. It isnt a guide to the use of discretion. Will uscis impose any limits or caps on the number of deferred action cases the need be granted from the open cases . I dont know the answer to that question. The september 2 announcement stated as uscis the production caseload is reduced, the employees that decide such cases will be more available to address other types of Legal Immigration cases. The media reports indicates uscis receives only about a thousand medical deferred action request each year. Theres about 19,000 employees and contractors that handle hundreds of thousands requesting this each year. So, are these 1,000 requests such a large burden that they ty justified in being deferred action for people with serious life and death medical conditions entirely and risking their lives . As you know, speaking to the language in the letter, uscis has a sizable workload and a thousand eager action requests out 2,000 actual location applications in terms of workload. So di to the 2,000 people becaue and actualize, those cases are pretty important numbers as well. Mr. Chair, i think its important that we acknowledge here that we are getting open resistance citing the legitimate legal grounds, no legal grounds for resisting the answers to these congressional inquiries, no insight into the past rationale for the decision deci, little to no insight to the future of the positions. This is a threat even to the rule of law when it comes to u. S. Immigration policy. How can people be in compliance for making effort to be in compliance with the law if they dont know what that is or will be in the future . With that, thank you for your comments. It allows me to close with another five minutes of questioning, and i invite my colleagues that want to pursue. We learned a lot from the first panel how this traditionally works and what peoples expectations are. I think a lot of us felt great pride that america can play this role for kids around the world. We are seeing a little bit of a different america on display right now in this discussion of the chaotic and inscrutable rollout, and i dont mean to put all the blame on the two of you. I know this must be an uncomfortable setting for you to be. You can set to defend policies that it doesnt appear words or idea in the first place, but i do have a few final questions i want to try to pursue with you. Our colleague, mr. Heise cited some numbers and that is the data that ive ever seen before and i just wondered can you share whatever they do is working from with us, or did that come from another source . I dont know, mr. Robbins . Im not familiar with the data that was discussed. Did you know . I would have to go back and look at the hearing, but certainly if theres data, we can share the data. Okay. Lets see, to be cleared can you tell us who made the decision uscis would stop the processing of deferred action requests on august 7 . Because of litigation and at the advice of counsel, im not able. For the reasons that ms. Ocasiocortez cited, it is irrelevant to the statement of the fact, so that is an establishment. Can you tell us whether the acting director of uscis played a role on this . Sir, with all due respect, we sent a letter to the committee yesterday outlining how this testimony would go. [inaudible] i appreciate that you appreciate we had a difficult situation, but it shouldnt be unknown to you that why or how we are in this situation, so no, im not able to answer. This is a great mystery to me. Ordinarily, when we ask the government witnesses to come in, they are prepared to answer questions of the committee and tell where the policies came from. Ive been baffled. Ive never seen a situation like this before. For the record if you cant answer that, thats fine. Can you tell us what role the acting director of the uscis played . No sir, im not able to. Can you tell us what role the acting secretary played . Can you tell us what role anybody at the white house including steven miller, the architect of immigration policy at the white house played . No sir. Can they tell us why the policy was developed and where it arose from the work of the policy is coming and i just want to be clear for the record this is basically where you are. I remember learning in school the five critical ingredients of history are the five w. s. Who, what, why, when and where. I want to make sure that its the case that you cant answer any of these. Can you tell us why we have a new policy . Mr. Renaud, can you tell us why we have the new policy of rejecting the medical deferred action . Because of the pending lawsuit and that the advice of counsel can you tell me who ordered the policy . I cannot. Can you tell me where the policy came from . For the same reason i cannot. Can you tell me when the policy was developed or when it will be finalized . No sir. And can you tell me what the policy is . Because of the pending litigation, im not able to share that. Im afraid to say this is the perfect Trump Administration public policy. We dont know where it comes from. We dont know why we have it. We dont know who came up with it. We dont know when it was adopted or even if it was adopted, and we dont know what it is. And again, i dont mean to make you the asphalt guy. Obviously youve been sent to testify but it is the occasion for great frustration of the congress of the United States for the representatives of the people. Can you tell me how many received the maya letters because the policy change, mr. Renaud . That i can tell you. 424 denial notices were sent on or after august 7. And how many have been reopened . All 424. If you were still trying to figure out what the policy is, why not then re open all of the requests including the ones that came after . Essentially, we did. There were approximately 791 pending requests on august 7. The proceeded to deny 424, andaman and in the balance, 300something. We didnt take any action on those. They remain pending. The 424 that we denied, weve reoffend. So all the cases pending on august 7 are now open active requests for deferred action. And after august 7, are people still facing this 33 day cutoff . At this point, no one there never was a 33day cutoff, and that was talked about a lot. We come as someone on the Previous Panel indicated, i think they used the word boilerplate. We used standard languag languan some of our denial notices. We have a standard process, whereby if we are issuing a status denial or a denial of someone who is removable from the United States or appears to be removable from the United States, any kind of status, we include a statement indicating that essentially in 33 days we will review their case and see if they have departed and if they have not departed, then we will make a determination whether to continue on those proceedings. That is an opportunity where we can exercise prosecutorial discretion and decided not to issue a notice to appear in which case the proceedings would not begin, so that is the context. Nobody was given 33 days to leave or else. Okay. Thank you for the answer. My time is expired. Im going to recognize the gentle lady from massachusetts for another five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair. I wish i could say that its an incredible surprised at the lack of responsiveness here, but it is for the course of this administration that we often have witnesses that come before us and i cant quote anything other than what it is, stonewalling. It is obstructing and i just want to make something clear. This isnt about your answering just to this committee. You are answering to the American People and this emergency hearing was called because of a rallying cry. A public outcry. An outrage. The chair man rightfully says it is unfair to make you all the fault of guys, but its not right to defend the policy not because you dont have the answers but because the policy is indefensible. But nevertheless, we persist. Let me pick up on the 33 days i want to talk about Jonathan Sanchez from my district who endured a great not knowing what life holds for him in the future or if he will be able to preserve and maintain his life anenduring the demoralizing environment by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If he could deal with that, you can deal with this. Mr. Sanchez testified earlier with Cystic Fibrosis but doctors in congress didnt even know with Cystic Fibrosis was. Im not sure if you heard the testimony with his youngest sister died as a result of the Cystic Fibrosis. To arrange for travel, medical equipment and the many other steps that would be needed to transport a child to another country, simply put is a death sentence for many of these patients. When the administration decided to end the production was any thought put into what would happen to the critically ill children and their families . It applies to all cases which i described earlier we would provide people a standard peer co. Of time by which, at which time we would review their case and determine whether it was appropriate in the governments best interest to issued a notice to appear. On the timeframe in that timt specific window considered sufficient giving insinuating circumstance and fragility of these individuals medical state. There would be coming at the end of those days it would be to offer prosecutorial discretion at about the notice to appear when uscis ordered jonathan to leave the country in 33 days, did you consider the fact that treatment for tha the disease is unavailable in honduras . We didnt order anyone to leave the country. Its not our goal got back to the written testimony i described what it idescribewhat. It doesnt order people to leave the country. Its inconsistent with the families testified for their experiences. The letter that you sent said do you feel the department of the United States and 33 days of receipt of the letter uscis may issue a notice to appear in common proceedings against the immigrations. In what sense are you not threatening to remove people from the country. They may be issued a notice to appear with all due respect we are talking about people that have Cystic Fibrosis, Childhood Cancer and so on your sending it in the change of policy that indicates that they are going to be removed or have a heavy likelihood of being removed from the country. I wont yield another 30 seconds to the colleagues. For the questions that youve not answered based on pending litigation, do you actually know the answers to those questions . Do you know the answers and you are not sharing them or you dont know . Do you know the answers to the questions ive asked . I understand your question. I was trying to decide if i knew. I do not know the answers to all of your questions. To any of them . To any of the questions that i asked regarding the genesis of the policy, was it orde it ordea political appointee, what office did this come from, how many cases have been processed, do you know the answers to any of those questions . I certainly think that without a pending lawsuit, i would be able to provide additional information. I will yield. The gentle lady yields have become to mr. For five minutes. As i mentioned in the first panel weve been to the border three times this year everybody that ive run into has been a pinnacle of professionalism. Everybody has exhibited 100 of people in the country that are not citizens. It is the othe goes the other we medical care that wouldnt even be available to american citizens. I would like to thank you for all that your agencies do. Looking at this letter that they are talking about, it appears to me that it was a foreign letter do you think that is true . Specifically when you send this letter did you know she had a medical condition . You know i dont know the answer to that question. I would like to say yes but we probably pulled up the case and looked at it. People wont be kicked out of the country is that accurate . I think its accurate to say that in my career and experience when you run into a situation similar to the individuals that were here earlier you can agree with me or not agree with me on that if you have two people brought before this committee today brought all the way from washington, d. C. And told they should be scared to death on a practical matter they are not i think it is a little but appalling. Do either of you believe these individuals will be kicked out of this country . I cant speak to the individuals i cant see them being removed in the future but i cant speak to the specific cases. Case is similar to that as far as isis is concerned we would use discretion on whether we arrest. Do either of you believe that they have been kicked out or will be kicked out of the country . I do not believe that. I believe whats going on here today for political reasons to embarrass President Trump have brought people in here that are not going to be kicked out of the country that scare country e temptebut scare them todeath toe kicked out of the country. I will give you another question. The their parents or in other countries and do they immediately send them back to the reunited with their parents or do they try to tolerate putting them in this country . They have due process, and that due process is available to everyone at legal in the country. So they can come away from their parents and right on the United States. There is due process for those. You have just a little while ago, am i correct in saying someone new about this when the letter was sent out on august 7. That is what you just testified. And remind you that she has asked for four times and accepted this. That is my best estimate of what happened. Someone under your direction and supervision pulled the file and new circumstances were. They understood that there were cases pending. I dont want to pretend or accused of individual or make it seem like that individual made a judgment call and a heartless way did what they did in people in their circumstance we are bound by the law. As we said sometimes we have to say yes to someone we would rather not because we think that there is fraud or misrepresentation or that there could be harmed to the country. It also means we have to say no to people but frankly we feel bad for and we empathize with. That is the hard work done by officers across the country every day. So, shes been approved for times in the past. You are going to look at the file again. Because of the guidelines of the discussion that has changed given shes been approved for times during this Administration Im not able to comment. Forgive me i thought you did comment and ask that you could not imagine that she could not be allowed to stay in the country or are you just changing the testimony . I agree and i defer to the expertise. That is what he said that he couldnt imagine the circumstances that someone would be denied. To think his constituents is the right to the medical services. I was referring to. What we remove someone in that situation i cannot speak to her specific situation i do not know the facts. Theres some kind of show and now we have answers saying there is a chance that they wont be removed and she was terrified long before she came into this committee and we didnt know anything about this. There is terror among people in extreme medical conditions. I liked it better when you said you couldnt testify. Dont say that there is no chance people are going to get kicked out of the country then turn around and tell that his constituents could get kicked out of the country. Im sorry that your time is restored. Do you care to respond . If you try to remove her knowing my constituents coming you better bring a lot of buses because a lot of us are going to be arrested trying to protect her. What i was trying to make clear if you would let me is i cannot judge this case here but what i said is in similar cases that have compassion and compelling humanitarian reason we use discretion and we will be continuing continuously. If there was a case similar to that, i cannot foresee a similar case being removed and placed into the proceedings that ultimately removed. I cant speak to her specific case because its unfair for me to try to adjudicate that in this room but i can say is our officers on a regular basis used discretion on very sympathetic cases and humanitarian compelling cases and our officers do it very well, professionally with compassion. I appreciate that. And im sorry about ethical people in Public Service have to go through this. And to me, this was not contrived the constituents came to me when we heard the testimony after hours of treatment. I do feel sorry for you gentlemen being placed here because i know the responsibility it is. But this is a heartless and cruel thing to set out and knowing somebody in your organization do what this would do if they are not going to justify and use a fake contrived defense and i dont know how the person with unhealthy find them individually. As my colleague said, they are responding to the american public. Somebody needs to be held accountable for doing this. And it needs to be corrected. To say that im disappointed as an american is an understatement i dont know where our level of fame or decency at the point where all of us can say a letter like this is not in the spirit of america whether you are republican or democrat and somebody should be held accountable. All of us like to think all we want to do is do a good job. I understand its a difficult position if people are career citizens and when the politicization we have reached a moral crossroad at the panel right before this one we heard from a teenage teenager whos td sister died because she couldnt have access to medication and he has the same disease that she does. And a young woman whos been in this country for 16 years, depending on medical treatment. Supporting her will kill her. This policy will murder her. We are trying to get to the bottom of the change and we have to ask you if you are siting council which has given you illegitimate reasons. The Supreme Court has ruled on this. Its not a debate. Let me see if i can summarize this testimony. If there is any last chance you want to change or answer you will not tell us who decided this policy or who thought it was a good idea you will not Tell Congress o that the white house ordered this policy. You will not Tell Congress whether you shared it with anyone before you put in place that you will not tell them why the policy was changed. You will not tell the congress with a future polic the future e or that the future, when that future policy will be announced in you will not Tell Congress what you plan to let these families with life and death diagnosis is that correct . I think of the balance is correct. The claims are based on this idea that theres ongoing litigation. The Supreme Court has ruled its never been the standard under the democratic or republican and original disorder. The constitution of the United States to conduct oversight on these conditions that will help people. I would say we should have the chance to enter by this friday. One question i have is who is your counsel, who advised to do this . I take counsel from dhs. In which individuals advised you to resist answering . I dont know who made that decision. Which individuals would do to do that, certainly some individual told you. Was it a letter, was at a meeting . I will take that back and get back with you. You wont even tell us who told you to defy the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court. I will take those questions back anback and if i can providi will be happy to. Thank you for agreeing to do that. I think that we need to have these questions by this friday. They are terrified, medications are on the line, and mr. Chairman, if i may we have no recourse but to consider discussing this if we dont. I want to thank those of you for coming and participating as much as you felt that you could give an institutional constraints operating under obviously this committee is not done with this issue at all. We will be in touch with next steps but we do look forward to working with you and we thank announcer we are leaving in ney where democratic president ial candidate Elizabeth Warren is going to deliver a speech on corruption, one of her campaign themes. This is Washington Square park in manhattan and you are watching live coverage on cspan. I am so proud to be in new york where the working party was born. Today we are a National Organization for members across the country, but new york will always be home for us. Helped take back the state senate from the corrupt, independent democratic conference. Control intoown donald trump for nearly a decade. Give it up. We took back our democracy. In the past few months the working Families Party had a deliberative process that