Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing On Deporting Critically Ill Kids 20240713

The administrations decision to support children with Critical Illness is a decision that was recently reversed following public outrage and pressure from the subcommittee that i will now recognize myself for five minutes to give an Opening Statement and then i will turn to the Ranking Member. We are here to get to the bottom of the administrations mysterious campaign to deport critically ill children and their families. It appears this policy has thankfully been reversed after congress and the American People rose up in an outcry with full inhumanity on display in this policy. Im going to treat this hearing is not only an honor in the memory of her late beloved chairman Elijah Cummings but as a hearing in direct pursuit of a policy objective that was close to his heart that threatened deportation of Sick Children was that such outreach chairman cummings that his 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 his pain and difficulty chairman cummings recognized the indelible stain this policy would leave on her nation and he made holding that government accountable for his final official acts act. We now have a sacred altercation to follow through on the subpoenas to make sure we defend some of the most Vulnerable People on the planet, Sick Children who have, strangers to our land to seek medical assistance. To our Witnesses Today i want to be clear the subcommittee intends to follow through on chairman cummings promised to unearth the truth behind the policy and its desire to ensure that 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 love the chairman but we always Jonathan Sanchez serena and all of the immigrants whose health and lives were threatened by the policy implemented by uscis. Uscis must explain first what the current policy is on deferred action. He cannot keep the process shrouded in secrecy while these kids wait to hear their fate. If we could go to the slide on september 18 acting secretary of common security. Kevin lean in ordered the act and director mr. Tonelli who is with us today to quote ensure Effective Immediately uscis resumes its consideration of nonmilitary deferred action requests on the discretionary casebycase basis. Its unclear whether uscis is granted relief to anyone since reversing course. He further ordered uscis to quote ensure the procedure for considering and responding to deferred action requests is consistent throughout uscis and discretionary casebycase deferred action is granted only on telling circumstances. What exactly does this mean . Was the problem that uscis is trying to fix and what changes are being considered . Will any outside stakeholders be consulted . We want to have maximum transparency to ensure uscis is not imposing unreasonable requirements on immigrants who deserve our attention and their mercy. Uscis should explain what will happen to people with prior deferrals have expired while renewals are still under review. We heard from the family of a 12 year boy with a curable condition that could cause him to bleed to death if not treated properly. Both of his parents are waiting for months with no decision at all. His fathers deferral expired in august in his mothers expired in january. Neither parent would be able to stay or work in the United States threatening their abilities 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 limbo and what will he do to protect them . We want basic answers to these questions and we come here not in any kind of gotcha. We does want to deal with the very serious problem that was brought to our committee. The ongoing confusion regarding deferred action reflect the same kind of chaos that apparently produced this policy in the first place and prompted our last hearing for which the administration i hope today will provide us answers. What little we been able to learn indicates it was undertaken in taste without any effort to ascertain what is health and lifethreatening effects would be on the people. After hearing and set number but her compelling stories of people who were directly harmed by the policy. Of 2001 and suffering from a rare disease testified that deportation would he quote a death sentence for me and she told us i want to live. Im 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. He told us 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 i will die. In his words quote its incredibly unfair to kick out sick kids who are in the hospital taking treatments and just trying to have better opportunities to live. Obvious from the testimony that uscis did not realize what the implications of the policy would be or if new and decided to go ahead anyway. Either reality would be but the effects on maria and jonathan would have been if uscis had sought feet back and instituting new policies. A single stakeholders before it jeopardizes the family. Making matters worse uscis did not issue any public announcement about the policy or provide any guidance to people in aria and jonathan situation or any of the critically ill children and their families about what would come next to what they should be doing. What was the reason for the secrecy and the surprise . Is it usciss in massive policy shifts without providing Public Notice . Threatening sick kids is another example of the mistreatment of immigrant children. Uscis in particular is engaged in the pattern of developing policies for endangered children. Uscis has eliminated automatic citizenship for some children of u. S. Soldiers stationed overseas and immigrant kids playing their home countries and rolled out a public role that is steered many poor parents and are moving their children from as an earl health and nutrition services. The central tenet of chairman cummings philosophy that children are the living messengers that we send forward to a future that we ourselves will never see. Last hearing the chairman cummings attended was September September 11. Pay treating children with dignity was so important to him he made a point to come down to baltimore despite his advanced ill health. At that hearing elijah said quote we are in a moral situation. People are struggling to live. They are trying to be better and trying to be healthy. Chairman cummings who himself was struggling trying to be healthy one of these children to have the same access to medical treatment that he did. We will honor the chairmans memory and the humanity of all those seeking deferred action by remaining vigilant and conducting rigorous oversight and make sure this Administration Treats Immigrants with the dignity they deserve. We welcome mr. Ken cuccinelli and must mr. Albence. We are delighted again today but we want to be sure theres no more further stonewalling on these answers. We want clarity and answers and we wont stop until we get them. We will now recognize the Ranking Member of our committee mr. Roy. Smith thank you mr. Ken cuccinelli thank you for coming up and visiting us with today. I will reiterate what i said in the hearing last week that our continued prayers are with the family of chairman cummings and with his staff. We had a great event last week and i was honored to participate in that and we will continue to move forward in this committee carrying forward the chairmans legacy with wanting to do what is right. I do want to say one thing as we head into this that will not surprise the chairman on this issue that currently there are two depositions going on and those depositions at least two are scheduled today in what is going on now. Another part of the capital its impossible for me to be in two places at once saw sitting with this subcommittee that want to commit to my responsibility to do that. Im unable to easily catch up with and i dont think thats right were to carry out things and apparently there will be a vote tomorrow on this process but i would suggest this is part of the problem. Anybody watching this is the problem with this current broken process. There are very few members here at least on my soda aisle and i would note i would say my prayers and wishes to mr. Hice to son passed away yesterday and hes not able to join today. I dont think its way a way we should be conducting those kinds of inquiries. Today we have a hearing titled the administrations decision to deport critically ill children and their families. I do not believe thats what the administration was seeking to do that i think we are talking about the process change the layout to get about. This is a topic that involves deferred action requests not seeking to stay. We have had the hearings before. Declaring different action is not a pro grandpa deferred action is the decision. The decision and its a judgment call for those with prosecutorial powers and we have to treat it that way and we ought to have a discussion about policy changes if they are a any to be had if for anybody is here who has overstayed a visa or sitting in any kind of situation that the chairman described. When dealing with policy change that would have taken uscis some of the role and has no real underlying authority to carry out a i understand the correct he and prosecutorial decisionmaking left to those without who have power. Uscis has announced it will evaluate pending claims object to internal internal policy change and settled the day before the hearing. Its my understanding none of that deferred action individuals have been targeted for deportation and letter sent to the committee september 19 the chairman notes its returning to deferred action process in place on august 6. For better or worse no one is being treated any differently than they were ahca six. What we have here is a question about how to have a right policy. He too never one of us has sympathy for anyone who is sick that we need a real solution. No one in the administration wanted anyone to not be treated unfairly but we have to deal with the real world. We have people here who will lose status and we have to figure out what to do with that. Begging for an intermittent twoyear deferral that are not rooted lawn seat deferred action for those who dont prosecute and leave them an additional limbo thats not a good policy. Thats the existing policy. If congress wanted to otherwise solve the problem they should act. If Congress Wants to solve Problems Congress should act. Congress has the power to make policy. This is about gotcha politics. I would remind my democratic colleagues this reality is at the root of the scotus decision in the current debate on the dock a class with respect to approving status for people who overstated their existing visas. We have deferred action which is by definition pressing tutorials status. We cant give a status to a group of people in the name of prosecutorial discretion. For perspective is hearing involves a situation that affects roughly 900 current people in the policy is currently at the status quo. Lets think about whats happening right now. Border patrol agents along the southern border encountered millions of people cited two equally into the country. They were talking about 900 its important for each of these 900 but that number 977,509. Their 1. 148 million enforcement actions. Putting in perspective numbers we are talking about 900 versus 851,000 and apprehension. We are not talking or hearing about the tune in 24 pounds of sentinel seen crossing our southern border this last fiscal year. One little packet of sentinel would kill everyone in this room. Where not having a hearing about the 700 inbound weapons intercepted upgraded from last year we are not tight enough effective sepia. 12 in a gang members from 20 different gangs. They are roughly 576,000 immigrant fugitives in the United States today 576,000. Over half a Million People have been even a final order of removal by the judge still wandered around in the United States. According to i. C. E. We said doubledigit drop in volume up or some resources they have had to deploy to the border. This is why we have interior enforcement. Our borders are porous and traffickers are taking advantage of migrants. Traffickers use children as props for asylum. There were four and 73,000 family units this year we can discuss the 5 thousand four and it recorded cases of fraud from lets families of children who are being exploited as a Golden Ticket to come United States but lets talk about those migrants getting abused today on the journey through mexico. We have 60,000 pensions in september. We are talking about the numbers being down. They were down 400,000 may yet thats the reality of whats happening on her order right now today. But we had having hearings on that. We are having a hearing on something that has no discernible difference from where was on august 6 i understand the concern of the chairman about some of the questions about the policy but we are talking about something that is largely just with the concerns the majority has and if we want to have a conversation we should sit around at a roundtable and lets talk about the other things we can do. Fixing asylum catch and release, cbp ra. These are things we could fix him on piece of paper in one day if we had the will to do. We could fund i. C. E. And Border Patrol properly. We could fund i. C. E. At that level that president obama as for to deal with the m. Accompanied children coming in 2014 to 2015 and yet we only got 200 billion for i. C. E. In june after demanding a supplemental and that 200 billion was constrained and not able to be used for this hearing is about an issue that affects 900 people from whom we have great sympathy and we have to address the issue but on average they thats three times less than the total number crossing during one Border Patrol shift. Think about that, one Border Patrol shift. Cbps apprehends nearly 40 migrants a day. On average in may that number was 5000. The chairman wants to discuss the fact that these deferral so not programs lets discuss that and figure out a system that will work and that we can Work Together to try to figure that out. Id love to do that in the context of our very broken immigration security. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for your very thoughtful remarks and is always i am here to work with you and all of our colleagues on comprehensive Immigration Reform but you correct lee delineate what the object of todays hearing is which is to focus on this question and we are going to do it and im hoping we will get the answers that we need and then we can move on to other stuff. There are several members of the committee who have come today both for their interest in the subject but also an attribute to chairman cummings so without objection i would wave them on. Mr. Rouda mr. Cooper and mr. Mr. Desaulnier are members of the broader committee including mr. Kelly and mr. Gomez whoever right over here and also thank you mr. Roy for telling us about mr. Hydes father. Our thoughts go out to him. It seems as we are going to too many funerals these days but we are sending them strength and encouragement through without i want to formally welcome our words as a vapor can kouchner as acting director of the u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security welcome mr. Ken cuccinelli and Matthew Albence acting director of the u. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement the u. S. Department of Homeland Security. If the witnesses would kindly rise and raise their right hands i will swear you in to do you swear or affirm the testimony youre about to give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. Please speak directly into the muck or phones. Without objection in a written statement you brought with you or you decide to provide will be made part of the record and without mr. Cuccinelli you are recognized again oral recitation of your testimony. Good morning chairman raskin Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the subcommittee that i want to express my condolences on the passing of chairman cummings and i appreciate his dedication representing people of maryland seventh district for 23 years but my name is Ken Cuccinelli on the acting director of United States citizenship and Immigration Services. Usda says ministers the lawful immigration system to the agencys mission is to save her the integrity of that system by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting americans securing the homeland and honoring our values. I can tell you im extremely proud of the work and professionalism i see everyday by the employees that you at uscis in service to america. In fiscal year 2019 uscis achieved many President Trump schools to make the immigration system worked either for america. We tirelessly worked handinhand with their fellow dhs components to enter President Trumps called to address the ongoing crisis in our southern border. We have taken steps to mitigate the loopholes in our sound system particularly absence of congressional action to combating fraudulent and privileged claims and strengthening of protections we have in place to preserve humanitarian assistance for those truly eligible for it. The work uscis face work uscis faces each work uscis face a future statement in fiscal year 20 which indicated nearly 7. 5 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 represents a full spectrum of immigration benefits that our laws provide to those seeking to come to United States temporarily or permanently and those who seek to become citizens of this nation. Last year he uscis naturalized 80033000 new u. S. Citizens, the most in more than a decade. Deferred action is the exercise of that discretion to defer Removal Action on a casebycase basis. Deferred action is not an immigration benefit or a specific form of relief and does not divide lawful immigration status and does not excuse any past or future periods of unlawful presence. And partly deferred action can be terminated at any time at the agencys discretion. Historically uscis has not received many nonmilitary deferred action requests for the past two years he uscis has received approximately 1000 such requests annually that some of these requests are for families supporter medical issues. This is frequently incorrectly reported or mischaracterized by the media and some in congress as a medical deferred action program. To be clear dhs does not and has never administered a medical deferred action program. Only congress can provide permanent immigration relief to an entire class of aliens. Deferred action is a practice in which the secretary exercises Enforcement Discretion to notify an alien of the agencys decision for seeking aliens removal for designated period of time. Uscis does not enforce orders the removal thus to better align uscis with its mission of administering or lawful immigration system. Maga seventh usaf determine its field offices would no longer except nonmilitary requests for deferred action. The redirection of Agency Resources did not affect back up which remains in effect according to the nationwide injunction while cases go through the court system. It also does not affect other deferred action requests Processing Service centers under statute or other policies regulations are court orders. On september 2 uscis announced the agency would reopen previously pending nonmilitary deferred action requests. Further on september 18 acting secretary mcaleenan directed uscis to defer on a casebycase basis. The acting secretary for the directed uscis to ensure the procedure for considering responding to the deferred action requests is consistent throughout the uscis and discretionary casebycase deferred action is granted only based on compelling facts and circumstances. All cases that were denied around august 7 of 2019 have been reopened and are being considered or so into the acting secretaries september 18th directive and that completes my statement. Thank you. Good morning chairman raskin Ranking Member roy and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I want to express my condolences on the passing of chairman cummings. As you know on december 11 of 2019 i. C. E. Testified on this committee. The time of that hearing the witness the acting executive associate director for enforcement a removal operations tim robbins stated he was not aware of anyone at i. C. E. Being involved in the decision to end the program. Further explained i. C. E. Lacked any program or mechanics to consider affirmative deferred action requests but described a variety of ways of i. C. E. Uses discretion is appropriate on a casebycase basis throughout the 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 are witness declined to answer recorder possible by the secretary, securing questions relate to internal uscis issues on which he had no knowledge. As the committee is aware within a few days of the hearing secretary mcaleenan directed uscis to resume consideration of nonmilitary deferred action requests on a discretionary casebycase basis. In addition to her previous testimony i. C. E. Provided several responses to several followup questions from the hearing to the committee in a letter on september 24 of 2019. Another letter dated october 15, 2019 dhs further clarified i. C. E. Had no part in uscis previous decision so you can now i. C. E. Discretionary billing is not an issue today a process in which i. C. E. Is not involved in here today prepared to answer questions you may have regarding i. C. E. s roll or more specifically the lack there of in this matter. It i clearly stated up with this continue repetition does a tremendous disservice to the dedicated professional men and women of i. C. E. And just as importantly does a disservice to the American Public who deserve transparency and facts regarding the operation of the government. Beignets when individuals are committing violent acts making threats against i. C. E. Officers agents and employees and their families to continue suggest that i. C. E. Has some role in this process is not only inaccurate as confirmed by the information provided to this committee but also irresponsible im here today to defend the men and women of i. C. E. To once again set the record straight in my look forward to your questions. Soon thank you very much free testimony both of you and at this point having permitted several members to join the subcommittee on the dais who wanted to be with us today we will move to the fiveminute questioning portion ill recognize myself for five minutes first. Mr. Cuccinelli threatening to deport sick kids was an appalling thing and a public revulsion at the prospects which assembled us in our first hearing on him we were very glad the administration reversed course and decided not to pursue that policy. I want to ask you what exactly is the policy in place for processing these requests . I understand the compelling circumstances and standards its been enunciated. Were you considering being in the country for purposes of receiving necessary medical treatment to be a compelling factor and the circumstances . Mr. Chairman the acting secretary returned us to the process we were in before august 7 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 its about withholding action in fact. You saw what the a. C. T. Thing secretary wrote with respect to his phrase on compelling facts and circumstances. That is the only what i would call substantive commentary that is then distributed to our workforce in terms of reopening these cases and how to process them. Otherwise everything has continued as it was before. Is i understand it there were at least 424 families on deferred action whose requests are pending on august 7. They were denied and thats when they were told that if they didnt leave the country they should report for deportation. But then they were automatically reopened after the reversal of the policy. Can you tell me how many of those requests of those four and in 24 families have been approved at this point . C i cant relate to the specific 424. Those were the ones giving notice around august 7. There are were 700 cases pending at that time. We have completed as of earlier this week and since the reopening 41 cases was the last number i heard at the beginning of the week. 41 cases where people were granted . Net that is where i was going. I have no idea whether those 41 how they relate to the 424 who were among those who got notices on august 7. Ive got to say theres an occasion for frustration because we have requested a lot of documents and i think we receive one document which was the statement you had received about compelling facts and circumstances. We dont know whats going on there but we fear there was a formal reversal of the policy. I understand that there is no formal program but there was a policy of allowing people in this situation to stay in the country. There was a reversal of that policy and we were going to summon those people essentially for deportation proceedings. Then there was congressional public outrage. That policy was reversed but we want to make sure that what was going to take place on it categorical level is not taking place of the less visible ad hoc level. We want to make sure the prior policy really is reinstituted. Is that your sense of whats going to happen with these foreign and 24 people . Do we have to have a hearing on each of these cases is what im asking you. We dont testify about individual cases. But i understand you would like to see more written material but we gave you your response to one of the letters the entire universe of what is written on the topic and it didnt even cover one side of one page. This is a pure process question in terms of how uscis handles it internally. For other things standards are laid out. They are discussed but we dont have a law and we dont have a regulation. This is in taking action, its withholding action so beyond this are terrys statement about compelling facts and circumstances which i can even compare to anything before august 7 because. Event existed before august 7, thats the only item that has been added to the materials or information that an adjudicating officer might reference. The way we treat that is the policy before was that cases of people being in the country to receive medical treatment established a compelling reason to be here and these are all compelling facts and circumstances. Thats the way i would understand it and the way im interpreting it. I think i speak for a lot of my colleagues and saying we would not want this to be a creation of a new bureaucratic narrowing of the possibilities continue the medical treatment that they were here to get. My time is up and im going to go ahead and recognize ms. Maloney that we will come back around because we definitely have some more details that we want to get out in the situation ms. Maloney you are recognized. We will pass it down. Thank you mr. 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 we always want to make sure we handle things properly. I want to make sure for the heard everyone astray. We are talking about deferred action which means we are deferring taking action against people that may or not they not be in the country here or overstaying of these are Something Like that. Is that correct . They are here illegally for the request for the deferred action. The rules currently under the law you are just enforcing the law that is currently in the books . That is correct. You are just enforcing some of books . That is correct. When people receive letters that said if you are not in the country legally you need to show up or does the letter say action may be taken . The word may is in there. It is. It wasnt saying it was actually going to happen. It said it may happen. They were form letters adopted from other usage in the agency. Its pretty standard language at the end of that time period adjudicating officers would revisit the case about issuing an nt a. In other words if i was a person that got one of those letters i could have shown up and made my case and i wouldnt necessarily been forced to leave the country. Well it could be the case if an mta is not issued. Of course we never really reached that point in this process with the initial august 7 shut down of this process since it was reopened less than a month ago. I dont think it was any persons intent to make people either had a medical problem. Was making sure the people who set were here have the decision made to make to let them stay by the u. S. Government. It would have taken uscis out of the prosecutorial role of exercising prosecutorial discretion which is what deferred action is. It would not replace it with anything else and had it rolled forward it would have been considered in the normal course following those letters. In other words what really needs to happen is we as congress should set up a program its not really a program but the fact that we are not taking action on something that we should be. That correct and there is an equivalent in the state department. People can visit temporarily for medical purposes. They have a whole process set up for that and it is temporary. That is established pursuant to a law passed by congress. What we are talking about today is not based on law and not a stone regulation. It is much like creating a law by deciding how to use deferred action and inherent Prosecutorial Authority to achieve a goal. If there is a goal in which Congress Agrees should be achieved i promise you we will implement that law. Said thats an important distinction. You are not trying to do anything other than enforce the laws of our nation and if we as congress think that law needs to be changed and we make the changes you will abide by the changes . Absolutely. Again what we are doing is a a discretionary casebycase scenario. That doesnt lead to any certainty for the people trying to enforce their law or the people that need to come here and get treatment. Deferred action is not herbal. Can be revoked at any time. It isnt immigration status so because it doesnt have a Legal Foundation it is a very uncertain course for people to be on. Deferred action can mean many things. Doesnt necessarily make them legal and thats the point i want to make it we can decide they want to not enforce collecting taxes from certain people and that doesnt mean they are following the law. The point i would make for this Committee Rather than replowing the ground that we have argued plowed i would suggest we give the administration and individuals trying to enforce our laws the tools they need and for congress to act with a than wasting time on other things and i yield back. Thank you mr. Keller. I now recognize the gentlelady from illinois for five minutes. So i think you mr. Chair. Mr. Albence i want to understand ices role. They didnt notify the public. To add to the confusion once they public found out uscis claimed eyes would be handling requests going for but at the time i said it was never informed of the handoff according to reports. I. C. E. Was quote blindsided by the move from uscis and i. C. E. Was scrambling to respond. Mr. Albence was that true . Were you blindsided . Yes. As he put it in writing back to the committee there were some discussions over the years with regard to this process but the ultimate decision and anything contemporaneous with that decision was made by uscis. When and how did you find out about this . I want to say my chief of Staff Public Affairs brought to my attention. And when was that . I dont have exact date. I think maybe the 25th or 27th of august. Im not exactly sure. That was the first time you learned that uscis would be taking over deferring action requests . I believe so, yes. We know from uscis written response to the subcommittee at the agency discussing deferred action october of 2017 in the same responses when asked about collaboration uscis wrote we can confirm the discussion didnt take place prior to august 27. Was i. C. E. Blindsided by this visit our head baby been involved for months or years . He without getting too far into the deliberative process is a mention there were discussions were held under the prior leadership of those agencies with regard to this process but nothing had been settled on that or agreements with regard to how it would be implemented. A they kind of just fell off the map. There was nothing recent with regard to those types of discussions. Do you want to i. C. E. To assume responsibility for deferred action from uscis . The secretary has spoken to that but to that comment and other witnesses who testified we seigall i. C. E. Does not have a mechanism to affirmatively adjudicate or provide any sort of deferred action. With regard to who to arrest and detain and if the judge were to have someone removed to get removed. We have a step where someone can file for a state of removal but that is where our discretion lies and rightly so. Have you discussed this with the acting secretary . I have spoken with the acting director certainly afterthefact. I had one meeting with the acting secretary but we have removed from the policy because it wasnt something that i. C. E. Was involved in. My recommendations are remains of the agency to better equip and adjudicate applications. At any point in time has i. C. E. Implemented a program similar to uscis where an immigrant proactively enter immigration proceedings . We utilize deferred actions in certain instances for example if there is a witness we need to do in the criminal examination or someone cooperating with the criminal in the instigation but again its only in conjunction with their Law Enforcement mission. Besides i played a role in the updating of this policy at the acting secretary ordered . Do you agree with the decision to order critically ill children to leave the country in three days or these deportation . What the letter required them to do was to respond within 33 days to make the determination as to whether or not a notice of the file. Notices file. Notices to appear is only the beginning of that process. That begins the core process but ultimately know i can be removed from the country absent a immigration judge. If somebody has a significant humanitarian concern or medical issue thats when i. C. E. Can exercise prosecutorial discretion and grant that stay. I know im past my time but heres a letter that said within 33 days of the date so not what you are saying. We report his cis as to whether or not a notice to appear while the started for the immigration core process but only an immigration judge under certain circumstances has the ability to issue a ruling. The gentleladys time has expired but i know this will become an issue so i want to read that sentence so we are all on the same page. This was found to in this case maria but it was the exact same letter that went out to hundreds of people to that caused the controversy and crisis in the first place. If you are not authorized to live in a state within 32 days of the data letter you commence removal against you with the immigration carpet this may result in you being removed from that state it found ineligible for other u. S. Immigration benefits. That is what caused this. We we are delighted there was a decision to reverse this new policy and with mr. Cuccinelli there was no Program Place but there is a policy. The reason it was implicit is something that our colleague mr. Roy said which is a tiny number of people and the whole universe of people who are immigrants of the country and most of them are here precisely to get medical treatment. Im going to recognize ms. Maloney for five minutes. I want to thank the chairman for focusing on this important issue and this is one of several hearings that hes initiated on the subject. 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 too many families this is literally a lifeanddeath issue. Many people, some on the other side of the ill have indicated that they are not here legally but many are here illegally and they are under deferred action you they are being threatened with deportation. Sitting in a front row behind you is nicholas espinoza. He travels here today to try to save his daughters life. She is seven years old and her name is julia. There she is, julia, fighting for her life. She is in a special Treatment Program at seattle Childrens Hospital because she has 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 expires in september. Her father help support her two. His deferral expired three days ago and they have both apply for renewal this june but still have not heard about their cases and it does not undecided and julias doctors say if she leaves this country and goes back to her home country she will die. This gives her parents three options. I would say she only has three. Stay in the United States with her daughter even though their deferrals have expired, leave the country and leave their 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. I want to politely and respectfully ask you mr. Cuccinelli to look at mr. Espinoza. He is right behind you. Mr. Espinoza raise your hand said he can see you and look him straight in the eye and as a professional ask him which of those options he should choose. Madam chairman dan rinault was representing ncis cis and lost hearing in one of the things he said the agency and i dont mean mine, the employees of the agencys position in many cases is the hardest cases we have to deal with are the kind we are talking about today. They are cases where it is possible that the law calls for a very sympathetic person or family. Reclaiming my time because i dont have much time. We have had many people here in our hearings that were brought to this country buy american scientists because they wanted to study their disease so we could possibly save their lives and have medical research that could save the lives of many other people. I feel its a very human decision but i think its terribly wrong to deport someone who has come here legally and in this case she is here legally but i would like to ask you what would you decide if it was your child if youre talking about humanizing the situation . Any parent does whatever they can to care for their children. Been getting back to the specifics can you say here today that julias parents will not be penalized for staying in the u. S. While they fight for the renewal of their request to stay here which is pending and if you put a human face on it this policy has a devastating effect on people. If this administration claims that its been reversed they need to tell people clearly in writing to all the professionals and the government and the people that are here exactly what this means in real time and what their real possibilities are i find the language discretionary casebycase basis , what does this mean . Can you get back in writing to me like how this uscis define it my time is up but id like to see in writing how you define this exactly for the purpose. We do not. Has the answer and i know you dont like that answer. This is not an action a program or. The withholding of inaction. Madam chairwoman you just described what might make an excellent individual standard in and a piece of legislation people coming here and doing scientific studies and getting medical care. It sounds to me like he would make an excellent piece of legislation. Simply put, one last question would we be applying big same standards to deferred action Going Forward is the agency has in the past, yes or no . We did not explain or pose any standards other than a casebycase decision which then goes up functionally to all four regional rectors who are career employees and we talked one another primarily to make sure we are implementing this process consistently across the country. There are no standards we have given them other than what you see from the acting secretary of the language of compelling facts and circumstances. We dont have a legal basis to do so. We would welcome that from you all. The gentleladys time has expired. One question embedded in the gentleladys thoughtful line of questions was what would your recommendation be in the situation i heard you say parents all parents will do whatever they can for their kids and i take that to mean they should continue to stay and be treated. Of course all of you know i can neither give them legal advice nor will we sit here at the table and decide individual cases. Accepting full wellhausen pathetic the case is which is exactly why we use the kind of compelling facts and circumstances language as the secretary did but if you are looking for me to decide the case here i cannot do that i might believe you all know i cant. Thank you. Im now pleased to recognize our colleague from massachusetts for her five minutes of questioning. Stand thank you very much mr. Chairman. This hearing has been a longtime coming and there was commentary from my colleagues across the aisle saying we have Better Things to work on and should not be wasting our time. Never one to lose sight of the impact on real peoples lives while we are talking about policy and that is why the American People sent us here so we are not wasting our time. Does it take a thread of subpoenas to bring you before a committee today . In the a moment i will turn to your action but first i want to talk to about the families who have been impacted at the egregious policy shift. Families like my constituent the sanchez family and serena and her mom. I told them when i met them that i would fight for their children as if they were my own and i intend to honor that. 15yearold johnson came before this committee and shared his story. He spoke of how Cystic Fibrosis has ravaged his body. The tragic death of his younger sister in honduras suffered similarly. The reckless actions of your agencies that have put this very ability to receive a medical care at risk or just unconscionable. For 83 days mr. Chairman nearly three months now we have been demanding answers out of this administration. Mr. Cuccinelli you testified that you understand that we want more paperwork but you simply dont have it. None of us in government want more paperwork. But we do want our real answers and justice for these families and peace of mind. They deserve that and the children deserve that. It turned around us and callous effort to deport her critic lee l. Immigrant neighbors and their families while im relieved that the policy has been reversed these families and the American People deserve answers and the certainty will be able to remain in this country that like to thank families like these and countless others who have to fight the dramatic and imminent fear of deportation and stepped up and spoke out to shine light on this injustice as well as the attorneys of organizations. Like request consent to include statements for the erred for the civil rights impostors was the american immigrant Lawyers Association. Without objection they will be entered into the record. Tag your agencies that failed to turn over single document in response to our letter and even in response to subpoenas by our chairman may he rest in power allies to cummings signed before his passing so i hope you can answer the questions i have this uscis and i thank you continue refuse to identify who made the decision to end consideration of deferred action by uscis. I can only assume because no one wants to put their name on such a disastrous cruel and unamerican policy and the government officials and made that decision not to be held to account. Mr. Cuccinelli to remind you youre under oath today. Who made the decision that uscis would stop expect and processing deferred action requests . That was my decision as the acting are. Do you stand behind that decision . That decision has been reversed. Your personal, okay but today those families have received no notification confirming the reversal of that. Can you tell me why that is . I think they have. We are paper agency when it comes to matters like this so when cases are closed literally a physical file is wrapped up and mailed to the Storage Facility so when we reopen cases we literally im sorry im running out of time. Just trying to answer the question. I. I apologize after a claim my time. Mr. Cuccinelli would you say you were not aware of some of those consequential policies coming out of her agency and you initially did not know that it was coming . I did not say that today. Spiner earlier today in your testimony. Yes or no mr. Cuccinelli and in one of the white house play a role in this decision . This was an Agency Decision solely and other than discussion within the Department Comment security. Did Stephen Miller play a role in this decision are not . Im not going to get into specific commentary back and forth but i made this decision. As you noted im under oath. Yes or no. Im not going to just answer the way you want me to answer. I want you to answer yes or no was the president involved in this decision . We cannot as you well know and im talking about the content of this discussion with the white house. You said you made the decision so was the president involved, yes or no sexting i made the decision alone. The gentleladys time has expired. Thank you very much and we will go now to ms. Miller. Youre recognized for five minutes. We have a crisis on our border biggest year to date we have had over 850,000 total apprehensions on our southern border. I commend President Trump for stepping up and taking action on my colleagues across the aisle have refused to properly and adequately address this crisis. During our last hearing on this topic i post a question to mr. Mr. Coleman regarding all of the rhetoric surrounding the crisis at our southern border and i want to propose that to you. Director cuccinelli and director albence has this rhetoric helps move the ball forward in solving our nations larger immigration issue . Madam congresswoman i cannot say that is the case. Certainly there is extraordinary Public Interest in the subject so you expect a certain amount of rhetoric back and forth. When it gets in the way of construct a discussion and in fact has to some degree in the subject we are here talking about deferred action which we have focused on in medical cases but i keep hearing reference to medical deferred action which does not exist by way of example and accuracy and that doesnt help the public discussion. 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. The thrust of your question is hard to argue with and i think all of us on some piece of that. At uscis we keep pressing forward to do the best job we can whatever that environment is. Thank you. He youre right in stating we cat the crisis both in terms of illegal aliens but also in terms of opiates and other contraband smuggled into and out of this country. Dhs is frankly made clear for many weeks now that i. C. E. Was not involved in this process yet here i sit while we have a tremendous crisis at the border, is a tremendous Opioid Crisis. Last year we seized mr. Roy you mention several hundred pounds would reseize 11,700 pounds of fentanyl. We have had communities that are suffering greatly from the scourge of this drug. I am more than willing in a probably testified more than anybody in i. C. E. In the last two or three years we are more than willing to speak about anything or agency does and im 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 resources im sure you understand and i will say we did provide our documentation with regard to the subpoenas to dhs prior to the deadline established by this committee. As you may know my district is ground zero with the Opioid Crisis so its very important to me. How is the strategy proposed by her presence helped curb the flow of illicit drugs . We have worked diligently both domestically and internationally with regard to trying to address the Opioid Crisis. As i mentioned almost 12,000 pounds last year which is an increase over the prior year probe initiated more cases into narcotics drug smuggling focusing a lot on International Availability because we know a lot of the precursors and material necessary to create the opiate is coming from overseas often from china. We have dedicated resources. Obviously if Congress Gives us more resources we can certainly do more. As an aside i noticed a year or so ago in my neighborhood all of a sudden there were all of these personnel surrounding a house waiting on a male delivery happens everywhere. In your Opening Statement he also mentioned a threat and Violent Attacks on i. C. E. Officers personnel and their families. Can you shed some light on that . Its unfortunate and a lot of the danger that is being unnecessarily placed onto our personnel stems from misinformation or vilification or terms that are used to describe Law Enforcement agencies and other civil servants. We have seen instances over the past several months with officers being assaulted. We had thankfully nobody was hurt but we had an individual shoot in to wear command center was where we had officers working on getting criminal aliens out of the communities and this heightened rhetoric and ive testified before. If congress does not like are those in congress do not like the laws that we enforce they have every ability to change them but we are not in a position to pick and choose what policies we should enforce my whipping congress would want the executive branch to override that decision. The gentleladys time has expired. By the way mr. Albence i appreciate it very much the answers provided on september 24 by usa as the i. C. E. Participate in discussions leading up to the original decision and we are still trying to get to the bottom of the decision. We want to make sure we have clarity and we can figure out how this to place. Without i go to mr. Gomez for questioning for five minutes. I did mr. Chairman thank you for clarifying that. Mr. Albence i think democrats would agree we want you to focus on preventing Illegal Drugs from entering this country making sure people that shouldnt be here are not here. Thats why we are having this discussion. If all of a sudden instead of focusing on that we are focused, theres a focus on kids who are terminally ill is chronic illnesses that needed to be here so thats why we want you to focus on the other stuff. You mentioned there was a discussion and he couldnt get into, you couldnt get into the discussion regarding deferred action. Can you tell me how far back the discussion started . I dont have exact dates because im not privy to put it would have been free free i. C. E. Directors ago and once cs ago. When it gets hard to keep track but how many month . Pushing probably eager to have for two years. About when the administration and 20 teen . I would say 2018. 18 . Okay. I just wanted to get clarification on that. I want to go quickly into questions. Mr. Cuccinelli you apparently sent an email to the American Immigration Lawyers Association saying quote uscis field offices are informing the public of the change on an individual basis and quote. Since its the approach has led to. Pat and confusion i believe was not acceptable and mr. Cuccinelli you personally decided it was not necessary to notify the public. Is that true . Congressmen it a bizarre typical practice when we change a process that isnt a stone regulation or law to not do public notification. That is the rationale for having done it on a casebycase basis. Why didnt you think it was necessary . It was just a process and thats what he did even though you are dealing with peoples lives . Cert everything we do deals of peoples lives. In various ways but as i said typically when we are changing a process and not changing legal standards or Something Else of that nature guidance to adjudicators for instance but then we do not have public your agency on september 24 responded to the subcommittee and said he did not notify the public because this was an operational change which is kind of what youre saying again. Do you think telling critically or ill children and their families that they have 30 days to leave the country is merely an operational change . Youre referencing the form letters and the reality is i have right here. What does it say . It says its as clearly you are not authorized to remain in this country and within 33 days of this letter what happens if you dont report to the irs we may begin to audit you. I would certainly Pay Attention to it. Exactly. Cf. Perhaps it would help if youll knew when anyone resents to uscis seeks a benefit into not obtaining some status im going to reclaim my time. Let me ask you a few more questions. Did you approve this policy without bothering to figure out how you implement its . No. Was your plan to notify people requesting deferred action of the general public if uscis would stop considering deferred action . As you noted earlier our intention was to notify them one at a time individually and direct way. That was the plan. You had no plans. Said that was the plan. Sad to notify them but you also stated that the function would be transferred over. No, no, no. Thats a dramatic mischaracterization i think its 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 for deferred action over to i. C. E. That has never ever been the case. Discretionary authority which mr. Al benz described. We were, to put it in simple terms, ceasing use of this discretionary authority. So it dates all the way back to inf. When you decided to reverse the policy, why tonight you choose to issue why didnt you choose to issue a news alert gentlemans times expired. You may answer the question. If youre referring to the secretarys reversal, we did do that. On the regarding the initial policy. Well, i thought i heard reversal. Your full policy reversal on september 18th . Yes, sir. That was publicly announced. Okay. I dont have that. Okay the gentlemans times expired . Thank you so much. Well come to mr. Royce for five minutes of questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Albence, it falls under i. C. E. For removal proceedings, correct . Thats correct. Mr. Cucinelli, let me is ask you a question, has congress this august body created a status for individuals who overstay visa or come here illegally . No. Is there a law directing uscis to give status to any of the individuals were talking about here today that congress has made clear and put into law . No. My colleagues mention a compelling reason to be here as a standard of some sort. Is that a visa category . No, and its very difficult to talk about at a policy level about how it would affect any particular case, because by definition its case by case. Is it a status . No. Is it as a human being, as a christian or as someone of faith or, you know, looking at someone through the eyes of a human being something thats concerning, a compelling reason to be here . Sure. Absolutely. Is anything in the letter that was sent on august, whatever it was, 7th, factually untrue . No. Was it legally correct . Yes. People quibble over tone, but sure. You said you made a decision to change procedures. Yes. My perception of the procedures, so i can try to figure out the policy which is what congress should theoretically be in the job of downing, if one overstays their visa or comes here illegally and you face a health issue and youre getting care in the process of you were here, you had status, you were here illegally or you had status the, you were getting care, now youre overstaying your visa, and the process really is essentially to go to uscis is and to beg for some sort of intermittent twoyear deferral from an entity, uscis, without it being really rooted in any law that congress has put forward. And you seek deferred action from, in essence, i. C. E. By way of a uscis letter when uscis doesnt actually prosecute and, therefore, youre effectively leaving these individuals in limbo. Do i have rough hi the characterization correct . Yes, and it might help people to understand the reason i said this goes back to inf days, back in inf the same person as a regional director had the Prosecutorial Authority that i. C. E. Now manages and the uscis authority at the same time. That was all in one person. When ins was broken up in the initial distribution of authorities, this was just given to three agencies, and i dont think with much consideration of whats the difference between cbp, i. C. E. And uscis as it relates to Something Like were talking about. So in trying to clarify the procedures, were you, can you clarify why you were trying to clarify those procedures . So several years ago the president indicated publicly that he wanted us to stop utilizing essentially expanding the law are to provide the law to provide benefits that arent provided by congress or by regulation. And thats been a 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 france sissies that then the director all the way back to 207 in conversations with field leadership, determined that this was one of those types of just descriptively authorities. And to start working to back out of utilizing that authority because it wasnt appropriate for uscis mission. And isnt this at the core the question here, right . I mean, on so many levels i get frustrated that congress doesnt act. I get frustrated that congress doesnt act with respect to authorization of military force, 18 years after we passed the first one in 2001. We have men and women enlisting into the military who werent alive. I introduced the article i act that would have National Emergency declarations expire after a year. I happen to believe that congress should reclaim its authority, congress should act, congress should do what were supposed to do which is pass laws and then hold you all accountable for carrying out those laws. And it strikes me that part of the problem we have here in this case but also with thing it is like daca and darpa, right . In terms of whoevers in the white house, doesnt matter to me, lets have clarity in the law. Lets not expect bureaucrats, respectfully, that those in the agencies to be making policies on the margins of the law that congress passes. So if we have in the case of dapa and daca when i was the First Assistant general of texas we litigated and went to the United States Supreme Court, the question was whether or not conferring status and benefits to a class of individuals is something you could plausibly say is actual prosecutorial discretion. Its ridiculous for congress to be building a policy on the back of asking bureaucrats to make those decisions when we hold the pen, and we could decide what laws we want to put in place. Would you agree with that . The. Yes. Youre not building a a policy, youre telling us to implement a policy. Youre not giving us standards, youre asking us for standards that dont exist in law. And as i said earlier, pass a law, i promise you, we will implement it. All right. And then the gentlemans time has expired. I want to thank mr. Roy for thoughtful comments. I want to i do want to say i concur with a lot of your sentiments about article i and the exercise of congressional power. On the daca question, the house of representatives has passed the dream act, and it is over in the senate, so were waiting for senate action. So it takes who two to tango here in the United States congress. Its not just the house side, its the senate as well in order to have effective article inaction. I will recognize ms. Wasserman schultz for her five minutes of questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Uscis has actually bragged about systematically restricting legal immigration, and i think its important for us all to be clear about what you have been aiming to accomplish. My constituents, americans across the country, arent fooled by this administrations specious attempts to with distinguish between documented and undocumented immigration. You and mr. Trump dont want nip who looks or talks differently than caucasianamericans to be allowed into this country thats false. Im sorry, thats thats defamatory. Theres nothing the gentlelady controls the time, and the witness will get a chance to respond. Thank you very much is. You want to make life harder for immigrants and demonstrated you will pursue this white supremacist ideology at all costs. Even if it means critically ill children as a consequence. In august you announced thed administrations new public charge rule, for example, which would deny legal status to immigrants who use social services. Mr. Cucinelli, has uscis done any analysis of how many children may stop receiving Critical Services due to fear of losing legal status under this rule in and if you could answer that question, please. After declaring that i am not a white supremacist [laughter] as you alluded [inaudible] nor is the president okay. And facts matter. Yes, they do. Right. Thats why im stating them here yes, no, you certainly are not. Just answer the question certainly cloaked [inaudible conversations] reclaiming my e time. How many children may stop receiving Critical Services due to fear of losing legal status under this rule . Youre asking a public charge. Thats right. I dont have that information in front of me. Does anyone behind you have the information . We came to talk about deferred action today im able to ask any question you [inaudible conversations] reclaiming my time, you are the head of uscis, and youre going to tell me you established a policy on the public charge rule, and you dont know how many children off the top of your head affected . Did you not think it through before you insisted that rule is a thousand pages long, maam. Its a pretty you know, so when youre talking about affecting children, one would think that someone in your position if you were going to establish such a heinous policy with such far and significant reach and potentially harm thousands of children, that you would know how many children it would affect. You dont know . So the what you refer to as heinous policy is okay, im not asking for commentary on the policy wildly bipartisan basis. Okay. But you have implemented a policy that yanks social services and denies the ability denies nothing. Legal status to immigrate here if they are going to use social services. In fact, advocates have reported that immigrant families are terrified and that some have already dropped their children from essential programs like medicaid and temporary assistance for needy families. When you announced this rule, you were asked whether it was consistent with the poem under the statue of liberty, and in response, you said the poem was only referring to people coming from europe. And people coming from europe would not be a public charge. I did not say that. That is a what you said. That is not what i said it certainly was the implication no, no, it is what you would like to broadcast. No, no, i heard you say it. I heard you defend it, and i want to know whether you think our immigration policies treat people from europe different than no. You dont think so . Correct. So then im not sure why you made that statement i didnt. [inaudible conversations] no, no, you said the poem was only referring to people coming from europe. Theres no doubt about that you added to the end and the implication was that people from europe were not likely to be a public charge. No, it was not. Were you attempting to shut down the American Dream for immigrants who might be rich or white with this policy . No. Obviously. Okay. The wealthiest country on earth surely can live up to spirit of [inaudible] and not yank the rug out from under them as you have with this heinous public charge policy and and the intimidation tactics that youve used to make sure people understand theyre not welcome here if theyre brown or that is false. Yield back the balance of my time. That is false. That is not the time is not yours. Thank you. I yield back the balance the lady has the witness does not have the floor. The i will now recognize mr. Clay, the gentleman from missouri, for his five minutes of questions. Thank you, mr. Chair. And thank you for conducting this hearing. And the American Academy of pediatrics, or aap, represents over 67,000 pediatricians across the country. After uscis decided to deport critically ill children, aap wrote a letter to you, acting director cucinelli, and to acting dhs secretary Kevin Mcaleenan about the decision. Aap wrote, and i quote we implore you to reverse this decision so that countless children and their families can continue to amy for deferred action apply for deferred action. For some children this is a matter of life and death. Mr. Cucinelli, have you read that letter . Turn on your mic for me, please. This subcommittee received 15 more letters from state chapters of the American Academy of pediatrics in advance of our hearing in september. These letters include truly heartbreaking stories of children and families thrown into fear for their lives because of this situation. Doctors in massachusetts reported that the family of a 10yearold who has, had been blinded by eye cancer had been ordered to leave the country along with the family of a 7 pyearold suffering 7yearold suffering from severe epilepsy. Mr. Cucinelli, did you know about either of those, these cases when uscis decided to end deferred action . Congressman, we dont read individual cases when making a procedural decision like that. So the answer to your question is no. Did you think about maybe these kids needed some lifesaving medical attention . That they could only get here in this country . Well, congressman, we knew that as a practical matter they had come to us seeking deferred action affirmatively. They werent in removal proceedings. One of the cases weve talked about before uscis were in removal proceedings, none were threatened with deportation. I have heard i. C. E. People say that they were not you know, none of these people would be on any targeted list. So when we withdrew from the exercise of deferred action in these circumstances, we knew that deferred action continued to be available to every single one of these sympathetic families. Okay, listen to this. Pediatricians in indiana reported that parents of at least two infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit received letters from uscis telling them to leave the country within 33 days. Imagine that. You have just had a child that is so sick, she is in nicu. At the moment your Childs Health should be the only thing you have to worry about. The u. S. Government orders you to pack up and leave the country. Mr. Cucinelli, did you know about these cases before uscis decided to end deferred action . My answer is the same as the earlier example. Which is . We do not look at particular cases when making process so you dont care. No, you asked no, im asking you bet i care. Do you care . You bet i care. Somebody is you bet i do. And it would be great somebody is in the neonatal intensive if you cared enough to pass a law, wed enforce it. Let me ask you this, what would you recommend those parents do when they receive that later . Well, what most, what we expected most of them to do was very little, candidly. We send a lot of those letters out and not in what do you expect them to do . You want them to leave the country . Pack up their stuff, take their sick child and go . Either that or make their case in the immigration process where its appropriate to do so. All in the [inaudible] all in the middle of them being there, hoping and praying that they save their childs life . Which is why deferred action comets how cruel how cruel really . Really . I dont believe this. I yield back. Thank you. The gentlemans time has expired. Thank you for your, thank you for your questioning, mr. Clay. Mr. Grossman has joined us and would like to waive on to the committee, and without objection, we will waive him onto the committee. Or to subcommittee for purposes of questioning. Mr. Grossman, you are recognized now for five minutes. First of all, id like to thank you for all the business, all the work you do. Ive been down on the border myself. I know some of the challenges that, you know, you guys are dealing with, with the illegal immigrant population. I think its very underappreciated. I think some of the stories ive heard, while i respect Law Enforcement in general, there are a few people who have to deal with as much as you folks do. Mr. Albence, in your Opening Statement you mentioned Violent Attacks and threats on i. C. E. Officers and personnel and their families. Could you elaborate on that a little bit . Certainly. We had an individual, unfortunately has yet to be caught, that fired a weapon into one of our facilities where we had officers working. Weve had protest groups lay our buildings under siege, threatening individuals that work there, aggressive actions against them. Many of whom, you have to remember, many of the people who work for us are not Law Enforcement officers. We have attorneys, we have Mission Support specialists, many of whom have served their country and the government 30, 40, 50 years and have done nothing but honorable work that entire time. And i think reckless language used to denigrate them as individuals and the service that they have done only serves to heighten and action of people who might be of right mind. This committees continuing hearings on this issue impacting you . How is it impacting you this. As i mentioned previously, as dhs has made clear, this was not anything that involved a decision on this process. The cis process, they made the decision, mr. Cucinelli has already spoken that this is his decision. As you can understand with an agency 20,000 strong, enforcing more than 400 criminal laws, things that serve as distractions, you know, are very difficult for us to try to keep focus on the very important task we have whether its regard to getting criminal aliens out of our communities, whether its regard to opioid and fentanyl epidemic, whether its dealing with child predators and sexual exploitation. And even with all of this, the dedicated men and women of i. C. E. Show up every day and do the best they can for this country and uphold the oath that they took. Im sure the vast majority of people from my district respect what youre trying to do, and i feel its very tragic when other people go after ill give you another question. Youve been in the news a lot lately talking about sanctuary cities, the harm they cause American Families both citizens and immigrants. I think the issue would be better explored by the oversight committee. By the House Oversight committee overall. Would you agree . I would welcome hope from anyone in congress that would like to give it to us. Can you speak to harms that sanctuary cities cause to us . Cause to american citizens in general . Certainly. We the testified in front of the Senate Judiciary a few weeks ago. There are every day, right now as we speak, convicted criminal aliens that are walking out the front doors of jails because we have jurisdictions that will not cooperate with us. And unfortunately, many of these individuals will go out and commit further crimes. Those are preventable crimes, those are preventable victims. And unfortunately, we have more jurisdictions are choosing not to cooperate with us, choosing to put politics over Public Safety and putting their communities in harms way rather than remembering why were here as Law Enforcement officers, and thats to keep every Community Safe and every person within that community. Yeah. Just horrible. I sometimes think of it, in my area, sometimes these people who dont like putting criminals in jail its all fine and good to send criminals its hard for me to understand sometimes having a jurisdiction which just arrested this exact same individual for a criminal violation, enforcing the laws that they were sworn to uphold, yet e when we come to take enforcement action against that exact same individual sometimes the hours later to enforce the laws that we are sworn to uphold, we are prevented from doing so. Well, i think my guess is part of the answer the people who prevent you from doing so live in the nicer parts of the communities where they dont have to worry about the crimes being committed. At a Senate Judiciary hearing last week, one of our colleagues seemed confused about detainers in sanctuary cities and that i. C. E. Was looking for local Law Enforcement to detain innocent people. Could you set the record straight or maybe kind of educate some of these congressmen on whats going on . Well, just like any other Law Enforcement agency, when we lodge a detainer, we do so based on probable cause. Most of the individuals against whom we lodge detainers are convicted criminals. On the civil Immigration Enforcement side, 70 of the people that we arrest come out of state jails and prisons. 90 of the people that we arrest and this has been consistent for the better part of the last decade are a convicted criminal, have a pending charge, and two smail buckets within that, 90 percent are individuals who have been deported previously which is a federal felony, almost 7,000 times in 2018. And those are immigration fugitives, those who have had their day in court, gone through the entire Court Process and now have avoided complying with that order. And we have more than 576,000 immigration fugitives. A number that grows every day. Thank you, mr. Evans. The gentlemans time has expired. I know recognize the cochairman of the committee, ms. Ocasiocortez. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Cucinelli, i just wanted to confirm something that i had heard earlier with my colleague from massachusetts. Did i hear correctly that it is your testimony that you are the individual who made the decision to end deferred action . Yeah. Im the acting director e when we implemented this, and im responsible for that. Okay. So a that time its my decision. It was your decision. Yes, maam. Thank you. I actually greatly appreciate that, because weve been trying to get to the bottom of that question for quite some to time, and im sure it will help us in the future. Examinations of this issue. Mr. Cucinelli, in your state in your agencys september 24th response to this committee, you stated that uscis did not engage external stakeholders to solicit feedback on the anticipated consequences of your policy change. Why didnt you do that . For Something Like this where we are changing a process and were not operating off of a legal 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 can decision would have on critically ill children before making this decision . We understood that even with uscis back 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. I see. Mr. Cucinelli, in august you told fox news that you, quote, see uscis as a vetting agency and not a benefits agency. But congress created uscis separate from i. C. E. To seven immigrants to serve immigrants. In fact, its uscis own policy manual that exmaybes the agency explains the agency was to to focus on the application of benefit applications. So, mr. Cucinelli, uscis is a benefits agency. Why do you consider it not to be so . So perhaps the best way to put that is that i would characterize us as a vetting agency first but also a benefits agency because you all in congress have laid out a whole lot of different benefits that we adjudicate for immigrants and potential immigrants to this country. So that is part of our business and mission. And my phrasing is to emphasize the role we also a play as an element of department of Homeland Security in insuring the safety and security and integrity of both the country and that immigration system. So, mr. Cucinelli, i think whats tough here is that and while i respect that congress hasnt done its job in many respects in designing immigration policy, its been a failure for a very long time for congress to be able to define a lot of 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 in uscis web site that the agencys core values are define asked as integrity, respect, innovation and vigilance. And theres 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. Cucinelli, do you believe that you treated children with cancer, Cystic Fibrosis and other diseases with the dignity and court i of the mission of this agency when you decided in secret to end consideration of deferred action and ordered them to leave the country within 33 days or face deportation . Yeah, there was nothing secret about what we did because it was a process change. We made individual notifications. But you yourself just referred to ability to view the mission and the spirit, and its one chain after another. Theres no law or regulation any of that. So we do the best we can with fulfilling our role and limiting ourselves to our role rolely when there is right. But you have discretion in your role. And so heres the thing that i cant figure out, is that you have thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands the of cases, if not millions millions. Millions of cases in this country, and you decided to prioritize the deportation of critically ill kids. And im trying to figure out why. So we did not do that. We have gone through of all the you did. Out of all of the reclaiming my time, with respect you asked the question. With respect, and ill give you a moment, ill give you a moment, but with respect, when you make this decision at a time, at a specific time, youre making this decision with, 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 as an agency . So we didnt gentleladys time has expired. You can go ahead and answer the question. We didnt decide to deport anyone. We made the decision at the end of a long road that predates me coming into my current position in discussions across dhs. But it was made on august 73th, and i was 7th, and i was the director. So at that point, it is my decision. One of the things that was testified to from uscis from the last hearing that, to your point, there are tradeoffs. As you note quite correctly. And a thousand, handling a a thousand of these cases absorbs resources which, by the way, we are not paid for or that would otherwise deal with approximately 2,000 naturalization cases. Now, we did more naturalizations last year than the whole decade. Nonetheless, theres still more pending, and we 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 assign by congress, that has never been part of a regulation and that and do the authority to grant the same relief continues to exist even had uscis not continued to participate in the way that we now do again. Painful and necessary hearing. Of course todays witnesses have not wanted a hearing before because they were in the midst of ongoing discussions with dhs to resolve it and now its resolved so what in the world should we come to congress for . Apparently the understanding not understanding the role of congress in making sure that im matter of this does not reappear of its contracts ab mr. Cuccinelli you have a letter to chairman ainforming him that dhs secretary mclennan and im quoting the cis to open consideration of nonmilitary different request. Two children of a kind under investigation today. On a discretionary case by case basis. Dhs has provided the committee with september 18 memo from the acting secretary and providing the same directive. Why was it the decision made to reverse the policy on the deferred action to deferred action on a casebycase basis where they came to these Sick Children that was not a change. It was always casebycase, deferred action by definition is a case by case consideration. But there was a category. No maam. I know medical deferred action you implied in your comments that this was just about people seeking medical concerns. Sick children. Among those. We also get adhd filings and we have filings for people who are getting older and thats their basis. a there was no directive whatsoever to reverse the policy to casebycase and we do not understand the policy to be anything casebycase before. You are telling us its always been casebycase . Yes. Obviously you have to look at every case but we are looking at the category of Sick Children. Im asking you because of a decision that directly conflicts the recommendation your agency reportedly prepared for the acting secretary just 10 days prior to reversal and im referring to a memo that was referred by your policy and strategy chief for a september 9 meeting with secretary mclennan. You were selected to lead that meeting. Are you familiar with that memo . I dont have it memorized them familiar with what you are referring to. The u. S. Cis has not produced that memo for us but the press reports indicated that the memo recommended that the secretary revoke us cis authority to grant request for the deferred action. Reportedly it said in here runs counter to the president s agenda to enforce our existing laws and potentially contrary to his goal of making sure aliens are self sufficient. Mr. Cuccinelli, did you direct your policy and strategy chief to send that memo that i just quoted . We certainly did send the memo with recommendations to the secretary before he made his ultimate decision. It included six or seven, as i recall, different alternatives. Did you go with that recommendation that the authority us cis of grant deferred action request should be revoked particularly im interested even as to these Sick Children. It was a broader comment that with the breakup of ins this authority was appropriate for the prosecutorial arms of the department of Homeland Security. Not appropriate for uscis , it wasnt just related to this category and of course you mentioned Sick Children which i and im sure everyone else at uscis are very sympathetic to but that is the category. Thats exactly the kind of thing we would look for in legislation is a category we do not have the power or authority to create a categorical grant of a benefit. Mr. Chairman, i want to indicate that of course there is Administrative Authority to create categories but maybe we need to tell legislation what they already know. I think you very much mr. Chairman. The gentle lady yields back perhaps you could proceed as with ms. Norton the chair of eeoc so she knows Administrative Law and policy very well. Its an interesting conversation. We come now to mr. a mr. Cuccinelli, its a little difficult for me to sit here and listen to you say its the Congress Responsibility when this administration has and the president has publicly said that the second article of the constitution gives him the authority to do whatever he wants. The amount of discretion that you have tried abthe administration i should say, in this field have been challenged in court the courts have so far upheld things like funding of the border wall, separation of children, you are an attorney, i assume you believe in precedent. Affirmative action told in the 70s. There is been innovation so long longing for discussion. Administrative discretion. Now suddenly you say Congress Needs to act. I hissed i would like historicals Perspective Senate bill 744 the socalled gang of eight bill for republicans, four democrats passed out of the house with bipartisan support led by senator schumer and durbin and mccain and rubio bennett got over here and we are told through articles in the press and interviews by mr. Bannon that he and others went to elements of the Republican Caucus and im not privy to this but argued that the bill should never come up because it was a good way to do politics. It never came up. Recently the last session a very well respected public and member in p aguilar introduced a similar bill. Speaker deborah brought it up. Any member is for you to put a piece of legislation in and let the public see what it is and i would encourage my colleagues on the other side to do that. Id be happy to work with them but this contact its everyones fault defies what we been told in the press about the dynamics and the other caucus. Having said that, i want to turn my attention specifically to one case, you talked about process and he been very dispassionate about it. Mr. ahe was here last time in the case of isabel awho has become the family has become dear friends. They came here legally by the way. They were here illegally under tourist visa they were invited to the United States under a federal program to be part of a medical trial that has kept her alive she was seven years old when she came here from guatemala, shes now 24. Her doctor, very well respected doctor at the university of california San Francisco childrens facility in oakland said if she goes back to guatemala she will die because you cant get the weekly treatment she gets. You said all of these people are here illegally. In this case, at least, thats not true. Maybe we can argue some of the parameters of that but i want to read the letter that she got, as i understand it, your direction from the Field Office Director in San Francisco. Dear miss athank you for your request to deferred action for u. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services field offices. No longer considered deferred action request except those made according to the u. S. The primitive Homeland Security policies for certain military members. By evidence of records show that when you submitted your request you were lawfully present in the United States. Even your department recognizes contrary to earlier comments that she was here legally. Your period of authorized state has expired. You are not authorized to remain in the United States, if you fail to depart the United States within 3 to 3 days of the date of this letter, uscis might issue a notice to appear in proceedings against you in the immigration court. She was asked at the last meeting, how does 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 they had to ab [indiscernable] there is a process here. Its congresses process. He said abthere would have been a file we would have known about her. We would have pulled the file and that shouldve gone up the chain of command. Did you ever hear about isabel blaisdell before you make this direction . 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, and i respect that and i respect the fact that Congress Needs to come together, but you still have consequences. As the record shows, multiple administrations, she and her case was approved for deferred action by your administration. All of a sudden things change, shes here, under Program Cost Savings peoples lives, american lives and others under much respected american federal Government Program and then she gets this letter. You are responsible for that. Do you care to respond . When we withdrew on august 7 from granting affirmative request for deferred action, we knew that that Authority Continue 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. As abwill you referenced also said that day, the adjudicator who wouldve been dealing with a particular case, i believe is what he was referring to, would have known about it. It doesnt mean that all however many hundred cases are all known at any given time by regional director or the head of Field Operations or myself at any given time. And usually, only a small portion of them are ever learned about. The gentlemans time has expired. Im going to recognize mr. Clark for five minutes. Thank you chairman. I apologize for my tardiness ive been in the skiff. I would like to yield the time to mr. Roy. I think my friend from texas. I wouldve been in this but weve had competing circumstances here. I would ask a couple quick questions, mr. Cuccinelli, i heard a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, particularly my colleague from new york, talk about benefits. Can you clarify for the record whether or not there is or is not a benefit being conferred or are we talking about in essence a discretion. The prosecutorial discretion choice as to how we handle these cases . The 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 a process. That puts you into the prosecutorial process. We do not participate in that. Thats where deferred action is historically been appropriate. And frankly, its inherent in that authority. Its not inherent in our authority. You touched on this a little bit ago, the cost of adjudicating daca applications, application like we are talking about here, the deferred action, not just daca but these deferred action cases. The cost of adjudicating those and what that means in terms of diverting resources from naturalization applications. He mentioned before, can you reiterate how important that is in the decisionmaking in a world of limited resources. I didnt mean to suggest that the people doing this would automatically spend 100 of that time on naturalizations. I was just trying to give the subcommittee a point of reference. 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 their workload. But unlike most agencies of the federal government, we are 96 percent fee funded by part of the immigrant community we serve and we have to operate on what amounts to a balanced budget function here to year. We dont have the opportunity to come financially flax to absorb the more work that hasnt been assigned by congress or by law or regulation in some way. One more clarifying question i want to yield back to my colleagues in texas. One of my colleagues referenced something about people who are here illegally getting wrapped into this. I want to clarify for the record. That is not the case. 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. Congress is not produced a status for you to give that this was a letter clarifying their status. Thats right. Just understand kimiko situation where someone is coming back for repeat deferred action request and they do it within the twoyear time period that is traditionally though no requirement that its two years granted it can also be the duration of treatment if we can identify that. At that point in time they will at least be under the then existing deferred action grant. However youd like to phrase that. I yield to my colleagues from texas. I only have about a minute left but could you tell me what law authorizes uscis to grant deferred action to any immigrant here illegally . There is no specific law that does that. This is a derived authority, granted to the secretary. For you specifically in casebycase circumstances that came when ins was broken up and a to be clear, the uscis does not have a formally established medical deferred action program. It never has and its never existed in the department of Homeland Security or its predecessor ins, as far as i know. Would you say its being treated as if it were a formally established. Certainly a lot of this discussion assumes a program a lot of people use the medical deferred action title for their other reasons people request deferred action other than medical. They are a perfectly good human reasons sympathetic reasons why we are talking about the medical but other requests are made as well. Okay. How many requests for medical do you receive each year . If you count not just the request store but Family Members who might be requesting to stay to be with another Family Member for medical reasons, probably in 500 to 700 range. To feel you have the resources to appropriately deal . We can do the work but then we are not doing other work that is legally assigned, thats the tradeoff. Thank you chair. Thank you very much. We are going to do one of the rounds to clean up questions lingering in any member that would like to do a few more. Im going to start with the gentle lady from massachusetts, ms. Presley, recognize for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Are forever chairman Elijah Cummings reminded us of the charge of this committee is to be an efficient and effective pursuit of the truth. Im 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. I want to ask you, you previously mentioned on the record that your agency had done analysis to ascertain what would be the impact of such an abrupt policy change. Do you believe your agency did enough analysis to assess that impact . Im sorry if i was unclear earlier. We didnt do any separate studies, 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 quite literally the lives of critically ill children, in hindsight, you think you should have done some analysis . I do think, if i had it to do over again category, that i would not have applied it to people then pending. If for no other reason then to 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 its 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 in the Homeland Security act. Its also been reported that the director of the president ial Personnel Office at the white house has accepted this decision and breached 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 . Im not privy to anything you just described. So i cannot answer that question. Is public record. Could you give me your visual response . As you may know, my last government post was Virginia State government. Im no expert, and no areas of the law very well but i dont know them all. And when i dont know very well his federal employment law, including things like the vacancies action and so forth. I have not studied it or looked at it. But again, the department of justice on 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 wouldnt do it. Very good. If President Trump chooses either of you to replace acting secretary maclean an, will you commit to keeping deferred action protections in place at uscis . This is for both mr. Cuccinelli and mr. Albence. I dont think is appropriate to comment forward like that. I told you what i would characterize the abi will call mistake, to apply this retroactively in particular. I do think the underlying philosophy was correct. I also understand the deferred action remains available for all the people that had the uscis policy Going 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. Thats disappointing. I understand. Youve accepted respectfully abyouve accepted responsibility for making this egregious policy reversal. You have also expressed regret and just now use the word mistake. Im not sure why its challenging for you to just offer, if you are acting secretary, would you keep the deferred action protections in place at uscis . I dont expect to see any change regardless of who the secretary is, unless the program itself a and claiming my time. Mr. Albence, your response . First i dont think theres any reason to speculate it might be acting secretary because i dont see that happening. Would you keep the policy in place . Yes or no. I would look at any decision Going Forward. I would support the decision the acting secretary made. And claiming my time. 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, its about people. We should never forget that. Thank you and i yield. The gentle lady yelled back, thank you for your comments. Mr. Cuccinelli, you started to get into the lack of resources to do what you are legally mandated to do, could you speak to that . Wow, i could use a lot more than five minutes on that congressman. I will start what i think is the highest profile backlog we have which i would say is accurately characterized as a backlog. And thats asylum cases. Over half of them are over two years old and im referring to affirmative asylum cases of Top Department of justice if they were here would be talking about abin immigration proceedings. We deal with the fruitof as soon as i arrived i began the work to plan and execute and we are in the middle of executing a massive hiring campaign for asylum officers to start attacking that backlog more effectively. The main problem in attacking that backlog effectively is the crisis of the border. We broke records again for credible fear interviews last year just use one example. Reasonable interviews associated with the mtp program. The same people are doing that work. None of what i just described to you congressman is paid for. None of it. So when we construct our fees, we have to build in to those things we do charge for, the cost of the things that we do not charge for, typically humanitarian work of a variety of forms. Imagine that this program is not formally established, can you speak to what the process for formally establishing it would be. Really the only avenue is legislation. This authority, as i said, was around in inf days and that was when Prosecutorial Authority in the region was residing in the same person is responsible for all of her visa work. The benefits i was talking with congresswoman about earlier. With the division of ins, those authorities were divided. But it appears, looking back, it wouldnt even call it a solution, the almost kneejerk reaction was just to assign the same authority to all three agencies, even though we dont have prosecutorial responsibilities. Right. Since uscis is using her own discretion to apply deferred action can you speak to some of the common illnesses and commonly a im sorry the what . Some of the common medical illnesses that are granted . My information is anecdotal. Obviously we been talking about this as well have over the course of the last several months. I use some of the maypole the selection of cases, for instance. Just to review at random to see what the cases look like. To get an idea of what adjudicators workload was associated with these. And what they had to do and contend with. It runs the gamut. It runs from the kind of cancer and Cystic Fibrosis we heard about today, obviously among the most sympathetic types of situations you can imagine. Two things that look, to me, even though i dont decide these cases, rather patently abusive. I use the adhd example. Just not in the same league of people claiming getting older. I also mentioned earlier, some of these, a good number of them, are not medical. There are other claims as to reasons they want to stay. And candidly the cases we talk about here, even though we cant decide a case sitting at this table, are the ones that you would think are most likely to be found by a career employee, that to decide these. As to use the secretarys language, compelling facts and circumstances. But i cant sit here and prejudge them even favorably even though im sympathetic to them. He mentioned that really when it comes down to it, its our job to manage the resources and give you direction on them. Could you explain the best thing we could do when it comes to your job is. You talk about limited resources to do these things. Gentlemens time is expired. Dont make us guess. Congresswoman norton referenced category of Sick Children and she said category. If its a category, you all should be assigning it to us. Of course the Supreme Court will take up daca on november 12. And it follows the pattern of the daca case that Ranking Member roy mentioned. Can the executive branch use these inherent authorities that congress hasnt given any direction on to create categorical grants of benefits . It is the position of this administration that we cannot do that. We will use the authorities we do have the discretionary on 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 and i know people dont necessarily want to they would rather go to uscis and i. C. E. But the fact of the matter is, that the appropriate and historically appropriate getting outside the federal government come a place for prosecutorial discretion and thats with the prosecutorial agency. Thank you very much. Im willing to recognize mr. a for five minutes for further questioning. You have mentioned waiting for legislative action, even though clearly you have the discretion where the president is there for discretion. What i would suggest to you and i like your response, i have a private bill for isabel, its in judicial right now we are looking for support, weve had comments from legal experts if there ever was an example of a need for private bill, this is it. I would ask in the interim, that as she goes through and im being told by her attorney some of the questions are different than the last four times she went to this that he would work with us. Because i assume you dont want to be back in a position where she is on the cover of National Magazine and in the New York Times as an example even though she might be a little bit different. Thats one, and then ms. Presley and i are working with the committee we are looking for republicans to work with. To tailor a bill for this group of people that would help them. In a normal functioning relationship between both parties in congress and administration we would be trying to work on something knowing that thered be give and take. Within that context i 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 legislative remedy for this group of people and specifically for this person. I dont necessarily agree with your initial comment about president authority. We will absolutely work with you and i want to make it very clear, we dont even have to agree with what you are doing to be willing to help you do it correctly and cracked it correctly. We will do that and bring subject Matter Experts to help you do that. We would be glad to do that. And grateful for the help. It sounds a little patronizing. [multiple speakers] the nature of the discussion people have the opposite impression. It is not intended to be patronizing at all. Its intended to be to point out that a function a accepted. It was my irish sense of humor. In the process of how this developed, you issued what came to the letter. There was a big public response. We got a very bipartisan hearing. Then there was discussion within the administration with what you should do about it. Did you support the acting secretarys decision to change the policy on deferred action . Yes. I thought it was particularly critical to get the question decided and as i view our role when advising Something Like that, we gave him a wide variety of options presented those to him. With respect to my earlier comments both the congresswoman presley where he noted i did 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. In the specific case this is for both of you, during the legal bureaucratic limbo dad keeps working, by the way there was no public charge here they paid for their insurance to be part of the program. Isabel went and got a degree with honors from cal state east bay. How do we work to help them through this process . Until we get to the point where either she can get her deferred action in this bureaucratic limbo . We have reopened these cases and i cant speak to timelines for particular cases but i do know that we have commenced deciding them. We are getting through some of the work. We seen an uptick in filings. I would note for you since this public discussion began. Thats behind the dashed in that they were already in the pipeline. So theres would not be affected by that uptick. But i cant speak to exactly how long it would take for each of those cases to be decided. In the idea of working together and i would be willing to help you with this regard, im not being patronizing, hopefully. This is a practical situation. If we could work to ensure they would have due process as you currently outline. If theres a gap in there we would work through it. If we could work on legislation with permanently corrected this group of people. Thats what i like to hear. We would be glad to do each one of those things. I appreciate it. I yelled back mr. Chairman. Thank you for having a hearing on this important topic. I want to thank witnesses for showing up and dispelling the false narratives that weve heard for the last several weeks. 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 Capitol Visitor Center in a closed room you have to go through three doors to get there and a lot of my colleagues who would like to be here today are down there. Both on the democratic side and the republican side. I just want to say i think its a shame that that simultaneously happening not that its just happening out of the view and sight and sound of the American Public but that its happening at the same time as this important hearing and with that id like to yield the balance of my time to the Ranking Member a ending my friend from kentucky and made a similar point. Before you are able to join i will make it again, i agree with you. We shouldnt be having these things concurrently. This is too a part of an issue. Last week i had to do the same thing at a different hearing where i was unable to produce in the depositions going on. In a way that i was in a reared rate its very difficult to get transcripts and even on the committee. Now i want to figure out what i missed and i cant do it. Some of this might get remedied tomorrow, im not sure, but i happen to believe that the house rules indicate that the records of this body are the possession of each and every member. And we are supposed to be able to have access to those records and have an open process to go see this information. I think its critically important for the American People to know that this is whats been going on and that we cant have the full debate we ought to have. I want to come back one thing at a little bit of risk of repetition but i think its really important. I appreciated some comments from my colleagues in california. Maybe we could work with yall to try to figure out how to solve any of the issues from a policy perspective as a legislative body act as a congress to solve the issue. That in carrying out the action that mr. Cuccinelli carried out. I want to speak for you but i will characterize in this way, one might say a letter couldve been written in a different way or maybe we could have carried out a different way and this is whats been discussed and mr. Cuccinelli has said maybe in hopes to do differently but its highlighted an issue, an issue that has been lingering for my call he used the word limbo even with the letter from uscis, you are in limbo. There is no status given. And my correct about that . Uscis gets a letter that basically says come 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 sorta says you might be okay for a couple years. Is that roughly correct . Roughly. Can you clean it up . The deferred action can be revoked at any time. And in circumstances where there might be a reason for someone to be in removal proceedings, i. C. E. And uscis talk about those individual cases. They are rare. But they do happen. And we coordinate our efforts. And going back to the beginning, was any one of these families targeted for removal after i said letter went out . Putting aside a absolutely not. Acknowledging the concerns of the families received the letters. I think everyone acknowledges the concern of how it was received. We are all guilty of doing a lot of stuff a lot of fastpaced environment getting out and executing and then going, maybe we could have executed that better. The question becomes, the letters go out as a process matter nobody none of these families were being targeted for removal to the best of your knowledge . Not to the best of my knowledge. We wouldnt even know it existed. We dont even know these people exist. abi think the caveat would be president. Weve heard theres a long president in the abin this case this family they have been approved including by this administration. Agreeing with you but from their perspective the precedent a now understanding what you may have met by precedent to the little bit better. It is important to realize each review is a fresh review. And particularly in medical circumstances those evolve of course. Maybe we disagree on perspective. From your perspective previously the attorney said you do this and this is the likely outcome. You need to go through the process. What changed was the unilateral decision to get rid of all the deferred action. That changed the precedent. Understood. I understand what you mean better. The last one i will make. It would just be to say the precedent we are talking about is in my view, flawed precedent. In other words, its a kind of patched together circumstance to deal with a population who is inherently in limbo and its not affirmatively set out and so i get a little frustrated, your tone, this is been great, some nameless they may be, coming here to bluster about the evils of whats being transpired here and to try to impute to mr. Cuccinelli or any other members of dhs a desire to create harm for people as opposed to having a system where the rule of law means something. May i suggest a rhetorical question . An obvious way to think about this isnt casebycase, its asking the question for each person, where do you draw the line . I want to start by thanking all the members of the committee for a very productive conversation i want to thank both of you for participating for educating us and participating in what i think has been a constructive process. I want to thank you particularly mr. Cuccinelli for expressing regret about the mistake that was made in what you said was the Retroactive Application of a shift in the presumption. And i think you for that. I do want to pose a question about that though. Obviously cause great anguish among the families affected. I know you to be a man with a heart so you moved by what you saw. This may have looked like it was very 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 fear because of the anguish and pain that was affected with families. What does that mean about Going Forward . Given the compelling facts and circumstances standard that you are operating under, you said there are certain things clearly abwe all have consensus about cancer, Cystic Fibrosis, leukemia. On the other hand, i think you said this was almost humorous someone actually granted deferred action because a i didnt say they were granted. I just said we see those applications. Would be your intention because i did look at the question of where your Authority Comes from, its not totally made up authority. I think that in the june 2003 delegation to the bureau of citizenship and Immigration Services from the secretary of Homeland Security the authority was to grant voluntary departure and deferred action. So you have that delegation of authority presumably you could operate it either on a more arbitrary casebycase everybody makeup their own rule standard or what it seems like you are trending toward now which is to develop certain categories that will strike everybody as commonsensical medical compelling need versus people want to be here to age in place in the United States. Is that you are thinking that you would try to develop directives for the people who make the decisions. A couple of points. First of all, the authorities and the Homeland Security act is how you trace this back statutorily. It goes to the secretary but the purpose of deferred action is inherently a prosecutorial discretion. Thats my descriptions here today. What you point to in the statute doesnt provide, other than casebycase consideration doesnt provide guidance or category. Can i pause you there . Would you pursue deportation of people who have been granted deferred action for medical purpose you know of any cases thats happened and you have intention in the future . Am not aware of it any cases in which that would happen. Fair enough. Im not aware cases in which that has happened im not saying if a somebody could commit a crime while on deferred action. I got you. But is it your thought that you would try to collaborate and specify what some of the circumstances are . No sir. To be clear from the acting secretary secretary mclean it is the continued casebycase what we do internally is try, and i heard comments a little different than this is to maintain consistency and the way we do that is the four people who are Regional Directors at the top of decision chains in the field talk together about these cases periodically as they feel the need its not conversations i participate in. About cases to make sure that similarly situated people end up with similar outcomes whether grants or denials. But thats just for consistency. It doesnt introduce any standards or measuring stick if you will. To provide guidance as to how this may come out. It doesnt have any basis to do that. We might have a difference of opinion on that. When we say there is a casebycase method of decisionmaking it just means that each faxes treated on their own presentation but there still needs to be rules and standards applied for the decisionmaker to decide how the decisions to be made. I think thats the nub. But let me just shift to another question and my goal as chair of the subcommittee you got to get on top of the discovery which i think we can complete we should be able to complete and relative short order. We feel strongly about this in general because congress has the lawmaking branch of government the authority to receive any information we want in order to make the laws that we want to make. You properly shied us for not having comprehensively overhauled Immigration Law but we can only do it if we get the information about everything we need. I can provide you an update on that. If you could that would be great. With respect to the memo written on september 9 from kathy coburg. Which was announced to us but we never seen it. Thats one thing i know we would very much like to get. That was one of the things that chairman cummins signed the subpoena for. The other thing is that you received from abhis directives with respect to this matter and he asked you for a memo 30 days after the date in the past week or two ago. Discussing your implementation in the directives. I dont know whether you brought that with you. I did not. That was a simple update but a if we can have that that would be terrific. Because we dont have any update about anything thats happened at this point. To be clear, we are still in litigation. The plaintiffs have not dropped the cases. Of course but that has nothing to do with congress. Let me finish. What it does have to do is we have to review our materials to know our own position. Him we are doing all of that gathering of documents and review now. All of what we can provide, we certainly will. This is one area of the law that i actually know very well. That anyones requirement to comply with congressional subpoena request for information is not stated anyway by virtue of the existence of other Legal Proceedings or litigation. We can get you all the Case Authority on that. We cant wait for the cases to be decided, appealed, removed and so on. Edited me to suggest that. It complicates our own review of materials as we gather. Let me restate, we would at least like an answer from you today if you could tell us when would you be able to comply . With the subpoena that chairman cummings signed on the day that he died. Its dated several hours before he lost his life. I feel very strongly about this. Do you know when you will be able to comply . And know we are working to comply i cant tell you sitting here now, and have to revisit with, and i didnt do this this morning before i came. I have to revisit with the review team back in the office. Can you tell me when you will be able to tell me when you can comply . We can at least give you at least an estimate by the end of today. If you could tell us by the everyday we could get a timetable but we want and need that information. We provide ato the department october 20. At this point its undergoing departmental review. Obviously our material was much more limited. They are reviewing it for privileged information and when they are done with that review will really sit. Very good. Other people with you today who can tell us when that would be . Its with the department of general counsel. [indiscernable] if you could get back to me. I asked yesterday and havent gotten an update yet. Okay. We have some letters for the record that i want to admit without objection we have letters from several disability organization, interfaith immigration, coalition and newark Legal Assistance group. Discussing the consequences of these policy changes for children who benefit from deferred action. I ask unanimous consent these letters be entered into the record without objection they will be entered. Finally, mr. Cuccinelli, i am seated in mr. Cummings chair so i am mindful of his extraordinary career and the fact that he always told us you are here to help people and ive got an opportunity with you here. I wonder if you would indulge me by just listening to this. In regards to the case of an Afghan National whose name is mohammed ahe was a u. S. Military interpreter for us in the afghan war he fled afghanistan with his family under threat by the taliban. And was unable to seek entry to u. S. , special immigrant visa so he sought entry under humanitarian parole. He was denied as a matter of discretion. To the best of her knowledge he served his country faithfully and admirably for nearly a decade as an interpreter for u. S. Military operators. You have written letters in his support and in his defense since fleeing to pakistan ab advocates for the u. S. Report hes been tortured. Although he is finally been released but subjected to torture while he was being held. As a result of bipartisan advocacy we have members on both sides of the aisle working for him. His case for humanitarian pole was reopened. There is no explanation of what that meant. We been denied the ability to have a briefing on the matter. Im very concerned that mr. Conrad will be killed or disappeared in pakistan if you get clarification of the basis of this denial. If there are real facts that show he or his Young Children are Security Risk then by all means please let us know we dont want Security Risk in the country but this is a guy who served our country with everything he had putting his life at risk we have republican and democratic members who are asking you to take a look at would you be willing to clarify his case for us would you be willing to provide a briefing for us on the status as it relates to wait times for processing in the dropoff which is been radical of acceptance of former interpreters who struggle with this in combat zones. Would you be willing to work with us to see that those justice in this case . Whats with respect to the individual case i presume there is no privacy waiver from the individual so i have to find out what im allowed to share. We operate within Privacy Restrictions ourselves and im happy to go determine that and turned back around and recontact you. Please do. His advocates are asking us to do whatever we can to save his life from their perspective. He is someone who served with the Afghan Government and with our country faithfully. Honorably. The people are asking us to take a look at his case. We know that theres been a dramatic drop in the numbers of interpreters who been admitted to country and if thats just part of the general tightening of abilities to people to get in i dont think its fair. If there is some reason he shouldnt be admitted then by all means please show us the evidence but if youd be willing to meet with us or have someone from your staff meet with us then i think we be doing a little bit of fairness in this bearded chairman cummings. Let me see how much detail and permitted to share and whatever the answer to that is, i will let you know and report back. Then we can go from there and in terms of share we can quickly appreciate that. For the last 10 to 15 minutes with back and forth in our conversation about how to move forward. I appreciate that. I appreciate your participation. As always of the Ranking Member i understand from my staff that he signed a privacy waiver of release. Its something presumably we could read about you could double check with your people. That will be very significant. I want to thank all the Witnesses Today for your testimony. I know you got important business to attend to. We thank you very much without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional questions to the chair, forwarded to the witnesses for response. I ask you to please respond as quickly as possible if anybody has followup questions. Written mr. abthe hearing is adjourned. [inaudible background conversations]