Transcripts For CSPAN Hearing On Deporting Critically Ill Kids 20240713

To the bottom get of the campaign to deport critically ill children and their families. It appears this policy has thankfully been reversed after congress and the American People outcry at the cold inhumanity on display in this policy. I am going to treat this hearing is not only an honor of the memory of our late beloved chairman, elijah cummings, but as a hearing indirect pursuit of a policy directive that was close to his heart, the threatened deportation of Sick Children that his very last official act before his death was to issue subpoenas to hold the administration to account. On wednesday, in the waning hours of his life through all pain and difficulty, chairman cummings recognized the stain this policy would leave on our nation, and he made holding the government accountable his final official act. And we now have a sacred obligation to follow through on his subpoenas to make sure that we defend some of the most Vulnerable People on the planet, Sick Children who have come as strangers to our land to seek medical assistance. Who have come, and strangers to our land to seek medical assistance. So to our Witnesses Today, i want to be clear, this follows chairman cummings promised to unearth the truth behind his policy and his desire to ensure that the policy is truly reversed and that our government treats people in this category with the dignity they deserve. Not only do we owe that to our late beloved chairman but we owe it to maria is about race, to jonathan sanchez, and all the immigrants whose health and whose lives were threatened by the policy implemented by uscis. Uscis must explain what the current policy is on deferred action. It cannot keep the process shrouded in secrecy while these kids wait to hear their fate. If we go to the slide, september 18th, acting secretary of Homeland Security Kevin Mcaleenan ordered the acting homan director, mr. Cuccinelli, who is here with us today to quote, ensure that effective immediately, uscis resumes consideration of nonmilitary deferred action requests, on a discretionary case by case basis. It is unclear whether uscis actually granting relief to anyone since reversing course. He further ordered uscis to ensure that the procedure for considering and refining to deferred action requests is consistent throughout uscis and that discretionary case by case deferred action is granted only based on compelling facts and circumstances. What exactly does this mean . What is the problem the uscis right effects . What changes are being considered. Will only outside state cosby consulted . We want to have maximum transparency to ensure that uscis is not imposing unreasonable requirements an immigrant who deserve our attention and our mercy. In the meantime, uscis should explain what will happen to the people whose prior deferrals have expired while the renewals are still under review. We have heard from the family of a 12 year old boy with an incurable condition that could cause him to bleed to death if he is not treated correctly. Both of his parents applied in march to renew their deferrals but had been waiting for months without any decision at all. His fathers deferral expired in august. His mothers deferral expires in january. Without a, deferral neither parent can be authorized to stay at or work in the United States, threatening their ability to support and care for their sick son, so, what does uscis recommend families like his due while the agency is trying to decide how to reinstate deferred action . How many more people are stuck in this kind of limbo, and what can we do to protect them . We want basic answers to these questions and become here not any kind of gotcha spirit, we just want to deal with a very serious problem that was brought to our committee. The ongoing confusion regarding deferred action reflects the same kind of chaos that apparently produced this policy in the first place and that prompted our last hearing and for which the administration i hope today will provide us answers. What little weve been able to learn about how this policy would be implicated implies it was undertaken without any effort to ascertain what its effects would be on the people affected. We heard compelling stories of people who were directly harmed by that policy. A 24yearold woman suffering from a rare disease testified that deportation would be quote, a death sentence for me. She told us, i want to live. I am a human being with hopes and dreams in my life. Jonathan sanchez, a 16yearold suffering from Cystic Fibrosis, which is a disease that affects people in my family. Jonathan sanchez told us that upon learning he was facing deportation, he broke down in tears pleading, quote, i do not want to die, i dont want to die. If i go back to honduras now, i will die. In his words, quote, it is incredibly unfair to kick out sick kids who are in the hospital or at home taken treatments and you are just trying to have better opportunities to live. It is obvious from testimony that uscis i did not realize what the implications of its policy would be or new and decided to go ahead anyway. Either reality i think would be damning but the effect on murray and jonathan wouldve been entirely foreseeable if uscis had sought Public Feedback before instituting the new policy. According to uscis, they failed to consult on a single external stakeholder before jeopardizing these families. Making matters worse, usa as did not issue any public announcement about the policy or provide any guidance to people in murray or jonathan situation, or any of the critically ill children in their families about what would come next to what they should be doing. Why not . What was the reason for the secrecy and surprise . Is it uscis is practice to implement massive policy shifts like this without providing Public Notice . Sadly, the threat of deportation of sick kids is just one example of this administrations mistreatment of immigrant children. It is not the only one. Uscis over to killer is engaged in a pattern of development a policies that danger children. Since mr. Cuccinelli, he took, office uscis has eliminated automatic citizenship for some children of u. S. Soldiers stationed overseas, introduce new barriers for immigrant kids fleeing Domestic Abuse in their own country and rolled out a public charge rule. That is seared many parents and removing the children from help nutritional services. Each of these acts of an affront to the central tenet of chairman cummings philosophy, children, the living messages that we sent forward to a future that we ourselves will never see. The last hearing that chairman cummings attended was our september 11th hearing on this issue. Tweeting children with dignity was so important to him that he made a point to come down from baltimore despite is advanced failing health. At that hearing, a lot just said, quote i really do think things we are in a moral situation. People ares trying to live. Theyre trying to breathe the air of our country. They are trying to be better, theyre trying to be healthier. Chairman cummings who himself was trying to live at that moment, trying to be healthy, order that these children have the same access to medical treatment that he did. We will honor the chairmans memory and the humidity of all. Though seeking deferred action, by remaining vigilant, conducting rigorous oversight and working to guarantee that this Administration Treats Immigrants with the dignity it deserves. Mr. Cuccinelli, at mr. Evans, we are delighted that you came today, but we want to make sure that we see no further bureaucratic stonewalling and confusion on these matters. We want clarity. We are here for answers and we will not stop until we get them. Thank you for coming. I am now delighted to recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of our community, mr. Roy. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you mr. Cuccinelli, mr. Allen, thank you for coming up here and visiting with us today. I will reiterate what i said here last week. Obviously our continued prayers are with the family of chairman cummings with his staff. We actually had a great event in the capitol hill last week, i wanted to participate in that, and we will continue to move forward in this committee. I carry for the chairmans legacy and wanting to do what is right, and to be better. I do want to say one thing. As we head into this, and it will not surprise the chairman that i will raise this issue that currently there are two depositions going on, and those depositions, at least two were scheduled to day, one i think is going on now in another part of the capital. It is impossible for me to be in two places at once, so im just here with the Ranking Member of the subcommittee and i want to carry it my duty shoe, that i am unable to hear that and unable to go easily see transcript, unable to easily catch up on what im missing because we are hearing i dont think thats the right way to carry out things. I think there will be a vote tomorrow on something on this process, but i was just as part of a problem realtime, so anyone watching, this this is the problem. Here i am sitting, there very few members on our side of the aisle, i would also send my prayers and wishes to mr. House whose father passed away yesterday and so i know he is not able to join us today, but i dont think this is the way we should be conducting those kinds of inquiries. Today, we have a hearing regarding the Administration Decision to deport critically ill children and their families. I would take issue with that title. I do not believe that was what the administration was seeking to do. I think they were talking but a process change and that we ought to get to that. This is a topic that involves deferred action request for people not lawfully present, seeking to stay, for sympathetic reasons. This is not the first. You mentioned a hearing we had on 9 11, but to be clear, deferred action is not a program. Deferred action is a decision, right . It is a decision it is a judgment call reserved for those with prosecutorial powers we ought to treat it that way and then we ought to have a discussion about policy changes, if there are any to be had, for anybody who was here and has overstayed a visa, and is in a situation that the chairman described. And was dealing with policy change that we are taking uscis at the, role it has no real underlying authority carry out, if i understand correctly, and then it would leave decisionmaking to those who actually have that power. At the time of the first hearing, uscis has already announced it will evaluate pending claims. Uscis a letter to the committee today before the hearing noting that individuals who had sent to production requests uscis were not under him in front of removal. It might be saying that none of the deferred action individuals have been targeted, and in a letter sent to the committee on september 19th, as the chairman, notes returning the deferred action process that was in place august 6th, so for better or, worse known as being treated any differently than they were on august 6th. I think what we have here is a question of how to have the right policy. Each and every one of, us i have any sympathy for anyone of us who is sick and living with uncertainty but we need real solutions. No one here in the administration wants anyone to not be able to get treatment or be treated unfairly or to live it uncertainty. But weve got to deal with the real world. We have people here who status and we have to figure what to do with that. Perpetuating a stay here over your visa and beg for intermittent to your deferrals they are not really rooted in the law, as he deferred action from those who do not prosecute and leave them in additional limbo, that is not a good policy. And yet that is the existing policy. If Congress Wants a different visa class or other ways to solve the problem, they should act. Congress want to solve problems,s congress should act. Congress has the power to make policies. This is not about gotcha politics. We should all seek solutions. I would remind our democratic laws that this was at the root of the scottish decision regarding the socalled daca class in the current debate on the daca class with regards to approving status for people who overstay their existing because, we have deferred action which by definition is prosecutorial discretion. That is what we are talking about here. We cant afford, we cannot give a status to a group of people in the name of prosecutorial discretion. And for perspective this involves a decision that affects roughly 900, people and that is currently at the status quo anti, but lets think what is actually happening right now. Border patrol agents along the southern border encounter Million People trying to illegally enter the country this year. 1 million. Today we are talking about nine, hundred and it is very important for those 900 but that number, specific numbers, under 77, 509, plus inadmissible,s there were 1. 4 eight billion enforcement actions, just putting in perspective the numbers, we are talking about 900 hundred 51 that we are talking about here in apprehensive. We are not talking with the two under 24 pounds of fentanyl seized crossing our southern border this fiscal year. One little sugar packet of fentanyl will kill everybody in this, room and weve got 224 pounds of it to come across our border. We are not hearing about the 1700 inbound weapons intercepted this, year up 300 from last year. Were not talking about the fact that cbp apprehended gang members from 20 different gangs. There are roughly 576,000 immigrants over half 1 Million People have been giving a final order of removal by a judge they are still wandering around the United States. According to ice, theyve seen a double digit drop in criminal arrest this year, theyve had to point at the border, this is what we have interior enforcement, we have real problems. Cartels and traffickers are taking advantage interpreter traffickers abused children as props for asylum. There are 473,000 family units this year. This is the highest on record. We can discuss the 500,000 reported case of fraud from alleged family unit the children who are being split difficult to get to come to a United States, lets talk about them getting abused today on the journey to mexico. We had 50,000 apprehensions in september, 50, thousand why . We had 100,000 that is the reality of whats happening on our border today, we are not having hearings on that. We are having to hearing on something that has no discernible difference from where it was on august 6th. I understand the concern of the chairman about some of the questions, about the policies but we are talking with something that has been largely addressed with respect to the concerns that the majority has and if we want to have a conversation with the policies, still around the roundtable and to grow we can do to have legislation that might address some of those concerns, lets talk about the other things we could do. Fixing asylum, catching release, flores, tvpra, all of these things could be fixed one piece of paper and what if we had the will to do it. We could find i. C. E. And Border Patrol properly. We could find i. C. E. At the level that president obama asked for, upwards of a billion dollars, in the unaccompanied alien children becoming 2014 2015, and yet we only got 200 billion vice in june after demanding to get a supplemental, on that 200 billion was constrained are not able to be. Use this area today is an issue that affects not hundred people for whom we have great sympathy and we ought to address the issue, but on an average day this year, that is three times less than the total number crossing during one Border Patrol shift. Think about that. One Border Patrol shift. Todays cbp apprehends roughly 1400 migrants a day. On an average day in, may that number was 5000. If the chairman wants to address the fact that these deferrals are not actual programs and our prosecutorial discretion, lets discuss that and figure out a system that will work and that we can Work Together and try to figure that out, and i would love to do that in the context of our very, very broken immigration system. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you for your very thoughtful remarks, and as, always i am eager to work with you end with all of our colleagues on immigration reform, but you correctly the limit the object of todays hearings, and we are going to do it, and i will be very helpful that we get the answers we need and we can move on to work on other stuff. There are several members of the committee have come today, both out of their interest in the subject but also in a tribute to chairman cummings, so without objection, i would wave them on, mr. Arena, mr. Cooper, and another are members of the broader committee who are joining us on the subcommittee with miss kelly and mr. Gomez who arrived over here, and also, thank you for telling us about mister heiss his father. I wasnt aware of that. Our prayers and our thoughts go up to him. It seems were going to do many funerals these days, but we are sending him the strength and encouragement. All, right with, that i want to formally welcome our Witnesses Today, Ken Cuccinelli who was the acting director of the u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Homeland Security. Welcome, mr. Cuccinelli, as well as the acting director of immigration and customs enforcement, i. C. E. , at the u. S. Department Homeland Security. If the witnesses would kindly rise and raise their right hands and we will begin by swearing you in. Do you swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the, truth so help you god . Then let the record show they would have answered in the, affirmative thank, you you may be, seated please speak directly to the microphones without objection. Any written statements you brought with you or that you decide to provide it will be made part of our record. Mr. Cuccinelli, you are now recognized to give an oral presentation of your testimony. Good, morning chairman and Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the subcommittee. First, i want to express my condolences on the passing of chairman cummings. I appreciate his dedication to representing the people of marylands seventh district for 23 years. My name is kim cuccinelli, on the acting director of United States citizenship and Immigration Services. Uscis administers the nations lawful immigration system. The agencys mission is to safeguard the integrity and promise of that system, by efficiently unfairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting americans securing the homeland and honoring our values. I can tell you that i am extremely proud of the work in professionals and i see every day by the employees at uscis and services. Fiscal year 2017 just ended, uscis achieved money President Trumps goal is to make our u. S. Immigration work better for america. As an agency, we have tirelessly worked hand in hand with our fellow dhs components to answer President Trumps calls to address the ongoing crisis at our southern border. We have taken significant steps to limit the loopholes in our asylum system, combatting fraudulent and frivolous claims, and strengthening the protections we have in place to preserve a humanitarian sustenance for those really eligible for it. The workload uscis faces each year is staggering, in fiscal year 2019, adjudicated nearly seven and a half million requests for immigration benefits, a 14 increase over the previous fiscal year, and that is with only a 2 increase in fee income. Demonstrating improved costeffectiveness, even as we face many challenges. This workload represents the full spectrum of immigration benefits that our laws provide to those seeking to come to the United States, temporarily or permanently, on those who seeks to become citizens of this nation. Last, year uscis naturalized 833,000 u. S. Citizens. The most more than a decade. Deferred action is the exercise of discretion to defer Removal Action on a case by case basis against an alien for a certain period of time. Deferred action is not an immigration benefit over specific form of relief. It does not provide lawful immigration status and does not excuse any past or future periods of unlawful presence. Importantly, deferred action can be terminated at any time at the agencys discretion. Historically, uscis does not receive many nonmilitary non dhaka deferred action request. For the past few, years uscis has received approximately 1000 such requests annually. Some of these requests are for a Family Support or medical issues. This is frequently been incorrectly reported arrest characterized by the media and some in congress as a medical deferred action program. To be clear, the it just does not and has not every administrative medical different action program. Only congress can provide permanent immigration relief to an entire class of aliens. Deferred action, enforcement aggression, to notify alien of the agencys decision to remove that aliens and remove however, uscis does not enforce orders of removal, thus, to better align uscis with its mission of administering the National Immigration system, uscis to terminate field offices would no longer accept nonmilitary quest for deferred action. This redirect of Agency Resources did not affect daca, which remains in effect according to the nationwide injunction all cases go through the court system. It also did not affect other deferred action requests that uscis are visitors under statute or other policies regulations or court orders. On september 2nd, uscis and how is the agency would reopen previously pending nonmilitary deferred action requests. Further, on september 18th, acting secretary mcaleenan directed uscis to resume consideration of nonmilitary deferred action requests under the cries discretionary case by case basis. Except as otherwise required by an act of statute regulation or court. Order he ensure that the procedure for considering and responding to deferred action requests is consistent throw uscis and that discretionary case by case the production is granted only based on compelling facts and circumstances. Ill cases that were denied around august seven 2019 have now been reopened are being considered, pursuant to the acting secretarys september 18th directive. That includes my statement, thank you. Good morning chairman raskin, Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I also want to express my condolences on the past minute passing of chairman cummings. September 11th 2000, 19 i. C. E. Testified on this matter before this committee. At the time of that hearing, the i. C. E. Witness, the acting executive the sources of associate rector for the removal operations, tim, robyn stated he was not aware of any wet ice being involved in the decision to end the program. Further explain that ice lacks in a program or mechanics to consider affirmative deferred action requests, and described a variety of ways that ice does utilizes discretion, as appropriate, on a case by case basis, throughout Immigration Enforcement process. Contrary to claims made by this committee and the media about the willingness to answer questions during that hearing, the only questions our witness declined to answer regarding possible future answers, relating to uscis issues of heat which he had no knowledge. As the committee was aware, within a few days at the hearing, acting secretary mcaleenan directed uscis to resume consideration of nonmilitary deferred action requests, on a discretionary case by case basis. In addition to previous testimony, they followed another letter dated october 15th, the adjust for the clarified that ice had no part in uscis is a previous decision, even though isis discretionary abilities are not at issue here today, and as uscis has resumed consideration of these requests, a process in which ice is not involved, im here today im prepared to answer questions you may have regarding ices roll, or more specifically, like thereof, in this matter. However, i would clearly state law the continued repetition thats a tremendous disservice to the dedicated professional men and women of ice, who just as importantly, it does a disservice to the American Public deserve transparency and facts regarding the operation of their government. In a day and age where individuals are committing violent acts from i. C. E. Offices and making threats against isis officers, agents, employees and their families, do continue to suggest that i said some role in this process is not only an accurate, as confirmed by information already provided to this committee, but also irresponsible. So im here today to defend the men and women of ice, either once again set the record straight. I look forward your questions. Thank you much for your testimony both of you, and at this point, having permitted to several members to join the subcommittee, will be with us today, we will move to the five minute questioning portion and i will recognize myself for five minutes first. Mr. Cuccinelli, threatening to the port sick kids was an appalling thing and it was public revulsion at this prospect that assembled us in our first hearing on it, and we were very glad that the administration reversed course and decided not to pursue that policy. I must ask you what, exactly is the policy in place right now . I understand, the circumstances that had been enunciated, are you considering being in the country for the purposes of receiving necessary medical treatment to be a compelling factor and circumstance . Mister chairman, the acting secretary returned this essentially to the process we were in before august 7th, and i would note that there is no program. That is part of the challenge here. This is about withholding action, not undertaking a formal process. It is about withholding action, in fact. And you saw what the acting secretary wrote, with respect to his phrase granted, in compelling facts and circumstances, that is the only, what i would call, substantive commentary in our workforce, in terms of reopening these cases and how to process them, and otherwise everything has continued as it was before. Okay, so as i understand it, there were at least 424 families whose deferred action request were pending, being told that if they did not that they could report possible deportation but then they were automatically reopened after the reversal of the policy. Can you tell me how many of those requests, of those 424 families, have been approved at this point . I cant relate to the specific 424. Those were ones given notice around august 7th. There were over 700 cases pending in that time, so we completed as of earlier this week, and since the reopening, 41 cases it was the last number i heard the beginning of the week, but 41 cases where people were granted. That is where im going. I have no idea whether those 40, one how they relate to the 424 who were among those who got notices on august 7th. Okay, but ive got to, say this is an occasion for some frustration because we requested a lot of documents on, this and i think we received one document, which is basically the statement that you received, about compelling facts and circumstances, so, we dont know what is going on there. We are sure there was both a formal reversal of the policy, i understand there is no formal program, but there was a policy of allowing people in this situation to stay in the country. Then it appeared there was a reversal of that policy and that we were going to some of these people essentially for deportation proceedings. Then there was congressional and public outrage, i think of a bipartisan character. That policy was reversed, but we want to make sure that what was going to take place on this sweeping encounter at oracle level, it is not taking place at a less visible ad hoc level. We want to make sure that the prior policy really is reinstitute it, and so is that your sense of what is going to happen, before the 24 people, do we have to have a hearing on each of these cases . I guess what im asking. Of, course we dont testify about individual cases, and i understand that you would like to see more written material, but we gave you in response to one of the letters, the entire universe of what is written on this topic and did not even cover one side of one page, because this is a pure process question in terms of how usc ease handles internally. And for other things, standards are laid out. We dont have a lot here. We dont have regulation. This is not taking action. It is withholding action. And so be on the secretaries states about grants only on compelling effects in circumstances, which i cant even compared anything before august 7th, because no equivalent existed before august 7th, that is the only item that has been added to the materials or information that in adjudicating office or my reference. The way i would treat that is that the policy before was the cases of people being in the country to receive medical treatment established a compelling reason to be here, and these are all people in fact some circumstances. That is certainly the way i would understand it, and it is the way i would interpret, it i think i speak for a lot of my colleagues in saying that we would not want this to be the occasion for a new bureaucratic narrowing of the possibility of being in the country to continue the medical treatment they were here to get. When my time is up and im going to go ahead and recognize miss maloney, but we will come back around but well have some more details of the situation, this morning, or a recognized for five minutes. Okay, i will recognize mr. Roy. Okay, then we will pass it down. Thank, you mister chairman and thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. It is certainly a sensitive issue when we are talking about individuals that have medical problems, and it is always, we always want to make sure that we handle things properly, so i just want to make sure that for the record everything is straight. We are talking about different action, which means, we are deferring taking action against people that may or may not be in the country here, overstaying a visa here, while, they are here illegally, that is the request for the deferred action. So it is a request for the for action and the rules under the law, you are just enforcing the law currently on the books . Thats correct. Youre not making or anything else you, are just forcing it is on the books. Thats correct. So when people receive letters that said, if you are not in the country illegally, you need to show up, did the letter say action may be taken . Yes. So the word made was in there. Okay. So it was not saying this is actually what, happened to saying, this may happen. Correct, at the end of the time, period and they were form letters adopted from other usage in the agency. It is pretty standard language and at the end of that time period, adjudicating officers would then revisit the case. So if i was a person would got one of those letters i can assure made my case i would not have necessarily been forced to leave the country. Well, it could be the case that the ncaa is not a feud, but of course, we never really reach that point in this process with the initial august 7th shutdown of this process, as it was reopened less than a month later. I dont think its any persons intent to make you believe he had a medical, problem im just making sure the people who are here actually had a decision made to let them stay by the u. S. Government. Well, it wouldve taken uscis out of the prosecutorial role of exercising prosecutorial discretion, which is what deferred action is. They were not have replaced with anything else, and it is, and hadnt rolled forward, than it would have been considered in the normal course, following from those letters. So, in other words, what really needs to happen is that we as congress should set up some kind of law, a program or anything, else it is not really program, it is just what we are not taking action on something that we should be. That is absolutely correct, and there is an equivalent. In the state department context, there is a bee to visa, people can come visit temporarily for medical purposes. They have a whole process set up for that. It is temporary and that is established pursuant to law passed by congress, what we are talking about today, it is not based on line, it is not based on regulation, since it is much like the executive creating law deciding how to use deferred, action and inherent Prosecutorial Authority, to achieve a goal, and if there is a goal in which Congress Agrees should be agreed and they pass a lot to, it i promise you we will implement that law. I think that is an important distinction, that you are not trying to do anything other than enforce the laws of our nation and if we as congress think that that law needs to be changed, and we make the changes, you will abide by the changes. Absolutely. Okay. And, again we are doing a discretionary case by case scenario, i think that does not leave any certainty for the people trying to enforce our law, or for the people that need to come and get treatment. Well, even deferred action can be revoked at any time, and it is not an immigration status, so, because it does not have a legal foundation, it is a very uncertain course for people to be on. I, mean deferred action, we can differ many things. It does not necessarily make them legal, and i guess that is the point of what im saying. We can decide we want to not enforce irs law and not collects taxes from a certain amount of people. It doesnt mean they still dont law oh not that they are following the law. And i would say to this committee, rather than replowing the ground we have already plowed, a decision as me change, i was just we give the administration and individuals trying to enforce our law the tools they need a congress to act on this rather than other things, thank you. I bring in the congressman from illinois. Thank, you mister chair. I want to understand i. C. E. His role in this process. Uscis to not notify the public about this disastrous decision they made an august. Add to the confusion, once the public found out the media reports uscis claim that i. C. E. Would be handling medical deferred action request Going Forward. At the, time i said it was never even on, with his hand, off according to press, reports ice was voted blindsided by the move from uscis, and ice was quote, scrambling to respond. Mr. Albums, was that true . Were you blindsided . Yes, as we have put it, right back to the committee, there were some discussions over the years with regard to this process, and anything contemporaneous with that decision was made by csis. I wasnt and how could you find out about the decision . I want to see that a chief of staff or people chris brought to my attention. And when was that . I dont have the exact date, it would be when i hit the media. It would be the day we put it that statement, so i think we are the 25th 27th of august but im not exactly sure. So that was the first time you learned that you are serious was telling the price that i. C. E. Would be taking over, differing action requests . I believe so, yes. We know from uscis is written responses to the subcommittee on september 24th that the agency has been discussing ending deferred action since october, 2017. In the same responses, we asked about collaboration with i. C. E. , uscis confirmed the discussions dig take place part of august 7th, 2019. To which is . It was i. C. E. Blindsided by the decision or had i. C. E. Been involved in planning this for months, even years . Without getting too far to the deliberative process, as i mentioned, there were discussions that were held over five years of work agencies with regards to this process, but nothing had been settled on that or agreements with regards to how that would go forward or be implemented, and they this largely fell off the mat or disappeared when you are serious one on their own. So was anyone of i. C. E. Aware of the exact discussions . Again, without getting into a little bit of process, we discussed lots of different programs on issues. There are discussions as to whether or not, there are discussions as to whether these were decisions that we were involved with, and it apparently just fell off the map. You there is nothing with regard to those type of discussions. Do you want i. C. E. To assume responsibility for the production from uscis . I think the directors already spoken to, that but to our comment, and do a few weeks, ago i. C. E. Does not have a process or mechanism to affirmatively adjudicate or provide any sort of deferred action. I. C. E. Exercises prosecutorial discretion with regard to hutu arrest, to detain, and it ultimately, if a judgment were for someone to be removed, to actually get remove. So we do have a process on the back end of that where someone can file for a state of removal issued by an immigration judge. As we are prosecutorial discretion lies. And happy discuss this with the acting secretary . We may have ive spoken with the acting director, certainly, after the fact. I probably was in one meeting with the acting secretary, but largely we have been removed from this process since it was put forward because it was not something that i see was involved in. And what are you recommendations . My recommendations are that it remains with the agency that adjudicate applications. At any point in, time has i. C. E. Considered implementing a deferred action process similar to the one it uscis, where an immigrant can proactively, secretly, under deportation proceedings . Not a proactive program. We have utilized for adoption in certain instances. For example, if there is a witness that we needed a criminal investigation or someone cooperate with a criminal investigation, that we were working, or that another Law Enforcement agency has and has requested. Again, it is only in conjunction with our Law Enforcement mission. It is i. C. E. Playing any role in the uscis review and updating of this policy that the acting secretary ordered . No, maam. You agree with the decision to order critically ill children to leave the country within three days or face deportation . I dont think that is what the letter said. What a letter required them to do is respond, and i would refer that to mr. Cuccinelli but the letter require them to respond within 30 days to make a determination as to whether or not a notice to appear would be filed. Notice to appear its only becoming part of that process. That begins the Immigration Court process. Ultimately, no one can be removed from this country absent a removal order for an immigration, judge so that is where i see stepson on the back end of that process. Evaluate our case by case basis someone files a stable, if someone has a significant humanitarian concern, a medical issue, that, sort that is when i see you can exercise prosecutorial discretion and grant that stay. I know im past my, time but here is a letter that says it within 33 days of the date, so now what you are saying. It says 33 days from the day, report for serious for determination as to whether or not a notice to appear will be issued. That notice to appear is not a removal order. That notice to appear is what starts Immigration Court process. Again, ultimately, only an immigration judge, except in certain circumstances that would not be relevant here, have the ability to issue a ruling. Thank you, mister albums. The general it is time is expired i know this will become an issue so i do want to read that issue that sentence we are on the same page here. If this was sent to, in this, case Maria Isabelle saraf but it was the exact same under the right to hundreds of, people this is what caused the controversy and a crisis in the first place. You are not authorized to remain in the United States. If you fail to depart United States within 33 days of the date of this letter, uscis may issue a notice to appear and commence removal proceedings against you. Excuse me, with the Immigration Court. This may result in your being ruefully noted states and found ineligible for a future visa or other u. S. Immigration benefits. So that was what was sent to critically ill children. That is what caused the crisis. Again, we are delighted that there was a decision to reverse this new policy, and with mr. Cuccinelli, there was no program in place, but there was a policy of not pursuing these, i think for the reason that was implicit in something that our colleague said, which is that this is a very tiny number of people compared to the whole universe of people who are actual immigrants to the country and most of them are here precisely to get medical treatment, so mr. Roy is passed this round and im going to recognized as maloney for five minutes. I want to thank the chairman for focusing on this important issue, this is one of several hearings that he has initiated on the subject, and i would like to ask director cuccinelli about the standards to be applied to deferred action programs. I want to make sure he understands that to many families, this is literally a life and death issue. Many, people some on the other side of the, aisle have indicated that they are not here illegally, but many are here legally, and they are under the deferred, action yet they are being threatened with deportation, and sitting in the front row behind you is nicholas a spin osaka, and he traveled here today to try to save his daughters life. He is seven years old and her name is julia, and there he is, julia, fighting for her life. She is in a special Treatment Program at seattles childrens hospital, because shes had most of her lower intestine removed and needs a full team of doctors to keep her alive. Julia is a u. S. Citizen, but her parents are not. Her mother is her nurse. Deferred action has allowed julias mom to stay in this country. But her deferral expired in september, her father helped support her to, his deferral expired three days ago, and they both applied for renewal this june but still have not heard about their cases. It has not been decided and julius doctors say that if he leaves this country and goes back to her home country, she will die. This gives her parents three options. I was a she only has three. Stay in the United States with their, daughter even though their deferrals have expired, leave the country and leave the daughter behind without any family to take care of her, or take their daughter home at which point her doctors say she would surely die, so i want to politely and respectfully ask you, mr. Cuccinelli, to look at mr. Espinal was a. He is right behind you. Mr. Aspen i, raise your hand so you can see you, and look him straight in the eye, and as a professional, ask him which of those options he should use. Madam chairman, dan reno was representing uscis at a last hearing, and one of the things he said that i think humanizes the agency and not only mine, but the agencys position in many cases is that the case we have to deal with other kinds of ones were talking about today. There are cases where it is possible that the long calls were very sympathetic person or family im reclaiming my time because i dont have much time. We had many people here at our hearings that were brought to this country by american scientists because they wanted to study their disease so that we could possibly save their lives and have medical research that could save the lives of many other people, and i feel its a very human decision, but i think its terribly wrong to deport someone who has come here illegally, and in this case she is here legally but i would like to ask, you what would you decide if it was your child, and youre talking about humanizing the situation . Does whatever they can to take care of their children. Giving back to the specifics can you say here today that julias parents will not be penalized for standing while they fight for the request to stay here . If you put a human face audit, this policy has a devastating effect on people. If this administration claims it has been reversed then they need to tell people clearly in writing to all professionals in the government and to the people that were here exactly what this means in realtime and what the real possibilities are. I find this language discretionary and case by case basis. What does this mean . Can you get back and writing to me of this to find it in my time is up id like to see you to find this exactly for the purpose. We do not at spencer. I know this is not an action of programmer policy it is the withholding of action and you just described what might make an actual individual standards in a piece of legislation with scientific studies and doing medical care which sounds to me like you would make an excellent piece of legislation. We dont have that. Would it be applied exactly the same standard to defer action Going Forward as the agency used in the past . Yes or no . We did not explain we did not impose any standards in the case by case decision. Which then goes up functionally to for Regional Directors which are employees which talk to one another primarily to make sure that they are implementing this process consistently across the country. There are no standards other than what we see here from the acting secretary of the language of facts and circumstances. We dont have a legal basis and we welcome that to provide training . The time is expired we are there is one question embedded in the general ladies line of questions which was what would the recommendation be i heard you just say that parents will do all parents will do whatever they can for their kids and that they should continue to stay. Of course all, of you know that i can he there give the advice at the table and take the individual cases and accepting full well how the cases and the facts and circumstances like the secretary did and i dont want to do that you. Thank you. I am pleased to recognize miss pressley for her five minutes of questioning. Thank you very much mister chairman. This hearing has been a Long Time Coming later spent commentary from my colleagues across the aisle that we have Better Things to work on it should not be wasting our time. I never wanted to lose sight of the impact on real peoples lives. Over talking about policy and the American People said this year. So we are not wasting our time. Its disappointing that took these subpoenas to go before our committee today. In a moment ill turn more tear action. First, i want to send to the families that have been impacted by this egregious policy shift. Families like my constituents and serena ubinas and her mom. I told them when i met them that i would fight for their children as if they were my own. I intend to honor that. 16 year old Jonathan Bailey came to share his story. He spoke about how fibrosis has impacted his body and the death of his younger sister then honduras who suffered similarly up. The reckless actions of your agency as is very ability to receive life preserve medical care which is just unconscionable. For 83 days, mr. Chairman, nearly three months now. Weve been demanding answers of this administration. Mr. Cuccinelli you testified that you want more paperwork. But you simply dont have it. None of us here or government i dont want more paperwork. What we do want is a real answer and justice for these families and a peace of mind and they deserve that and the children deserve that. We have been demanding this administration for tremendous efforts to report the neighbors and their families. Well i am relieved, the policy has been reversed and people deserve answers and they will be able to remain in this country i like to thank the brief families for these and countless others an imminent fear and having to fight an illness that stepped up to shot light as well as the attorneys in the organization. Id like to request the consent for the record at first civil rights in boston as well as the american immigrant lawyers association. Without objection. Thank you. Your agencies have failed to turn over a signal documentary letter. In response to the subpoenas and way the chairman rest in power for the last official before his transition is shameful and consistent. I hope that you can answer the question that i have. They continue a refused to identify who made the decision to end consideration for the you see i. S. No it wants to put their name on this disastrous cruel and unamerican paul policy. They made that decision to be held into account. Mr. Cuccinelli, i remind you youre under oath. Who made the decision for the uscis to process the action request on august seven . I was my decision as the acting director. Do you stand by that decision . That decision has been reversed. Today, they have perceived no notification of the reversal of that. Can you tell me why that is . I think they have. We are a paper agency when it comes to matters like this. So, when cases are closed. A physical file is wrapped up and mailed to a Storage Facility and reopened the cases. Sorry, im running out of time i apologize. Just trying to answer the question. I have to reclaim my time. Would it be fair to say that you are not aware of some of the most consequential decisions and policies coming out of your agency . Is that initially where he said you did not know it was coming . I did not say that today. Earlier today in your testimony, yes or no, mr. Cuccinelli, did anyone at the white house play a role in this decision . This was an agency decision, solely, and other than discussion within the department of Homeland Security. Reclaiming, im, sorry did Stephen Miller play a role in this decision or not . Im not going to get into specific commentary back and forth, but i made this decision. The only discussions sorry, im sorry, for the record, mr. Cuccinelli as you noted, im under oath, so we need to be truthful. Yes, you are, so please answer, yes or no im not to just answer what you want me to answer. No, im asking you to answer yes or no, was the president involved in this decision . We cannot, as you well know, talk about content of discussions im sorry, but you just said that you made the decision yes. Okay, so was the president involved, yes or no . I made this decision. Was Stephen Miller . Alone. Your time is expired, thank you very much and we will turn now to carol miller. Thank, you chairman. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you. We have a crisis on our border. We have over 850,000 total apprehensions this year on our southern border. I commended thank President Trump for stepping up and taking action for my foot colleagues across the aisle have refused to appropriately and adequately address this crisis. During her last hearing on this topic, i posed the question regarding all of the rhetoric surrounding the crisis at our southern border and now i want to propose it and pose it to you. Director cuccinelli and director albums. Has all of this rhetoric helped move the ball forward on solving our nations larger immigration issues . Madam congresswoman, i cannot say that thats the case. Certainly there is extraordinary Public Interest in the subject and so you would expect a certain amount of rhetoric back and forth, but when it gets in the way of constructive discussions, and in fact, it has to some degree in the very subject area you are talking about deferred action, which we have focused on in the case, in medical cases, but i keep hearing reference to medical deferred action which does not exist. By example, inaccuracy and that does not help the public discussion and the hotter the rhetoric gets the harder it is for people to step back and have a constructive discussion even about our disagreements and how to implement our agreement and so the answer to your question is hard to argue with. I think all of us own some piece of that, but yet here we just keep pressing forward to do the best job we can, whenever that environment is. Thank you. You are right in stating that we have a security crisis, both in terms of illegal aliens but also in terms of opioids and other contraband that are being smuggled into and out of this country isis dhs has frankly made it clear for many weeks now that i see it was not involved in this process, and yet here i sit what we have a tremendous crisis at the border, a tremendous Opioid Crisis. You mentioned several hundred pound, we seized 11,700 pounds of fentanyl, we have to discover suffering grave miscarriage of this drug. I have testified in front of congress more than anybody from ice within the past two to three years, we are willing to come and speak about anything that my agency does and i am proud to do so, but when im dragged into an issue that has nothing to do with what my agency does, it does take away a resource, as im sure you understand, preparation for a hearing and paperwork and time and i will also say that we did provide our documentation with regard to the subpoenas to dhs prior to the deadline it was established by this committee. Well, as you may, know my district is ground zero with the Opioid Crisis so it is very important to me. How has the strategy proposed by our president helped curb the flow of the illicit drugs . So, we have worked both domestically and internationally with regards to trying to address the Opioid Crisis. As i mentioned, we seized more than almost 12,000 pounds last year. That is a significant increase over the prior year, we initiated more cases into narcotics organizations. We have expanded our border enforcement security teams to 69 this year, focusing a lot on International Mail facilities because we know a lot of the precursors in the material necessary to create these opioids is coming from overseas, often from china, so we have dedicated the resources towards where we think will have the most impact. Obviously, of Congress Give us if Congress Gives us more resources, we can certainly do more. Just as an aside, i even noticed a year or so ago in my neighborhood all of a sudden theyre all these personnel surrounding a house, waiting on a mail delivery so it happens everywhere. Your opening statement, you also mentioned threats and attacks on i. C. E. Officers, personnel and their families, can you shed some light on that . It is unfortunate i think a lot of the danger that is being unnecessarily placed on our personnel stems from misinformation or vilification or discussing terms that are used to describe sworn federal Law Enforcement agencies and other federal civil servants. We have seen instances over the last several months with officers being assaulted and thankfully no one was hurt, but we had individuals shoot into one of our buildings where we had officers working on getting criminal aliens out of the communities. Thats why i told congress before about this. If congress does not like the laws that we enforced, have every ability to change them. But we are not in a position to pick and choose what laws we should enforce. I would not want i would not think that congress would want the executive branch to override their decisions as the laws they pass. Thank you. The time is expired. Mr. Albence, i appreciate very much your answer and ice is here because of the work provided by the u. S. Csis which has anticipated in discussion with the original decision and we are stray we are still trying to get to the bottom of this decision which is why we want to make sure we have clarity to what the policy is and figure out how this takes place. With that i go to mr. Gomez for five minutes. Iq bank. Thank you so much and thank you for clarifying that i was about to do that before he got to it. Mr. Albence, democrats would be we want to focus on Illegal Drugs for entry in this country. Making sure that people should not be here are not here. People who have illegal guns and that is why were having this discussion. Instead of focusing on that were focusing there was a focus on kids who are terminally ill with these chronic illnesses that needed to be here and thats why we want you to focus on other stuff. You mentioned there was a discussion and you couldnt get into who was in the discussion regarding different action. Can you tell me how far back the discussion early started . At least started . I dont have the exact dates but it would have been three i. C. E. Isis directors ago. Its hard to keep track how many directors the administration has gone through, but how many months . Year, two years. When this administration and probably 2018. Ok. 17. Ok. Thank you. I want to get clarification on that. I want to go and to quickly into the questions. Mr. Cuccinelli, you were apparently sent an email to the immigration lawyers and associate same association saying you as c i. S. Are informing the public of the changing person on the individual pieces. This is seem to be an approach that show less text kenneth t. Led to panic and confusion and that labels not acceptable. According to a recent news reporting you decided that it was not necessary to notify the public. Is that true . Congressman, it is our typical practice when we change a process that doesnt that doesnt based on regulations or law to not do public notification. That is the rationale on a case by case basis. You did not notify the public. Why dont you think it was just a process . Thats it . Thats what he did it . Because it was destroying peoples lives . Everything we do deals with peoples lives ahead and various ways. But as i said, typically when were changing a show less text process and not changing the legal standards or Something Else of that nature. Guidance to judy caters for instance they did not have that in the public. Your agency is september 24th said that you did not notify the public as it was merely an operational change which is why youre saying again. You really think telling children and families that have a 33 days to leave the country is merely an operational change . Youre referencing the letters that have been set out and the reality is. Dont tell me can you answer the question . What does it say . It says you may get an ncaa. You are not authorized to remain in this country for failing to depart the United States within 30 days of this letter. It is pretty scary. What happens if the irs annual letter saying you have to report to the irs with the intel audit. Would you be concerned about that . I would certainly Pay Attention to it. Perhaps you would help if you all knew that if anyone presents to uscis 60 benefit and does not obtain some status that has at least not here illegally. We have a similar letter. Ill ask you if your questions. Did you approve this policy without having to figure out how you would implement it . No. So what was your plan to notify people requesting deferred action in the public that the uscis wet stop considering to defer action requests . As you noted earlier, our plan was to notify them one at a time individually and directly. That was the plan. You had no plan, but you did . That was the plan. But then you also stated that the function would be transferred over no. That is a dramatic mischaracterization and i think thats how i. C. E. Got dragged into this in the first place. There was never any suggestion anywhere by anyone that we were going to transfer some affirmative application process with the preferred action with the deferred action over to ice. That was never the case. He just testified that he was first notified by a Public Affairs officer through the press. Is that correct . It is not transferring this to ice. We will to put it into simple terms ceasing the use of this discretionary which takes all the way back to i. N. S. When you decided to reverse the policy why didnt you issue a new public release or something that was being reversed . Gentlemans times expired you may answer the question. If you are referring to the reversal, we did do that. Regarding he is referring to the initial policy. I thought i heard reversal. Policy full report reversal. Thank you so much. Will go to mr. Roy for five minutes. Thank you chairman. Mr. Albence it falls under ice for removable proceedings . Thats correct. Mr. Cuccinelli, let me ask you a question. Has congress created a status for individuals who overstayed a visa . No. Is there a law directed to give status to any of the individuals we are talking about today that congress has made clear and put into law . No. My colleagues mentioned a compelling reason to be here with a standard of some sort. Is that a visa category . Tono, and its difficult talk about at a policy level about how it would affect any particular case by definition it is casebycase. Is it a status . No. Its it as a human being or as a christian or someone of faith looking at someone through the eyes of a human being something that is concerning or a compelling reason . Sure. Absolutely. Is anything in the letter that was sent on whatever it was, august 7, factually untrue . No. Wasnt legally correct . Yes. My people quibble overtone but was factually correct . Yeah. You said you made a decision to change procedures. Yes. My perception of the procedure and tried to figure out the policy, if one over stays the visa or comes here are facing a you might be and here illegally or your overstaying visa. The process really is essentially to go to uscis and to beg for some sort of intermittent twoyear deferral from an entity and me uscis without it being really rooted in any law that congress has put forward. And you seek deferred action from, in essence, ice by way of a uscis letter when uscis doesnt actually prosecute and leaving these individuals in limbo. Do i have roughly the characterization correct . Yes. It might help people understand the reason i said this, this goes back to the ins days, back with i. N. S. The same person as regional director had the authority that ice now manages and the uscis authority at the same time. That was all one person. In thes was broken up, initial distribution of authorities this was just given , to three agencies. Mucht think it was with consideration of whats the difference between cbp, ice and uscis as it relates to Something Like what we are talking about. Im trying to clarify to procedures. Can you clarify what you are trying to clarify those procedures . Several years ago, the president indicated publicly that he wanted us to stop utilizing and expanding the law to provide benefits that are not provided by congress or by regulation. Thats been an ongoing process at uscis. There are lots of Little Things that have already taken place all publicly known. This is along those lines which is why i understand the system the director all the way back end of two thousand 17 in conversations with a field leadership which determined that it was one of those types of authorities to start working to back out of utilizing that authority because it wasnt appropriate for uscis and its mission. Theres so many levels i get frustrated with congress that doesnt act. I get frustrated they dont act and respect to this military force 18 years after he passed the first one in 2001 when people were listening into the military. We were in a life when we passed that in force but legislation an article one act and the National Emergency declarations expire after one year. I happen to believe that congress should reclaim its authority and they should do what theyre supposed to do which is possible laws and hold you all accountable for carrying out those laws. It strikes me that part of the problem we have here, in this case, but also and things like daca, in terms of whoever is in the white house doesnt matter to me. Lets have a clarity in the law, but lets not expect bureaucrats, respectfully and those in the agencies to be making policies on the issues of the law that congress passes. In the case of dapa in the district of texas we litigated but the question is whether or not we were referring status to a class of individuals is something you can plausibly say his actually process or a discretion. Its ridiculous for congress to build a policy on the back of asking bureaucrats to make those decisions when we hold the pen and we decide what laws we want to have in place. Youre not building a policy youre telling us to implement a , policy and youre not giving a standard to asking us for standards that dont exist in the law and as i said earlier, you pass a law and i promise you we will implement it. The gentlemans time is expired. We thank him for his thoughtful comments and i want to say that i concur with a lot of article one and the exercising exercise of congressional power. On the daca question the house , of representatives have passed over in the senate so were waiting for senate action. It takes two to tango here and not just the house side it is the senate as well to have action. With that i will miss wasserman recognize schultz for five minutes. The heat and the i. S. Has been bragged about illegal immigration and thats important for us to be clear about what you have been having to accomplish. My constituents, americans across the country arent fooled by this attempt to distinguish between documented and undocumented immigration. New and mr. Trump dont want anyone who looks in talks differently than caucasian americans to be allowed in this country. Thats false. Please, dont interrupt me. But theres nothing defamatory about it. The witness will get a chance to respond. Thank you very much. You want to block all immigration and you have indicated you will pursue this heinous white supremacist ideology at all costs. This goes to a comprehensive pattern of harm at the uscis under your leadership. The new public charge rule for example which denied legal status to to use social services. Do you have any idea about the analysis of how many children based on the Political Services to to fear of losing legal status and id like you to answer that question please . After declaring that im not a white supremacist as youve alluded nor is the president. Ok. Facts matter. They do. Truth matters. Please answer the question. Certainly cloaked in legislative privilege, but how many children based on Critical Services are taking the fear of losing critical status . Youre asking about public charge . Thats right. I dont have that information in front of you. About deferred action today. I can ask any question i would like. Reclaiming my time you are the head of uscis and you are going to tell me that you established a policy on this rule and you dont know how many children off the top of your head it affected . That rule is thousands of pages long. You talk about affecting children, one would think that someone in your position were going to establish such a heinous policy which significant reach and potentially harm thousands of children that would know how many children it would affect. You dont know . But you refer to as heinous policy you have implemented policy that yanks social services and denies it denies nothing. Legal status to immigrate here if they are going to use social services. In fact, they have reported families are terrified and some have dropped their children from essential programs like medicaid and temporary assistance for families. You were asked whether rule is consistent with the poll at the statue of liberty which reads give me your tired, your poor, and in response you said the poem was only referred to people coming from europe and people coming from europe would not be a public charge. I did not say that. That is not what i said. This was the implication. You like to broadcast it. Its absolutely accurate. I heard you say it and i want to know what you think are immigration policy should treat immigrants from europe different than other parts of the world. You dont think so . I am not sure why you made that statement then. You said the poem was referring to people coming from europe there is no doubt about that. No, it was not. Were you attempting to shut down the American Dream for immigrants which were not rich and white for the policy . No. Obviously. Surely we can live up to the liberty and open their arms to families you just want to make a better life for their children and not yanked the rug out from other them as you have with this public charge policy. And people understand that they are not welcome here if theyre brown or need help. Thats false. The witness does not have the floor. I will now recognize mr. Clay per five minutes. Thank you mister chair for conducting this hearing. The American Academy of pediatrics or aap representatives over pediatrics 60,000 over the country. You wrote a letter to acting director, and to the secretary, about the decision that aap wrote. I quote, we employ you to decision so that families can continue to apply for deferred action. For some this is a matter of life and death. Mister cuccinelli, have you read that letter . Turn on your mic for me. The subcommittee received 15 more letters from state chapters the American Academy patriotic in advance on september these letters were truly heartbreaking with children and families thrown into fear for their lives because of the situation and doctors in massachusetts reported one family of a 10yearold who had been blinded by cancer had been ordered to leave the country. This was along with the emily of a sevenyearold suffering from severe epilepsy. Mr. Cuccinelli, you know about uscis of those cases when decided to stop deferred action . Not readssman, we do individual cases when making a procedural decision like that. The answer to your question is no. Did you think about maybe these kids need some life saving medical attention . That they could only get here in this country . Congressman, we knew that as a practical matter they had come deferred action, and they were not in removal proceedings, and none of these cases we talked about where in removal proceedings, and none were threatened with deportation, and ive heard that none of these people were be on any targeted list. When we withdrew from the exercise of deferred action we knew that deferred action continued to be available for every single one of these sympathetic families. This, pediatricians in indiana reported that parents least two infants in a Neonatal Intensive Care Units received letters from uscis. And within 33 days and just had a child that was so sick that she is in the icu at the moment your child should be the only thing you have to worry about. The u. S. Government orders you to pack up and leave the country. Cuccinelli, did you know about these cases before the uscis decided to stop deferred action . My answer is the same as the earlier examples. We do not look at particular cases when making you dont care . You asked me did i know. You bet i care. You care that somebody is in a nato intensive care unit . If you cared enough to pass a law we would enforce it. What would you recommend those parents do when they received that letter . What should they do . We expect most of them to do is very little. We sent a lot of those letters out and not in circumstances like you were talking about them. You want them to leave the country . Pack up their staff, take their sick child and go . Neither that or make the case in the immigration process where its appropriate to do so. All in the middle of them hoping and praying that they save their child . Oh cruel really . Really . I dont believe this, i yield back. Gentlemans time has expired. Thank you for your questioning mr. Clay. Grossman has joined us and without objection we will waive him onto the subcommittee for purposes of questioning. You are now recognized. Id like to thank you for all the work you do and having been on the border myself some of the challenges that you guys are dealing with with the illegal immigrant population and i think its very underappreciated i think some of the stories ive heard that i respect Law Enforcement. There are few people that have to deal with as much as you folks do. Mr. Albence, you mentioned a Violent Attacks and ice officers and personnel and their families. Could you elaborate on that a little bit. Individual, unfortunately yet to be caught, that fired into one of our facilities where we had officers working. Weve had protests groups lay our buildings under siege and threatening the individuals that work there with aggressive actions. You have to remember, many of whom were not Law Enforcement officers. We have attorneys and support specialists and the government 30, 40 or 50 years to have nothing but honorable work. I think reckless language to denigrate them as individuals and the things they have done only serves to how is this committees insistence on these hearings on this issue impact you . As i mentioned previously as dhs made clear, there was not anything involved in this , it is the process that they made the decision on. This was his decision. As you can understand with an agency 20,000 strong, and more than 400 criminal laws, things that serve as distractions are very difficult for us to try to keep focus on the very important task we have, whether it is getting criminal aliens out of the communities, the opioid and even with all of this, the dedicated men and women of i. C. E. Show up every day and uphold the oath they took. I am sure the vast majority of people from my district respect what you are trying to do. I will give you another question. You have been in the news a lot lately talking about sanctuary cities and the harm they cause american families, both citizens and immigrants. I think the issue would be better explored by the oversight committee. The House Oversight committee overall. , would you agree . I would welcome help from anyone in congress that would like to give it to us. Can you speak to the harms of that sanctuary cities cost to us as american citizens in general . I believe there was testimony a few weeks ago. Convictedk, there are criminal aliens walking out the front doors of jails because we have jurisdictions that will not cooperate with us. Unfortunately, many of those individuals will go out and commit further crimes. Those are preventable crimes and preventable victims. Unfortunately, we have more jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with us and put communities in harms way rather than remembering what we should be doing as Law Enforcement officers, which is keeping every community safe. It is horrible. These people who do not like putting criminals in jail it is hard for me to understand, sometimes. We have a jurisdiction which just arrested the exact same individual for a criminal violation enforcing the laws they are to uphold, but when we come to take enforcement action against the same individual, sometimes hours later, we enforce the laws that we are to uphold, we are permitted from doing so. Part of the answer is that those people live in communities where they do not have to worry about those crimes being committed. At a Senate Judiciary committee, some of our colleagues seemed confused about the sanctuary cities and that i. C. E. Was looking for local law detain innocent people. Can you educate some of this by whats going on . Like any other Law Enforcement agency, we large detainers lodge detainers based on probable cause. 70 of the people we arrest, out of state jails and prisons. 90 of the people we arrest, and this has been consistent for the better part of the last decade, are a convicted criminal with a pending criminal charge. And in smaller buckets within that are those who enter illegally. There are immigration fugitives. They have gone through the entire Court Process and have now avoided complying with that order. We had 576,000 fugitives that grow every day. Thank you. The gentlemans time is expired. I now recognize the vice chair of the committee, miss ocasiocortez, for five minutes. Mr. Cuccinelli, i want to confirm something that had heard earlier with my colleague from massachusetts. Did i hear correctly that it is your testimony today that you are the individual who made the decision to end deferred action . Im the acting director when we implemented this, and im responsible for that. That time, its my decision. Was your decision . Yes, maam. I actually greatly appreciate that, because we happen trying to get to the bottom of that russian for quite some time, and i am sure it will help us in future examinations of this issue. Mr. Cuccinelli, in your agencys response to this committee, you stated that uscis did not engage stakeholders to solicit feedback on anticipated consequences of the policy change. Why did you not do that . For Something Like this, where we are changing a process and not operating off of illegal or regulatory foundation, it is not a common practice. Im not aware of any other instances where we would seek that kind of input. So you did not consider the impact your decision would have on critically ill children before making the decision . We understood that even with uscis backing out of the role of affirmatively granting deferred action, in a limited number of cases, that that opportunity still existed within the entire dhs system. In august, you told fox news that you see uscis as a vetting agency and not a benefits agency. But congress created uscis separate from i. C. E. To serve immigrants. In fact, its uscis own policy manual which says that Congress Greater the agency to focus exclusively on the administration of a benefit application. So, mr. Cuccinelli, uscis is a benefits agency. Why do you consider it not to be one . Perhaps the best way to put that is that i would characterize us as a vetting agency first but also a benefits agency. You all in congress have laid out a whole lot of benefits that we adjudicate for immigrants and potential immigrants in this country. Thats part of our business and mission. And my phrasing is to emphasize the role we also play as an element of department of Homeland Security in ensuring the safety and security and integrity of both the country and that immigration system. Mr. Cuccinelli, i think whats tough here is that i respect congress hasnt done its job in many respects with defining immigration policy. Its been a failure for a very long time, for congress to be able to define and policies correctly. But we still have created a mission for uscis through which the agency can interpret the spirit of this law. And it says right here on usci website. The agencys core values are defined as integrity, respect, innovation, and vigilance. And there is a reason that uscis is separate from i. C. E. And cbp. I dont understand how deporting critically ill kids is consistent with any of these values. Mr. Cuccinelli, do you believe that you treated children with cancer, Cystic Fibrosis, and other diseases with the dignity and courtesy of the mission of this agency when he decided, in secret, to end deferred action and ordered them to leave the country within 33 days or face deportation . There was nothing secret about what we did, because this was a process change. We made individual notifications. You yourself just refer to the andity to view the mission the spirit as one chain after another. There is no law or regulation in any of that. So we do the best we can with the filling our role and limiting ourselves to our role, particularly when that is continuing avenue of recourse for these folks. But you have discretion in the role. Heres the thing that i cant figure out. You have thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of cases, if not millions millions. Cases in this country, and you decided to prioritize the deportation of critically ill kids. Im trying to figure out why. We did not do that. We have gone through but you did im reclaiming my time. With respect. Ill give you a moment. With respect. When you make this decision at a time, at a specific time, you are making this decision at the cost of other decisions. So why did you make this decision to deport critically ill kids before almost all the other decisions that you had to make at the agency . Deportid not decide to anyone. We made the decision at the end of a long road that predates me coming into my current position and discussions across dhs. But it was made on august 7th, and i was the director, so at that point, it is my decision. Things that uscis testified at the last hearing is that there are tradeoffs, as you know, quite correctly. And handling 1000 of these cases absorbs resources, which, by the way, we are not paid for, that would otherwise deal with approximately 2000 naturalization cases. We did more naturalizations last year than the whole decade. Nonetheless, there are still more pending. And i hear from many of you all, legitimately, about concerns about backlogs in some areas. We have improved in many areas. But we have limited resources. And this is an undertaking by uscis that was and is going on that has never been assigned by congress, that has never been part of a regulation, and the authority to grant these same relief continues to exist, even had uscis not continue to participate in it in the way that we now do once again. Thank you, mr. Cuccinelli. The representative from the District Of Columbia is now recognized for questioning. I want to thank chairman raskin for this painfully necessary hearing. Of course, todays witnesses did not want this hearing before, because they had said they were in the midst of ongoing discussion with dhs to resolve it. Apparently not understanding the role of congress in making sure that a matter does not reappear, of this kind. Mr. Cuccinelli, you sent a letter to chairman raskin. The date was september 19. Informing him that dhs secretary directed uscis to open consideration of nonmilitary deferred request of a kind under of investigation today on a discretionary, casebycase basis. Committeeovided the with a september 18 memo from , you,ting secretary provided the same. Why was a decision made to reverse policy to deferred action on a casebycase basis when it came to these Sick Children . That was not a change, congresswoman norton. It was always casebycase. Deferred action, by definition, is a casebycase consideration. But there was a category . No, maam. And there was no medical deferred action. You sort of implied in your comment that this was just about people seeking medical concerns. Sick children. They are among those. We also get adhd filings and we get filings for people getting older, and that is their basis for so there was no directive policyver to reverse the to casebycase, and we did not understand the policy to be anything to be casebycase before, so you are telling us it has always been casebycase . That is your testimony . Yes. Obviously, you have to look at every case, but we are looking at the category of Sick Children. I am asking you because of a decision that directly conflicts with the recommendation your agency reportedly prepared for the acting secretary. Just ten days prior to the reversal and i am referring to a memo that was apparently prepared by your policy and strategy chief for a september 9 meeting with weretary mclean and you selected to lead that meeting. Are you familiar with that memo . I do not have it memorized, but i am familiar with what youre referring to. The uscis has not produced that memo for us but the press , reports indicated that the memo recommended the secretary revoke uscis authority to grant request for deferred action. Reportedly, it said, and here is the quote from the memo runs counter to the president s agenda to enforce our existing roles and potentially contrary to his goal of making sure that aliens are selfsufficient. Mr. Cuccinelli, did you direct your policy and strategy chief to send that memo that i just quoted from . We certainly did send a memo with recommendations to the secretary before he made his ultimate decision. It included six or seven, as i recall, different alternatives. Did you agree with that recommendation that the authority of uscis to grant deferred action requests should be revoked . Particularly, im interested, even as to these Sick Children . It was a broader comment that , with the breakup of i. N. S. , this authority was appropriate for the prosecutorial arms of the department of Homeland Security. Even with respect to children . And not appropriate for uscis. So it was not it was not just related to this category. Mentionedurse, you Sick Children, which i am sure that i and everyone else at uscis are sympathetic to, but that is a category. That is exactly the kind of thing we would look for in legislation. A category. We do not have the power or authority to create a categorical grant of the benefits. Mr. Chairman, i just want to indicate that, of course, there is Administrative Authority to create categories, but if they need legislation, maybe we should tell them what they already know. Perhaps you can pursue this with ms. Norton, who is the head of the eoc. We come now to mr. Desaulnier. He is recognized for five minutes of questioning. Thank you. Mr. Cuccinelli, it is a little difficult for me to sit here and listen to you say it is onsibility when this administration and the president has said that the second article of the constitution gives him the authority to do whatever he wants. And the amount of discretion that the administration have tried to say and has been challenged in courts the court has so far upheld things like funding the border wall and the separation of children. Your attorney, i assume, you believe in deferred deferred action started in the allowing0s, discretion. And now you say conga states to act. And like i said in the last hearing, Historical Perspective needs the last five sessions, the gang of eight will, for republicans and ford democrats passed out of the house with bipartisan support led by andnator schumer and mccain rubio, and came through here, and we are told now through articles in the press and interviews by mr. Bannon that he and others went to elements of the Republican Caucus and i am not privy to this but argued that that bill should never come up, because it was a good wedge issue for politics. Recently in the last session, we heard a respected representative introduce a similar bill. Again, the speaker never brought it up. A member is free to put the legislation in and i would encourage my colleagues on the other side to do that and i would be happy to work with them. But the context that it is everyones fault defies what we have been told in the press with the dynamics in the other caucus. Having said that, i want to turn my attention specifically to one case. You have talked about process and you have been very dispassionate about it. In the hearing last time that family was here legally, by the way. They were here under a tourist visa and invited to the United States to be part of a medical child that kept her alive when she was seven years old when she came from guatemala and she is now 24 years old. Respected atell the university of california and childrens facility, said she will die if she goes back to guatemala. You said that this is not truth. Maybe we can argue some of the parameters of that. But i want to read you the letter that she got which, from i understand, under the direction of the field office under you. Yourirector, thank you for request department of Homeland Security policies for certain military members. But evidence of record shows that when you submitted your request, you were lawfully present in the United States. So even your department recognizes, contrary to your earlier comments, the she was here legally. Your period of authorized stay has expired. You are not authorized stay in the United States. If you fail to depart within 33 days of this letter, uscis may issue you a notice to appear in Immigration Court. She was asked, at the last meeting, how did she take this when she received this letter . She was at the hospital, receiving treatment. Her mom gave her the letter. And she told us that she vomited. That she was so upset. So how can you, as dispassionately as you described this and i am not finished, and there is a process here, congress process. He said there would have been a file we would have known about her. We would have known about her, and that should have gone up the chain of command. So did you ever hear about her before you made this . Before this was decided, no, sir. Did you ever think of the consequences for people like her . Did you ever think, with all the other things you have to do deck and i respect that. I respect the fact that Congress Needs to come together. You still have consequences. As the record shows, multiple administrations. She, in her case, was approved for furred action in your case. She is here, under programs, saving peoples lives, under respect to the program, and then she gets this letter. You are responsible for that. Would you care to respond . When we withdrew, on august seventh, from granting affirmative requests for deferred action, we knew that that authority continued to exist, and anyone who would have received such a letter could have or would have been in the process where they could also get it from a more appropriate source, other than us. Youas mr. Renaud, who referenced, also said that day, the adjudicator who would have been dealing with a particular case, is what i believe mr. Renaud was referring to, would have known about it. That does not mean all the hundred cases would have known by the regional director or the head of Field Operations or myself at any given time. Usually, only a small portion of them are ever learned about. The gentlemans time has expired. I will recognized mr. Cloud now for five minutes. Thank you. Toould like to yield time mr. Roy. I thank my friend from texas. I would just ask a couple of quick questions. Mr. Cuccinelli, we heard ive heard a few of my colleagues on the others of the aisle, particularly my colleague from new york, talk about benefits. Can you clarify, for the record here, whether or not there is or is not a benefit being confirmed conferred . Or are we talking about a prosecutorial discretion choice as to how we handle these cases . Deferred action is a prosecutorial discretion. And we are not a prosecuting agency. The closest thing to that is simply issuing an nta that starts the process and puts you into the prosecutorial process. We do not participate in that. That is where deferred action is that has historically existed and inappropriate. And, frankly, it is inherent in that authority. Its not inherent in our authority at uscis. Right. Also, you touched on this a little bit ago, that the cost of adjudicating daca applications, applications like we are talking about here, these deferred action cases, the cost of adjudicating those, and what that means in terms of diverting resources from naturalization applications. You mentioned that before. Can you reiterate how important that decision is . I did not mean to suggest other people doing this would automatically spend 100 percent of that time on naturalizations. I was just trying to give the subcommittee a point of reference. And the congresswoman correctly alluded to the fact that there are tradeoffs. If we are doing this, we are not doing Something Else. We, like any other agency, struggle to keep up with our workload. Areunlike most agencies, we fee funded by part of the immigrant Community Community we serve. We have to operate on what amounts to a balanced budget function yeartoyear. We do not have the opportunity flex tofinancially absorb more work that has not been assigned by congress or by law or regulation. One more question. One of my colleagues referenced something up back people who were here legally getting wrapped into this. I want to clarify, for the record, that that is not the case, correct . We go back to the letter in question in august, all that was attempting to be done was noticing folks who were here who did not have status, that congress has not produced a status for you to give, that this was a letter clarifying their status . That is right. And just understand you could have a situation where someone is coming back for a repeat deferred action request. And they do it within the twoyear time period which is traditionally granted there is no requirement of two years. And that can be the duration of treatment. And, at that point in time, they will at least be under the then existing deferred action grant. However you would like to phrase that. I yield back to my colleague from texas. Thank you. I only got about a minute left. But can you tell me what law to defers uscis immigrants who there is no specific law that does that. This is a derived authority useted by the secretary for specifically in casebycase circumstances that came when n. I. S. Was broken up. To be clear, uscis does not have a formally established ical deferred action absolutely not. It has never existed, nor in its predecessor as far as i know. , would you say it is being treated as if it were formally established . Certainly a lot of the discussion sort of assumes a program that a lot of people use the medical deferred action title iv. There are other reasons people request deferred action, other than medical. There are perfectly good, human reasons, sympathetic reasons, why we talk about the medical, but other requests are made as well. How many requests for medical deferments do you receive every year . If you count not just the requester but Family Members who may be requesting to stay with another Family Member for medical reasons, it is probably in that 5000 to 7000 range. Do you feel you have the resources to appropriately deal . We can do the work, but then we are not doing other work which is legally assigned. That is the tradeoff. Thank you very much. We will do one other around, just to clean up some questions that are lingering in any member would like to do a little more. I will start with the gentlelady from massachusetts. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Forever chairman, elijah cummings, reminded us that the charge of this committee is to be an efficient and effective pursuit of the truth. I am encouraged that, today, we made some progress in that regard. And i want to thank you, under oath, for your honesty, mr. Cuccinelli, in taking responsibility for that decision to reverse the policy. You yousk previously mentioned on the record that your agency had done analysis to ascertain what would be the impact of such an abrupt policy change. Did you believe your agency did enough analysis to assess that impact . I am sorry, if i was unclear earlier. We did not do any separate studies, for instance, like we might when preparing a regulation or something. It was internal discussion, not what i would characterize as a study. Given that it was an abrupt policy that stood to impact the lives of critically ill children , in hindsight, do you think you should have done some analysis . Well, i do think in the if i had to do it over again category, i would not have applied it to people then pending. To for no other reason then ease the information out and to not surprise them with a change in circumstances. That would be the main thing i would do differently. Mr. Cuccinelli, it has been widely reported that the office of Legal Counsel at the doj determined that you are not eligible to serve as acting secretary of Homeland Security under vacancies reform act and the Homeland Security act. It has also been reported that the director of the residential Personnel Office at the white house has accepted this decision and briefed the president accordingly. Do you accept the decision of the doj and the president ial Personnel Office that you are ineligible to serve as acting secretary . I am not privy to anything you just described, and so i cannot answer that question. It is public record. But could you just give me your response . As you may know, my last government post was Virginia State government. Expert i know areas of the law very well, but i do not know them all, and one i do not know very well is a federal employment law, including things like the vacancies act and so forth. I have not studied it or looked at it. But again, the department of justice and the president ial Personnel Office have ruled that you are ineligible to serve as acting secretary. So, if asked to serve, contrary to the law, will you decline . I would not do anything contrary to the law. If i understood something to be contrary to the law, i would not do it. All right. If the president uses either of you to replace accurate mcaleenan,etary would you keep deferred action cases in place at uscis . This is for both mr. Coach now the and to albence to cuccinelli and mr. Albence. I did not think it is appropriate to comment forward on that. I told you just hear what i would characterize as i will call it a mistake, because it was to apply this retroactively, in particular. I do think the underlying philosophy was correct. I also understand that deferred action remains available for all the people, even had the uscis policy gone forward. But i cannot tell you, Going Forward, what i would advise some other secretary to do or what they would do or even if i were the secretary. This is have. Cuccinelli, you accepted responsibility for policythis egregious reversal. You have also expressed regret. Just now, you used the word mistake or come mistake or come mistake. If you were the acting secretary, would you keep the deferred actions protection with the uscis . I dont expect to see any change, regardless of who the secretary is, unless the program itself is reclaiming my time. Mr. Albence, your response . First, i do not think there is any reason to speculate there would be i would be acting secretary. Would you keep the policy in place . I would look at any decision Going Forward. Reclaiming my time. In closing, i just want to remind my colleagues here today to not lose sight of why we are here the families and their critically ill children whose lives are on the line. We talked a lot about process, but this is not about process. This is about people. We should never forget that. Thank you, and i yield. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you for your comments. Gentleman from texas, mr. Cloud, is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cuccinelli, you started to get into the lack of resources to do what you are legally mandated to do. Can you speak to that . Wow, i could use a lot more than five minutes on that, congressman. The most ill start with what i think is the highest profile backlog we have, which i would say is accurately characterized as a backlog. And that is asylum cases. Over half of them are over two years old. And i am referring to affirmative asylum cases. There are two ways to file asylum. The department of justice would talk about defensive asylum claims. We deal with affirmative asylum claims. 340 thousandthan cases pending. As soon as i arrived, i began the work of planning and executing, and we are in the middle of executing, massive hiring campaign for asylum officers, to start attacking that backlog more effectively. The main problem in attacking that backlog effectively is the crisis at the border. We broke records again for credible fear interviews again reasonable fear interviews program. D with the same people are doing that work. And none of what i just described to you, congressman, is paid for. None of it. So, when we construct our fees thoseave to build into things we do charge for the cost of the things that we do not charge for. Typically, humanitarian work of a variety of forms. That programned was not formally established. Can you speak to what the process of formally establishing it would be . Really, the only avenue is legislation. This authority, as i said, was around in n. I. S. Days. That is when Prosecutorial Authority in region was residing in the same person responsible for all of our visa work. The benefits i was talking with a congresswoman about earlier. With the division of i. N. S. , those authorities were divided. But it appears, looking back as i would not even call it a solution. The almost kneejerk reaction was just to assign the same authority to all three agencies, even though we do not have prosecutorial responsibility. Responsibilities. Is using your own discretion to provide deferred action, can you speak to some of the common illnesses that are normally granted deferred medical action . Some of the common medical illnesses that you see that are granted . So i have to say my information is anecdotal. Obviously, we have been talking about this, as you all have, over the course of the last several months. I pulled aof the selection of cases, for instance, to review at random, to see what the cases look like. So to get an idea of what orkload was come associated with these, and what they have to do and contend with. It runs the gamut. It runs from the kind of cancer and Cystic Fibrosis we have heard about today obviously, among the most sympathetic type situations as you can imagine me,things that look, to even though i do not decide these cases, rather patently abusive. I use the adhd example. Really . Just not in the same league. People claiming getting older. Some ofentioned earlier these, a good number of them, on our are not medical. There are other claims as to reasons they want to stay. And, candidly, the cases we talk , even though we cannot decide a case sitting at this table, the ones you would think are the most likely to be the ones found by a career employee, and that is who decides these, as compelling facts and circumstances. But i cannot sit here and prejudge them favorably, even though i am sympathetic to them. You mentioned that, when it comes down to it, it is our job to manage the resources and give you direction. Can you explain what is the best thing we could do when it comes to what your job is . You talked about the limited resources to do these things. The gentlemans time has expired. Please answer the question. Do not make us guess. Referencedan norton the category of sick filtering. If it is a category, you should be assigning it to us. Of course, the Supreme Court will take up daca november 12. It follows the dapa case mentioned. Can the executive branch use these inherent authorities that congress has not given direction onto create categorical grants of benefits . It is the position of this administration that we cannot do that. We will use the authorities we a casebycase basis. Nonetheless, at the beginning of this process, on august 7, it was understood that the authority to grant this relief would continue to exist at a different point in the process. I know people do not they would rather go to uscis than i. C. E. But the fact of the matter is that is the appropriate, and historically appropriate, getting outside the federal government, place for prosecutorial aggression. Thank you very much. Mr. Desaulnier. You mentioned waiting for legislative action, even though the precedent is there for discretion. What i would suggest to you i have a private bill for isabel. It is in judiciary right now. We are looking for support. We have had comments from legal experts if ever there was a need for a private bill, this is it. So i would ask, in the interim, for this specific case, that as she goes through, and i am being told by her attorney that some of the questions are different than the last four times she went through this, that you would work with us. Because i assume you do not want to be back in the position where she is on the cover of National Magazines as an example, even though she may be a little bit different. That is one. I arems. Pressley and looking for republicans to work with to taylor a bill for this group of bill people that would help them. In a normal process, we would be trying to work on something, knowing that there would be give and take. So within that context, i hope and would like some kind of response from you that you have the discretion to at least work with us to see if we can provide a legislative remedy for this group of people and specifically for this person. I do not necessarily agree with your comment about precedent and this authority, but i will absolutely work with you. We do not have to agree with what you are doing in order to help you craft it. We will bring subject experts to help you do that. We would be glad to do that. It sounds a little patronizing, but i will accept that. Simply because the nature of these discussions people can have the opposite impression. It is not intended to be patronizing. It is intended to point out that is a function accepted. That was my irish sense of humor. In the process of how well this all this develops, you issued this letter that you would deferrede eliminate action. Then there was discussion within the administration about what you should do about it. There was a memo that the press has got a hold of that was given to you from your policy director that suggested you should not backtrack, that you should keep as you were originally going to do. Is that true . Do you have an opinion, at that , in after our hearing which you knew about these cases so did you support the acting secretarys decision to change the policy on deferred action . Yes. I thought it was critical to get the question decided. As i view our role, when advising Something Like that, we variety of wide responses and presented those. In respect to my earlier comments, where i noted i think it was a mistake to implement this on a retroactive basis i freely concede that. But philosophically, it is appropriate, or more appropriate, for this authority to rest with the prosecutorial element of the department of Homeland Security, which is not uscis, and that these folks would still, while under different circumstances, be able to avail themselves of that. Case, theyspecific are in a legal and bureaucratic limbo. By the way, there was no public charge here they paid for their insurance, to be part of the program. They are taxpayers. They are beneficial to the economy and the community. Isabel got a degree with honors from cal state east bay. So how do we help work them through this process until we get to the point where she can either get her deferred action or they are in this bureaucratic limbo . As you know, we have reopened in these cases. I cannot speak to timelines for specific cases, but we have commenced deciding them. We are getting through some of the work. We have seen an uptick in filings, i would note for you, since this public discussion began. Is at they were already in the pipeline. Theres would not be affected by that uptick there but i cannot speak to exactly how long it would take for each of those cases to be decided. I can check it separately when we leave here. In the idea of working together, and i would be willing to help you in this regard not being patronizing, hopefully they are in this situation, a practical situation. If we could work to assure them will have their due process, and if there is a gap, we will work through it until there is decisionmaking, and then if the card work on ledges lesion that would permanently correct this, that is what i would like to hear. We would be glad to do each of those things. Thank you. Thank you. They gentleman from kentucky is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. I want to thank the witnesses for showing up and dispelling the misinformation out in the press and the false narratives we have heard for the last several weeks and months. Before i yield time to the Ranking Member, i just want to lament that the full committee, this committee is, right now, simultaneously conducting a bogus impeachment process three stories underground beneath the visitors center. A lot of my colleagues who would like to be here today are down there, both on the democratic side and on the republican side. I want to say i think it is a shame that that is simultaneously happening. ,ot just that it is happening out of the view and sight and sound of the American Public, but that it is happening at the same time as this important hearing. With that, i would like to yield the balance of my time to the Ranking Member, chip roy. I think my friend from kentucky. I made that similar point before your able to join. I agree with you. We should not have these things concurrently. This is too important of an issue. And lastly, i had to do the same thing at a different hearing, where i was unable to participate in the depositions going on on this important matter in a way that, i will reiterate, it is difficult to get transcripts, even for those on the committee. To get information on a thing happening now that i cannot physically be present for, and now i go to try to figure out what i missed, and i cannot do it in an easy fashion. Any of my colleagues who are not on the committee cannot do this. Some of this they get remedied tomorrow, but i believe the house rules indicate the records of this body are the position of each and every member. We are supposed to have access to those records and have an open process to see this information. It is critically important for the American People to know that this is what has been going on, that we cannot have the full debate that we ought to have. I want to come back to one thing, at the risk of repetition, but which i think is important. Of myeciate the comments friend from california that maybe we could work with you all to solve these issues from a alicy perspective, act as congress to solve the issue. Action thatout the mr. Could tonala carried out i do not wanted speak for you, but i will characterize it this way. One could say that the letter could be written in a different way or it could have been carried out in a different way, and mr. Cuccinelli had said that maybe i would have done in a different way, but it highlighted an issue that has been lingering my colleague used the word limbo. Even with the letter from uscis, you are in limbo. There is no status given. Am i correct about that . Uscis gives a letter that basically says, you got a letter, we, uscis, who have no authority to say whether or not i. C. E. Is going to exercise their prosecutorial discretion, we are giving you a letter that sort of says you might the ok for a couple of years. Is that roughly correct . Roughly. Can you clean event deferred action can be revoked at any time. In circumstances where there may be a reason for someone to be in removal proceedings, i. C. E. And individualabout the cases. They are rare but they do happen. We coordinate our efforts. Going back to the beginning, was any one being targeted, any one of these families in question, targeted for removal after said letter went out . Absolutely not. So acknowledging the concerns of the families receiving the letters i think everyone acknowledges the concern of how that was received, and we are all guilty of doing a lot of stuff in a fastpaced environment and going out and executing and going maybe we could have executed that better, but the question becomes the letters going to go out as a process matter none of these families were being targeted for removal, to the best of your knowledge . Not to the best of my knowledge. We would not even know they existed. Even that grant deferred action would not have come to us. I appreciate the tone. The caveat would be precedent. We have heard there is a long action in deferred this family had been approved four times before. Including by this administration. From their perspective, the precedent was what it was. Understanding what you may have meant by precedent a little better, congressman, each review is a. Fresh review, it is important to recognize particularly in medical circumstances, those people. And those will be reviewed a new each time. Perhaps i misunderstood your use of precedent. Maybe we just disagree on perspective. Previously, from your desk their perspective, you said this and they need to go through this process. The change was that unilateral decision to get rid of all deferred action. So that change the precedent, from my point. I understand better. Precedent we are talking about is, in my view, a flawed precedent. It is a kind of patched together circumstance to deal with a population which is inherently in limbo. It is not affirmatively set out. I get a little frustrated some, nameless they may be, coming here to bluster about the evils which has transpired here and try to impugn to mr. Chris dhs asr any member of they want to do harm to people. May i suggest a rhetorical question, a thought exercise . An obvious way to think about this is not casebycase, it is asking the question for each person where do you draw the line . Thank you for that, because it goes right to my closing thoughts. I want to start by thanking all the members of the committee for a very productive conversation. Thank you for educating and participating in what i think has been a constructive process. I want to thank you, mr. Cuccinelli especially, for especially regret about the mistake that was made in what he said was the Retroactive Application of a shift in the presumption, i think. I think for that. I want to pose a question about that, though. Caused great anguish in the families affected. I assume that moved you. I know you are a man with heart. This may have looked like it was easy pickings in terms of going over a whole series of administrative policies, where one could just tighten the leash in some way, but suddenly it caused a major furor because of the english and pain affected for the families. What does that mean about Going Forward, given that the compelling facts and circumstances standard that you are operating under, you said that certain things look clear we all have consensus about cancer, Cystic Fibrosis, leukemia, a serious diseases that we have heard about. On the other end, you said, this was almost humorous, aging that somebody was granted deferred action because they were aging i did not say they were granted, just that we see those applications. So would it be your intention i looked at where your Authority Comes from. It is not totally made up authority. In the june 2003 delegation to the bureau of citizenship and Immigration Services from the department of Homeland Security to grant the ability deferred action. You have the authority. Presumably, you could operated on kind of a more arbitrary casebycase standard or, what it seems like you are trending towards now, which is to develop certain categories that would strike everybody ask common sense medical compelling need versus people want to be here to age in place in the United States. Is that youre thinking that you are tried to develop some directives for the people who make these decisions . A couple of points, mr. Chairman. First of all, the authority you cite in the Homeland Security act is how you trace this back statutorily. It goes to the secretary. But the purpose of deferred action is it is inherently a prosecutorial discretion. Thus my descriptions here today. And what you point to in the statute does not provide, other than casebycase consideration, guidance or category can i pause you there and give a question to mr. Albence . Would you pursue deportation for people who had been granted deferred action for a medical purpose . Do you know of any case where the has happened and do you have the intention of doing that in the future . I am not aware of any cases where that has happened. Thayer enough a case where that has happened. Not to say that someone i got you. Someone could commit a crime if they were here on deferred action for medical reasons. But is it your thought, mr. Cuccinelli, that you would try to elaborate and specify what the circumstances are . No, sir. To be clear, from the acting secretary, secretary mcaleenan, it continues casebycase. What we do internally, and i heard some comments different than this, to maintain consistency. The way we do that is the four people who are regional direct is at the top of decision chains in the field talk together about these cases periodically, as they feel they need. Those are not conversations i participate in. About cases that similarly situated people and up with similar outcomes, whether it is grants or denials. That is just for consistency. It does not introduce any standards or measuring stick, if you will, to provide guidance as to how these may come out. We do not have any aces to do that. All right. We may have a difference of opinion about that, whether you would include that. The only point i would make, and i appreciate what you just said about trying to develop consistency. The point i would make is when we say that is a casebycase method of decisionmaking, that just means each of the facts is treated on their own presentation. There still does not need to be rules implied as to how the decision is made. And that is the nub. Let me shift to another question in my role as chair of the subcommittee. We have to get on top of the discovery here, which i think we can we should be able to complete in relative short order, and again, we feel strongly about this in general, because congress, as the lawmaking branch of government, has the authority to receive any information we want to make the laws we make, properly chide us for not having comprehensively overhauled immigration law. But we can only do it if we get the information about everything we need. Can i provide you an update on that . If you could, that would be great. Specifically on a couple of things, one is the memo written september 9, which was announced to us, but we have never seen it. That is one thing that i know we would very much like to get. That is one of the things that chairman cummings signed a subpoena for. The other thing is that you received, from mr. Mcaleenan, ms. His directives with respect to this matter. He asked you for a memo within 30 days discussing your implementation of these directives. I do not know whether you brought that with you i did not appear that was just a simple update if we could have that, that would be terrific. Because we do not have any update about anything that has happened, at this point. To be clear, the document request, we are still in litigation. The plaintiffs have not dropped their cases. Of course, by the has nothing to do with congress. The Supreme Court has been clear about that. What it does have to do is we have to review our materials to know our own position. We are doing all of that, gathering documents and review, now. All of this is one area of the law that i actually know very well. To comply requirement with a congressional subpoena for information. And we can get you all of the Case Authority on that. In other words, we cannot wait for cases to be decided, appealed, removed i did not mean to suggest that. That it complicates our own review of materials as we gather them. We would at least like an answer from you today. You can tell us when you will be able to comply with a subpoena that chairman cummings signed on the day that he died. Hours beforeeveral he lost his life. I feel very strongly about this. Do you know when you will be able to comply . I know we are working to comply but i cannot tell you sitting here i would have to revisit with the review team back at the office. Me when you will be able to tell me when you can comply . Estimate give you an by the end of the day. Can you also comply with the timetable . We provided our material to the department on october 20. At this point it is undergoing departmental review. Our information is more limited than what esther gooch and ellie has. When they are done that review, we will release that. Ok, good. Are there people with you today that can just tell us when that would be . Ice people. All i can ask them to see when they think it might be cleared. Ok come if you could get back to me. I asked yesterday. If you could get back to us as promptly as possible. We have some letters for the record that i would like to submit without objection. Severalletters from disability organizations, the interface Immigration Coalition in the new York Legal Assistance Group discussing the policyences of these changes for children who benefit from deferred action. Letters bethese entered into the record. And finally, mr. Gooch and ellie, cuccinelli i am sitting in mr. Cummings chair felt we mindful that he were here to help. I wonder if you would indulge me by listening to this. Regarding the case of an afghan national. He was a u. S. Military interpreter for us in the afghan war. He fled afghanistan with his family under threat from the taliban and was unable to seek entrance to the u. S. On a special immigrant visa. Entry on humanitarian parole in to the best of our knowledge he was denied entry. He served our country as a decade as a military interpreter. Military operators have written letters in his defense. He fled to pakistan where he is in hiding with his family. Last week he was arrested by the pakistani military. Advocates for him in the usa he has been tortured. He was finally released but was subjected to torture while being held. We have a partisan advocacy for him. His case for humanitarian parole was reopened but on august 1 we were informed to you that he was again denied on a discretionary ofis because of lack credibility but there was no explanation as to what that meant. We have been denied the ability to have a classified briefing on the matter. I am concerned that he will be killed or disappeared in pakistan by the forces against awaitd the same state may him and his young daughters. I would like it if you would be able to get clarification for the basis of this denial. If there are real facts there that show that he or his Young Children are security risks, by all means let us know. This is a guy that served our country with everything he had putting his life at risk. We have republican and democratic members asking you to take a look at this. Hisd you be able to clarify case for us and provide a briefing for us on the status of the special visa immigrant program . Would you be willing to work with us to see that there is justice in this case . With respect to the individual case, i presume there is no privacy waiver from the individual so i would have to find out what i am allowed to share. We operate within Privacy Restrictions ourselves. To go andappy determined that and turned back around and recontact you. Please do. His advocates are asking to do whatever we can to save his life from their perspective. He is someone that served with the Afghan Government and with our country they fully and honorably and people that worked with him are asking us to take a look at his case. We know there has been a dramatic drop in the numbers of interpreters admitted to the country and if that is part of the general tightening, i dont think it is fair. If there is some reason that he should not he admitted, by all means please show us that evidence but if you would be willing to meet with us than i fairnesswould be doing in this. Of chairman cummings. Detail i see how much am permitted to share and whatever the answer to that is i will let you know. Then we can go from there. I appreciate that. Anything else, mr. Roy . Thank the i chairman for the last 1520 minutes in particular. And i appreciate your participation. As always. Thaterstand from my staff he has signed a privacy waiver release. It is something presumably that we can meet about. That will be very significant. All of theo thank Witnesses Today for your testimony. I know you have important business to attend to. Without objection, all members will have an additional five days to submit additional questions. Isu to respond as quickly as possible. Thank you for your endurance. The hearing is now adjourned. Cspans washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up this morning, we will talk about the rising u. S. Yuvalt deficit with levin. And then a discussion of the former iranian hostage crisis with john limbert and stuart eizenstat. Join the discussion. Next, joe and jill biden visit a new field office for mr. Bidens 2020 president ial campaign. On the south side of des moines, iowa. After his remarks, mr. Biden greeted those in attendance. Greeted those in attendance. [applause]