    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    RECALCITRANT COUNTRIES: DENYING VISAS TO COUNTRIES THAT REFUSE TO TAKE
                         BACK THEIR DEPORTED NATIONALS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 14, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-140

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reform
                                      ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    25-546 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2017
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio                  Ranking Minority Member
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                    Columbia
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
    CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming           TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                TED LIEU, California
    MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina        BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    MARK WALKER, North Carolina          MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    ROD BLUM, Iowa                       BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    JODY B. HICE, Georgia                PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma              MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
    EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    WILL HURD, Texas
    GARY J. PALMER, Alabama

                       Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
                          Dimple Shah, Senior Counsel
                        Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on July 14, 2016....................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Ms. Michele Thoren Bond, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular
      Affairs, U.S. Department of State
        Oral Statement...............................................     6
        Written Statement............................................     8
    Mr. Daniel Ragsdale, Deputy Director, Immigration and Customs
      Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
        Oral Statement...............................................    13
        Written Statement............................................    15

                                    APPENDIX

    Immigration and Nationality Act Section 243......................    62
    OIG Report 061616 Release of Jean Jacques from ICE Custody.......    63

    RECALCITRANT COUNTRIES: DENYING VISAS TO COUNTRIES THAT REFUSE TO TAKE
                         BACK THEIR DEPORTED NATIONALS

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, July 14, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:32 a.m., in Room
    2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jason Chaffetz
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Chaffetz, Mica, Jordan, Walberg,
    Amash, Meadows, DeSantis, Buck, Walker, Blum, Hice, Russell,
    Carter, Grothman, Palmer, Cummings, Maloney, Lynch, Connolly,
    Cartwright, Kelly, Lawrence, Lieu, and Plaskett.
        Chairman Chaffetz. The Committee on Oversight and
    Government Reform will come to order. And without objection,
    the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time.
        I appreciate the members being here. I would also like to
    take the opportunity to note the presence of our colleague
    Congressman Joe Courtney of Connecticut, who is here. We
    appreciate your interest in this topic and welcome your
    participation today.
        I ask unanimous consent that Congressman Courtney be
    allowed to fully participate in today's hearing. Without
    objection, so ordered.
        We are here today to talk about ``Recalcitrant Countries:
    Denying Visas to Countries That Refuse to Take Back Deported
    Nationals.'' Let me try to just ad-lib and summarize the
    situation.
        We have people that come here legally to this country; we
    have people that come here illegally to this country. But there
    is a population here that may have overstayed a visa. They may
    have come here on a tourist visa or a student visa, but they
    were supposed to go home and they didn't and they are here
    illegally.
        Nevertheless, there is a large population of people that
    are in this country illegally. Unfortunately, there is also a
    criminal element to this population. The discussion that we are
    having today is about the criminal element, the criminal
    element within that illegal immigration population. I don't
    think there is an argument on any side of this equation to deal
    with the criminal element in a much more serious, sophisticated
    way and something that is fair to the American people and to
    our country.
        Since 2013, there are some 86,288 people who are here
    legally, committed a crime, got caught, convicted of that
    crime, and instead of being deported, they were released back
    out into the United States of America. These 86,288 people,
    again, just since 2013, committed some 231,074 crimes. That is
    a lot of criminal activity that can be totally and wholly
    avoided.
        Now, the administration has given a couple different
    excuses as to why they can't deport these people, and I don't
    understand that, and that is why we are having this hearing. We
    have had a couple of hearings were we have highlighted and
    discussed this in the past.
        Some have said it is money. It is not money. In fact, ICE
    tried to give back--Homeland Security tried to take $113
    million from ICE's enforcement budget asked Congress in June of
    2015 to reprogram it to other DHS components with no role, no
    role in immigration enforcement. So Congress has allocated,
    again, $113 million, and ICE is saying, hey, we don't need it.
    Let's put it somewhere else. So it is not going to be the
    money. That is not going to be a good excuse.
        Some have said, well, these other countries won't take
    them. Well, Congress before my time in the Immigration and
    Nationality Act, section 243(d), contemplated the idea that we
    would find a criminal alien and we would want to deport them
    and the country would say, well, you know, we don't want the
    back. They are your problem now that they are in your country.
        Here is what the law says, okay? I want to read the law.
    The law says ``If a foreign country denies or unreasonably
    delays accepting an alien who is a citizen, subject, national,
    or resident of that country after the Attorney General''--which
    also now includes this Secretary of Homeland Security--``asks
    whether the government will accept the alien under this
    section, the Secretary of State shall''--not if, not might--
    ``shall order consular officers in that foreign country to
    discontinue granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas or
    both to citizens, subjects, nationals, and residents of that
    country until the Attorney General''--also read to mean the
    Secretary of Homeland Security--``notifies the Secretary that
    the country has accepted the alien.''
        Now, as best we can tell, this important provision has only
    been used one time, and on that occasion it proved highly
    effective. On September 7 of 2001, the Attorney General
    requested the Secretary of State impose sanction on Guyana for
    refusing to issue travel documents for its nationals. On
    October 10, 2001, the State Department stopped granting
    nonimmigrant visas to employees of the government of Guyana,
    their spouses, and their children. Within 2 short months,
    Guyana issued travel documents to 112 of the 113 Guyanese
    aliens who had been ordered removed from the United States, and
    the sanction was lifted. We went back to Guyana, we said we are
    not going to do this anymore, they changed their ways, they
    went back to their country, and it was proved highly effective.
        We are here today to have a discussion--and I really do
    appreciate Ambassador Bond being here--to understand why the
    State Department is not doing this because, much to my
    surprise--I was highly skeptical when the head of ICE came in
    and said, well, we have been asking, we have been trying to do
    this. And I thought really? Come on, show me some
    documentation. There is some documentation there that they have
    been trying to do this, but it does not appear that the State
    Department has been actually taking the step that is required
    by the law.
        And this decision has real consequences. On April 28 of
    2016, Wendy Hartling testified before this committee. She is
    the mother of Casey Chadwick. Casey was stabbed to death and
    stuffed into a closet on June 15 of 2015 by a criminal alien
    Jean Jacques. Prior to killing Casey, Mr. Jacques was found
    guilty of attempted murder on June 9 of 1997 and served 16
    years in prison in Connecticut. He was released from prison in
    April of 2012. He should have automatically been deported back
    to his home country of Haiti after he was released from prison,
    but instead, he was released from custody because Haiti refused
    to take him back, and we just accepted that. We just say, okay,
    Haiti, we will go ahead and keep him here in the United States.
        And while ICE placed him in on a reporting schedule, he
    failed to report on multiple occasions. So not only did he have
    the murder, he is supposed to report, he doesn't, and
    ultimately, he ended up killing Casey Chadwick in cold blood.
    He was found guilty of murder on April 11 of 2016, and today,
    we are going to talk about only a portion of the criminal
    aliens released each year into the American streets.
        The 8,000--these numbers are so big--the 8,275 criminal
    aliens released in the last 3 years under Zadvydas represent
    only 9.5 percent of the 86,288 total criminal aliens, again, a
    Supreme Court decision where ICE, Homeland Security is saying,
    hey, we can't continue to hold these people in perpetuity. We
    have to release them.
        And let me just give you 1 year's statistics and then we
    will go on. In last year alone ICE, Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement, released, released--keep in mind, these people
    committed crimes. They are convicted of these crimes. They are
    in our possession and we release them out in the public.
    Nineteen thousand seven hundred and twenty-three criminal
    aliens, who among them had 64,197 convictions, including 934
    sex offenses, 804 robberies, 216 kidnappings, and 196 homicide-
    related convictions, how do you look the parents in the eye of
    somebody who is murdered, their son or daughter, because the
    government said, well, you know, it is in the best interest to
    just let them go back into the public here in the United
    States?
        In instituting section 243(d), Congress concluded ensuring
    public safety was the government's primary duty and it must be
    its first priority. That is the heart of the hearing that we
    are going to have today. I do appreciate the witnesses.
        Chairman Chaffetz. And with that, I will yield back and
    recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
    thank our witnesses for being with us today to discuss this
    very important topic that is crucial to the safety of all of
    our communities.
        In April we heard testimony from families whose children's
    lives were sadly cut short. Casey Chadwick's family told the
    story of her murder at the hands of Jean Jacques, someone our
    government tried unsuccessfully to deport. I was especially
    pained to hear that because of the actions of the Haitian
    Government and Haitian officials, someone who everybody agreed
    should not be in this country was allowed back on our streets
    to do more harm.
        Since then, the inspector general of the Department of
    Homeland Security issued a report at the request of Connecticut
    lawmakers, including our distinguished colleague Congressman
    Joe Courtney, who has joined us today. That report found that
    Haitian officials repeatedly, refused to repatriate Mr.
    Jacques, but it also found that Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement could have done more. In other words, they could
    have done better.
        ICE officials never raised this case to the State
    Department because they believed it would do nothing with it. I
    want to make sure we are doing everything we can to ensure that
    countries take back their citizens with dangerous criminal
    records. I joined with the chairman in sending bipartisan
    letters to ICE and the Department of State's Bureau of Consular
    Affairs requesting information on procedures for addressing
    recalcitrant countries and inviting these agencies to testify
    here today.
        I understand that diplomacy is indeed complicated, but we
    cannot use the cloak of flexibility to rationalize not taking
    firm action when it is indeed warranted. It is critical that we
    remain vigilant. It is critical that we remain effective and
    efficient when we are dealing with these recalcitrant countries
    in trying to protect our own.
        The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the United
    States to shut off visas to foreign countries when the
    Secretary of Homeland Security makes a formal notification to
    the Secretary of State that a country is being recalcitrant.
    And I am not arguing that this blunt tool should be used at the
    drop of a hat, but it can be used in targeted ways to send the
    appropriate message to these countries.
        Our government used this statute, as the chairman said, to
    cut off visas to government officials and their families in
    Guyana in 2001. That proved to be effective, forcing Guyana to
    cooperate and accept the return of 112 out of 113 nationals
    awaiting deportation from the United States. I understand that
    we cannot use this drastic measure in all cases.
        Denying visas in every instance would not always secure a
    country's cooperation, especially a country whose government
    controls civilian travel. If the United States used this tool
    at every moment of difficulty with a foreign country, we would
    open ourselves up to retaliation, we would isolate ourselves
    from the world, and our country's economy would grind to a
    halt.
        What I hope we can do today is examine how we can use this
    tool and others effectively and how coordination between
    agencies can be improved. The memorandum of understanding
    between ICE and Consular Affairs outlines how the agencies
    employ a series of tools to address recalcitrant countries,
    including sending formal letters to foreign countries in
    considering more serious next steps. I am pleased to learn that
    ICE has added the additional step of consular interviews for
    all deportees to Haiti. I also understand that ICE is working
    on a pilot tool to better identify and analyze recalcitrant
    countries, which I look forward to hearing about more today.
        I still believe ICE could be providing clearer guidance to
    its officials as to how and when they should alert State about
    individual cases. In addition, I am curious to hear that State
    is mandating that staff in Consular Affairs raise the issue of
    deportations in every formal interaction with recalcitrant
    country officials and that all chiefs of mission have been
    directed to emphasize with host government officials the high
    priority the United States places on removing dangerous
    criminal deportees.
        I am also grateful that we are digging into this issue
    today. It is a very important issue, and I hope that we do so
    in a productive, bipartisan manner.
        It is unfortunate that so many of our headlines today
    include divisive anti-immigrant rhetoric. Immigration provides
    the backbone for our country's success. People who commit
    violent crimes make up a very small portion of the immigrants
    in this country. Overall, immigrants are less likely to commit
    serious crimes or to be incarcerated than U.S. citizens, and
    high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of
    violent crime and property crime.
        And so in the same way that we are digging into this issue
    today, we need to dig deep, very deep into the rest of our
    broken immigration system in a very comprehensive manner.
        And so I want to thank the witnesses again. I look forward
    to your testimony, and I am hoping, I am hoping that we will
    find ways to be more effective and efficient in addressing
    these issues, which the chairman and I have rightfully brought
    before this committee today.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Chaffetz. I thank the gentleman.
        And I do agree that we have got to fix legal immigration.
    It doesn't work in this country, and I wish we would do more on
    the immigration front.
        I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the
    record nine items--bear with me as I read through each of
    these--a September 19, 2014, letter from Secretary Johnson to
    Secretary Kerry; a November 25, 2014, letter from Secretary
    Kerry to Secretary Johnson; an April 13, 2016, letter from
    Michele T. Bond to Director Saldana; two other letters from
    Michele Bond to Director Saldana, one of June 22, 2016, another
    on June 30, 2016, and an additional one of June 30, 2016, from
    Michele Bond to Director Saldana; a breakdown of the
    nationalities associated with the United States Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement releases in fiscal year 2015 and '16; year-
    to-date pursuit of Zadvydas v. Davis; a June 7, 2016,
    submission from Director Saldana to the committee containing an
    overview of the problems ICE is facing involving recalcitrant
    countries; and communications from Director Saldana to Michele
    Bond from May 8 to May 13, 2016; and finally, a Weekly
    Departure and Detention Report from June 20 of 2016.
        Without objection, we are going to enter these into the
    record. And so ordered.
        Chairman Chaffetz. We will hold the record open for 5
    legislative days for any members who would like to submit a
    written statement.
        We will now recognize our witnesses. We are pleased and
    honored to have the Honorable Michele Thoren Bond, assistant
    secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs in the United
    States Department of State. Ambassador, we appreciate you being
    here. Mr. Daniel Ragsdale, deputy director for the United
    States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We appreciate you
    both being here. You have served our country honorably, and we
    understand and appreciate your patriotism and again thank you
    for being here today.
        Pursuant to committee rules, it is practice that all
    witnesses are to be sworn before they testify, so if you will
    please rise and raise your right hand.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. Let the record reflect that
    both witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        I think you have participated in this in the past. We will
    give me some leeway. We would like to limit your verbal
    comments to 5 minutes, but we will give you great latitude.
    Your entire written statement will be made part of the record.
        Ambassador Bond, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                           WITNESS STATEMENTS

                    STATEMENT OF MICHELE THOREN BOND

        Ms. Bond. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Chaffetz,
    Ranking Member Cummings, and distinguished members of the
    committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on
    the topic of repatriating aliens who are subject to final
    orders of removal.
        The majority of the world's nations understand their legal
    and moral obligation to assist with the lawful repatriation of
    their citizens, including those who have been convicted of
    crimes and served their sentences. Currently, 23 countries
    routinely fail to document and accept their citizens for
    repatriation in a timely manner. My written statement describes
    the actions taken by the Department of State in close
    cooperation with ICE to bring these countries into compliance
    with their international obligations and to secure the
    repatriation of aliens under final orders of removal.
        The protection of U.S. citizens is the highest priority of
    the Department of State. The Bureau of Consular Affairs leads
    the Department's efforts to protect U.S. citizens, and we are
    committed to assisting ICE to return all aliens who have been
    issued final orders of removal, especially those who pose a
    threat to public safety and security in the United States.
        In 2011, ICE and Consular Affairs signed a memorandum of
    understanding, which improved our cooperation on repatriations.
    Consular Affairs has a dedicated team that works closely with
    ICE on this issue here in Washington and at our diplomatic
    missions overseas. Together, we remind foreign governments of
    their responsibilities to accept their nationals swiftly, work
    to resolve difficulties and delays, and monitor progress.
        As you mentioned, in March 2015, I directed my staff to
    raise the issue of removals in every formal interaction with
    foreign officials from recalcitrant countries. I personally
    have raised the issue on numerous occasions in the past year
    with senior foreign government officials, including from
    Liberia, Guinea, China, India, and Cuba, among others. Today, a
    delegation of senior consular and Homeland Security officials
    is once again raising this issue with our Cuban counterparts in
    Havana.
        Recalcitrant countries vary considerably in capacity,
    political circumstances, and history. Each has different
    reasons for delays in repatriations, including limited law
    enforcement capacity, inadequate records, inefficient
    bureaucracy, and in some cases intentional policy. Some
    countries that are willing to cooperate in principle, are beset
    with internal problems so severe that repatriations become a
    low priority.
        The tools we use to persuade recalcitrant countries to
    cooperate are equally varied and form part of our comprehensive
    diplomatic engagement. This is an ongoing, long-term effort to
    establish reliable and dependable procedures that work for
    every country. The Department of State works closely with ICE
    and other DHS colleagues to identify the most effective path
    forward in each case taking into consideration each country's
    specific situation and other important U.S. interests.
        One tool at our disposal is section 243(d) of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act under which the Secretary of
    Homeland Security may send a notification to the Secretary of
    State, who then orders consular officials to discontinue
    granting immigrant visas or nonimmigrant visas or both. State
    has and will implement such restrictions in consultation with
    DHS as necessary.
        These restrictions can be a powerful means to address
    recalcitrant countries, but they are not the only and in many
    cases are not the most effective option. Some recalcitrant
    countries such as China and Cuba control the foreign travel of
    their citizens and maybe unmoved by our imposition of visa
    restrictions. Countries may retaliate in ways detrimental to
    wider U.S. economic or security concerns, including trade,
    tourism, and law enforcement cooperation.
        Experience with many recalcitrant countries shows we can
    achieve significant improvements in compliance through
    diplomatic engagement in Washington and abroad to address
    resource capacity and other obstacles. Of course, we do not
    limit our efforts to those 23 countries currently deemed
    recalcitrant by ICE. We also seek to address shortcomings as
    they become apparent and before a country is found to be
    recalcitrant.
        There are times where even countries generally considered
    compliant need specific reminders or engagement concerning
    repatriations. This may be to clarify a new process or
    procedure, to facilitate a particularly difficult case, or to
    highlight the importance of this issue following a change in
    government.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings, distinguished
    members of the committee, I assure you that where diplomatic
    engagement over time has not produced results, State is
    prepared to increase pressure through all available channels,
    including in cooperation with DHS the imposition of visa
    sanctions.
        We appreciate the support of Congress as we continuously
    work to safeguard U.S. citizens around the world. And I look
    forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Bond follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you, Ambassador.
        Mr. Ragsdale, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF DANIEL RAGSDALE

        Mr. Ragsdale. Good morning. Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking
    Member Cummings, and distinguished members of the committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
    discuss U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's efforts
    regarding the ongoing challenge of uncooperative countries who
    do not accept the return of their citizens and nationals.
        The law enforcement office of ICE worked tirelessly to
    identify, to arrest, detain, and remove individuals to best
    promote national security, border security, and public safety.
    Our fiscal year 2015 removal statistics illustrate these
    efforts. Last year, we conducted 235,000 removals. Fifty-nine
    percent of those removals involved individuals who were
    previously convicted of a crime. Ninety-eight percent of those
    removals met one or more of DHS's immigration enforcement
    priorities.
        To effectuate a removal, two important elements are
    required. First, the person must be subject of an
    administrative order--final order of removal, and a travel
    document issued by the individual's home country must be in
    ICE's possession.
        Although a majority of countries agree to take--agree to
    their international obligations to accept the timely returns of
    their citizens, we face challenges with certain countries that
    systematically refuse or delay the return of their nationals.
    Delays in the removal process significantly challenge the
    limits of our detention authority following the 2001 U.S.
    Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis. But let me be
    clear. We do not release aliens we can remove.
        To ensure that we are focusing our removal efforts most
    effectively, we have implemented an analytical tool known as
    the Removal Cooperation Initiative, or RCI. This tool is used
    to measure a country's cooperativeness with our repatriation
    efforts. Countries are assessed on a series of the following
    criteria: the average time it takes to issue travel documents,
    whether or not they allow ICE charter flights into their
    territory, and the ratio of removals versus releases for each
    country. This methodology was implemented last year and
    continues to be refined.
        It is important to note that while countries may generally
    be cooperative, sometimes they may delay or refuse the
    repatriation of certain individuals. For example, El Salvador,
    a country that is generally cooperative, has recently delayed
    the issuance of a number of travel documents where there is no
    legal impediment to removal. As a result, we've issued 19 Annex
    9 notifications to El Salvador and are working with Consular
    Affairs to raise this issue with El Salvador's Foreign
    Ministry. In sum, there are 23 countries we consider
    recalcitrant. In addition, we are also closely monitoring 62
    others.
        As you've heard, there's a variety of efforts that ICE,
    DHS, and the State Department use to deal with uncooperative
    countries, which are outlined in the memorandum of
    understanding between ICE and Consular Affairs signed in 2011.
    They include sending a letter from ICE to the nation's embassy
    requesting increased cooperation with the removal process, and
    so far this year we've issued 103 such letters, which is more
    than any other fiscal year; working with the State Department
    to issue a demarche or a diplomatic note to the recalcitrant
    country; and finally, joining the assistant secretary for
    Consular Affairs for face-to-face meetings with Ambassadors of
    uncooperative nations.
        Ultimately, a potential sanction could involve the
    Secretary of Homeland Security invoking 243(d) of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act. The use of visa sanctions must
    be weighed, however, in light of the potential impacts it could
    have on other foreign and domestic policy interests.
        We will continue to work closely with Consular Affairs to
    deal with uncooperative countries, and as a result, we have
    seen improvement in a number of countries. For example, in
    January of 2016 the Government of Somalia approved 37 nationals
    for removal, and to date, we've seen--received 29 travel
    documents from Somalia, the largest number in years. On April
    4, 2016, we had our first charter flight to India and removed
    54 Indian nationals. In June of 2016 we successfully conducted
    a charter flight to the Ivory Coast, Ghana, and Nigeria, and a
    total of 63 nationals were removed.
        Our enforcement efforts will continue to evolve, and we
    were constantly evaluating how best we can accomplish our
    mission. Without doubt, these efforts require the skillful and
    frequent negotiation with our foreign counterparts.
        We will also work closely with DHS and the Congress to
    ensure we have the resources that we needed. For example, we've
    been working very hard to see changes in our enforcement
    removal operations overtime compensation system to ensure our
    officers are available for duty as needed. We will continue to
    work with the Congress, DHS, and our label partners to fix this
    important issue.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today and
    for your continued support to the men and women of ICE. I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Ragsdale follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I will now recognize myself
    for 5 minutes.
        I want to put up a slide.
        [Slide.]
        Chairman Chaffetz. This is a document that we entered into
    the record, Weekly Departure and Detention Report: 953,507
    people, aliens with final orders of removal that remain in the
    United States without actually being deported. Is that right?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Sir, I believe that is a number that is an
    aggregate number over many, many years. It is on folks we
    consider under docket control that have seen either immigration
    judges or have filed Federal appeals on removal cases.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. So let's define this. This is on
    page 2 of this report, okay? And it is the ERO post-final order
    docket. It is that many people that have been ordered by a
    judge at some level to leave the country to be deported and
    that are still in the United States.
        Mr. Ragsdale. I would again suggest those--that number
    includes people under docket control. Some of those people may
    have in fact withholding of removal or some protection from
    removal ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. I mean, it is your number so I am going
    to assume that it is true.
        Mr. Ragsdale. So I think it very well might be accurate,
    but what I'm suggesting is that number does not mean every
    single one of those people are amenable to removal as of right
    now. They may be granted ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. What do you mean amenable to removal?
        Mr. Ragsdale. In other words, someone who may be a country
    of some--let's just say Syria where they have a criminal record
    and could not get asylum, they still may be granted a different
    form of protection. They would be included in that number, but
    they may not be removed to Syria.
        Chairman Chaffetz. But they were ordered to leave the
    country, correct?
        Mr. Ragsdale. You--well, it's a little more complicated
    than that. You do get a removal order, but there is a
    restriction on where in the world you can be removed. So you
    may only be a citizen or national of Syria ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. The reality is they are in the United
    States, they are ordered by a judge to be removed from the
    country, and they haven't been yet, correct?
        Mr. Ragsdale. No. It's not quite that simple. So, in other
    words, you get a removal order, but we may not remove you to
    the country from where you're from.
        Chairman Chaffetz. But they are not in this country
    legally, they are ordered removed, so in your Syria example,
    then what do you do?
        Mr. Ragsdale. That is why they're included in that number
    and that is a ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. So you just let them stay in the United
    States?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Unless there is a third country we can remove
    them to.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Yes, they are here in the United States,
    and that is the problem.
        Did I hear you correctly? You said we do not release aliens
    we can remove?
        Mr. Ragsdale. That's exactly right.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Do want to say that again on the record
    really? You do not release aliens you can remove?
        Mr. Ragsdale. In cases where we have a final removal orders
    and a travel document, those people will be removed.
        Chairman Chaffetz. And a travel document?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Of course. It's a two-part process.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. Let's go to the actual removal
    here. I'm going to take two case studies, okay, Ambassador? I
    want to look at Guinea and I want to look at Liberia, small
    numbers. And I guess I just don't understand why you haven't
    tried to do what the law says you have to do. We give Liberia
    $125 million in aid, $125 million. American people take out of
    their pockets and give to the country of Liberia. That is what
    we are going to do in 2016.
        They have, according to this document that I have from--
    four noncriminal immigration violators, 52 convicted criminals,
    and from just this year alone there is another 29. Why not go
    back to Liberia and say, you know what, you are taking these
    people back or you are not getting any more visas? Why are you
    not doing that?
        Ms. Bond. Sir, we are meeting with the Liberians. We have
    met with their Ambassador here in Washington. I have met with
    senior officials in their capital. They have heard from our
    Ambassador. They have gotten the message very clearly ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. But they are not doing it, right? They
    are not doing it.
        Ms. Bond. And what we're seeing right now is that they are
    removing criminal aliens not at the rate yet that we want to
    see, but departures in July, departures promised in August, and
    a pledge that the rate will increase as we move into September.
    So it's ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. We have 52 ----
        Ms. Bond. They are not doing what we want to see, but what
    we are seeing is some slow movement toward where they need to
    be.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. We have 52 Liberians, convicted
    criminals that are here illegally. The statute says you shall.
    There is no option. My guess is you would speed it up a whole
    lot--if it was up to me, yes, you would say no more visas, no
    more people coming to the United States, and that $125 million
    in aid, that check is going to sit here until you take these 52
    people back.
        Ms. Bond. So ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. You know what, your hand will be
    strengthened in your negotiations around the world if you do at
    every once in a while. This is law. This is not some Jason
    Chaffetz theory. This is the law, and I don't see you doing it
    at all in any country.
        Ms. Bond. I agree with you, sir, that the fact that we have
    that provision of the law and that there is the real
    possibility for any recalcitrant country to be facing visa
    sanctions or other sanctions is a very, very powerful tool and
    ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. Use it. Use it.
        Ms. Bond.--what we're seeing ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. Pull the trigger.
        Ms. Bond. What we're seeing is, to take the case of
    Liberia, they do take this seriously, and they do understand
    that if we aren't seeing steady and increasing action on this
    issue ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. Why shouldn't they take them all?
    Steady, increasing, they are working with us. You have got
    criminal aliens, take them back. It is 52 people. But you know
    what, when one of those 52 people commits a crime, a rape, a
    murder, a DUI, that is on you because they shouldn't be here in
    the United States of America. You cannot look those people in
    the eye, Americans who pay their taxes, who work here, who are
    citizens. And you are so worried about playing nice instead of
    implementing the law. These people are committing more crimes.
    I just got through listing all these people, everything from
    murder to DUIs to sexual abuse. Get rid of them.
        Ms. Bond. Our goal is completely the same as yours. We want
    these people out of the country. We want ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. Then get them out. You have every tool
    at your disposal. You have got $125 million in aid. You have
    got the law on your side that says we do not need to give
    anybody else a visa, and you just tell them, somebody applies
    for the visa, we are not accepting those until you accept these
    52 people.
        Ms. Bond. All right. And in the process of getting a
    routine and efficient and swift process underway, that is what
    we're working on with Liberia and with these other countries.
        Chairman Chaffetz. It's not working.
        Ms. Bond. And they do understand that ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. I have made my point. I have gone past
    my time.
        Ms. Bond. Thank you.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Let me now recognize the ranking member
    Mr. Cummings.
        Mr. Cummings. I want to make sure we are clear, the list
    that the chairman is reading from, can you tell me about these
    crimes? He referred to Liberia and, I mean, a whole list of
    countries here. I don't know why he picked those two, but are
    these all serious crimes? I mean, I am just curious. Any crime
    is bad, but I am told it ranged from--do you know?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So I don't know in great specificity. There
    are a range of crimes. I mean, there is no question that, as
    Secretary Bond said, it is in our interest to remove every
    single person we can when the removal order is final and we
    have a travel document. So we are working very much towards the
    same goal.
        Mr. Cummings. You had said earlier, Mr. Ragsdale, something
    about some country may have a third country that would be
    willing to accept folks. How many third countries do we have
    like that?
        Mr. Ragsdale. It's going to depend on the person's
    individual circumstance. Dual nationality is something that
    happens with some frequency, so we certainly examine in a
    descending order that if there is a country of nationality or
    last habitual residence that we could possibly remove someone
    to who will accept them, our officers absolutely pursue that.
        Mr. Cummings. But let's put aside dual nationality. I mean,
    are there countries that seem to be more open to accepting
    these folks ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. It is very ----
        Mr. Cummings.--where their home country won't?
        Mr. Ragsdale. It's rare.
        Mr. Cummings. I see. Now, listing to testimony in April
    about the murder of Casey Chadwick, which was heartbreaking, I
    was disappointed to learn that ICE never alerted the State
    Department about the 6-month struggle to deport Jean Jacques,
    the person who was later released and then murdered Ms.
    Chadwick. State has a strong bilateral relationship with Haiti,
    and I would think State could have leveraged diplomatic
    relations to facilitate Mr. Jacques' removal. Why wasn't the
    State Department notified by Jean Jacques' case about it?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So, Ranking Member, I absolutely agree, it
    was a tragedy. And certainly having the IG look at this would
    certainly provide us some--with some things to think about and
    improve on.
        What I would say is working with Consular Affairs is
    something we probably should have done. However, we did work
    with our ERO and ICE officers in Santa Domingo, which cover the
    island of Hispaniola, and we did work with the State at post to
    try to get travel documents. So you are absolutely right that
    there are some things that we will look hard at in light of the
    Jean Jacques case, but I would also note that the IG found that
    while there could have been other things that ICE may have
    done, it may not have changed the outcome.
        Mr. Cummings. We need to learn from the example, would you
    agree?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Absolutely.
        Mr. Cummings. So in moving forward, a case involving
    someone with a violent criminal history and final orders of
    removal gets handled effectively and efficiently. So let me ask
    you this. How frequently does ICE alert State that it is
    struggling with an individual case of removal? I mean, does
    that happen often?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So we have monthly meetings between Consular
    Affairs and ICE, so there is a steady rhythm of not only
    correspondence but interaction on all of these cases. The--this
    is a symbiotic partnership that we are working very closely
    together. This is what produced the letters from the two
    Cabinet Secretaries. This is why we signed the MOU 5 years ago.
    This has been a--you know, a work in progress.
        Mr. Cummings. So what does that process look like? You sit
    down and you have a list? I mean, tell me about it real quick.
        Mr. Ragsdale. So, you know, as you can imagine, for
    effective border control we're talking about individuals. So,
    you mean, the idea and the idea of the tool that you mentioned,
    you know, we look at this with some degree of analysis for some
    broad trends. But every single case requires both a final
    removal order and a travel document. But we ----
        Mr. Cummings. So I understand then from ICE's enforcement
    and removal operations they must alert ERO headquarters at the
    75-day mark when they have not successfully repatriated a
    detainee. I also understand that most of ICE's communication
    with State about these countries comes from ERO headquarters.
    Mr. Ragsdale, do you have a manual or a clearly outlined
    guidance for your ERO field office agent so they know when they
    should reach out to State about an individual case?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So it actually is a hybrid approach. There
    are some field offices where there are consular officers from
    foreign governments located in that city. So in those cases our
    local office may work directly with a consular from that
    foreign government. And while they may notify headquarters,
    it's not necessarily something that headquarters will do for
    them. Absolutely, though, headquarters is the clearinghouse for
    our work with Consular Affairs, and we do do that work.
        And then lastly, we do have a manual that provides guidance
    to our field offices. That needs to be updated, and I think
    that's one of the things that we've seen out of the IG report.
        Mr. Cummings. Yes, I tell you that your responses don't
    instill a lot of confidence that a Jean Jacques won't slip
    through the cracks again.
        Mr. Ragsdale. I would say, you know, surprisingly that even
    if you look at the L.A. Times editorial on the Jean Jacques
    case, which, again, we often don't get what I'll say is a lot
    of balanced coverage in many papers, this was not a question of
    somebody not doing their job. This is a question of the Haitian
    Government not accepting someone who we believe was Haitian
    that they did not issue travel documents on.
        Mr. Cummings. All right. Okay. I understand the need for
    flexibility, but ICE needs to have a clearer guidance, would
    you agree, for when and how and whether to raise concerns about
    an individual case with State. What is ICE doing to provide
    clearer guidance? You know, what happens to--a lot of
    situations I find, an employee/employer, all kinds of
    relationships, there are expectations, but the expectations are
    never communicated and so you have got people assuming that
    other people are doing things, and then when the time comes for
    the rubber to meet the road, we discover there is no road.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Well, I--listen, I can certainly say with
    great confidence we would not have removed 235,000 individuals
    last year if our folks didn't know how to remove people. And I
    will also tell you there is no impact ----
        Mr. Cummings. Can we improve on guidance? I guess that is
    what I am trying to get to.
        Mr. Ragsdale. We--absolutely.
        Mr. Cummings. So ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. No question what to make sure that our
    officers know about every ----
        Mr. Cummings. How are you going to do that?
        Mr. Ragsdale. We are taking a look at revising that manual
    and providing additional training as necessary.
        Mr. Cummings. Assistant Secretary Bond, I just want to ask
    you a question or two. The ERO officers in Jean Jacques' case
    told the IG that they believed State would not get involved in
    an individual case unless the individual has committed acts of
    terrible human rights violations. Is that true?
        Ms. Bond. No, sir, that is not true.
        Mr. Cummings. What is true?
        Ms. Bond. What is true is that we work very, very closely
    with ERO. We know the staff there very well and they know us,
    and any request from them for us to take a look at a case to
    see if we could assist on a particularly difficult, intractable
    case, we would always respond.
        Mr. Cummings. Well, let me ask you this and ----
        Ms. Bond. And so the person who said that was mistaken to
    believe that we would not have been responsive.
        Mr. Cummings. This is my last question because I am running
    out of time. Do you believe that the State Department could be
    effective in using diplomatic engagement in individual cases
    where you have a removable individual with a violent criminal
    history?
        Ms. Bond. I think in every single case like that it's worth
    a try. I can't guarantee results in every case, but there is
    absolutely no reason why we wouldn't and shouldn't be engaging
    and bringing--especially in a case like this one where you're
    talking about a murderer--to bring the case to the attention of
    the government and say ----
        Mr. Cummings. Well ----
        Ms. Bond.--let's find a way to fix this.
        Mr. Cummings. I just want to tell you I think we can do
    better, and I think we need to go back again and try to figure
    out how again to be more effective and efficient in what we are
    doing. We can do better.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. As I recognize Congressman
    DeSantis here, I would just like to request the A files if I
    could. And not to pick on any particular country, but the
    numbers are small enough that it seems doable. But there were
    seven convicted criminals who were nationals of Guinea who were
    released from ICE under Zadvydas. In 2015, an additional 20
    convicted criminals from Guinea were released under Zadvydas.
    Thus far this year 29 criminal aliens from Liberia were
    released under Zadvydas, as were an additional 52 criminals
    from Liberia last year.
        To assist the committee in understanding the nature of the
    offenses involved in these cases, we would appreciate it if you
    would provide to the committee, Mr. Ragsdale, within, say, 30
    days of this hearing the so-called A files for those aliens.
    Can we achieve that?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I--we will certainly make every effort to
    meet that deadline.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Okay. And, Mr. Cummings, if he wants to
    add another country or two to get a cross-section, we are not
    trying to pick on any particular one, but I think it would
    provide--and we will follow up if there is additional ----
        Mr. Cummings. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am so glad you said that
    because I would like to add a country or two, but I will let
    you know. I want to study this list ----
        Chairman Chaffetz. Well, we will follow up ----
        Mr. Cummings.--a little bit more.
        Chairman Chaffetz.--and I picked two at random. We will let
    Mr. Cummings pick whatever he would like. And if you could help
    us with the A files on those, that would be appreciated.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Chaffetz. Thank you. I would now like to recognize
    the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ragsdale, it is frustrating to hear your responses
    about the Casey Chadwick murder. I mean, Jean Jacques came here
    illegally from Haiti in the '90s, was convicted of attempted
    murder, served 17 years in prison, obviously had no right to be
    here, was released first after serving a sentence and was not
    deported. And within a few months after being turned loose on
    the public, he murdered Casey Chadwick and stuffed her body in
    a closet. This is not something that should be acceptable.
        Now, you said maybe nothing could have been done, the IG
    said. I don't accept that. I mean, you are saying you can't
    even get a travel document in 5 months?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So I don't think that's exactly what I said.
    What I said, the IG found that we certainly could have done
    different things but the outcome may not have changed. We went
    to the Haitian Government with a request for a travel document
    for Jean Jacques. They said he could not prove he was of
    Haitian nationality, and they refused to issue. It's very ----
        Mr. DeSantis. Is that true? Could you prove it?
        Mr. Ragsdale. We believe he is Haitian, but I will also
    tell you that it certainly could be the situation--I'm not
    saying it is in this case--but someone of Haitian decent born
    in the Dominican Republic would present every--much as ----
        Mr. DeSantis. Did you try with the Dominican Republic?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Well, as you know, there's been some
    challenges between the Dominican Republic and Haiti in terms of
    nationality concerns. So we did not try to remove him to the
    Dominican Republic.
        My point is simply this: We made efforts, and there's no
    question we will look at the IG's report and take every best
    practice and every ----
        Mr. DeSantis. But you didn't ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--potential solution.
        Mr. DeSantis.--go to the State Department and say Haiti is
    not being cooperative here, and you didn't seek them to notify
    them under section 243 delta, correct?
        Mr. Ragsdale. ICE does not have authority to issue
    sanctions under 243(d) ----
        Mr. DeSantis. No, no, no, no, no. I know that. What happens
    is when the Department of Homeland Security notifies the State
    Department when the statute was--when it was Attorney General.
    Now since we have had changes in agencies, it is now the
    Department of--once that notification is made, then that
    triggers their duties. And my point is you guys did not issue a
    notification that Haiti was being unreasonable in this case.
        Mr. Ragsdale. That's right. And what I will suggest to you
    ----
        Mr. DeSantis. And had you done that, maybe there would have
    been a different outcome.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Perhaps. That is absolutely true. What I will
    say is we did work with the State Department at post in Santo
    Domingo ----
        Mr. DeSantis. I know, but that--clearly, that is--I mean, I
    appreciate that but that is going kind of the midlevel of the
    bureaucracy. If the government itself is not going to be
    cooperative, we have certain tools that can be used, and this
    is one of the tools that, if it was used, we may have had a
    different outcome. And I think that it is not unreasonable to
    say that if someone comes to the country illegally and then
    gets convicted of attempted murder, then it should be a very
    high priority of the government to get that person out of our
    country because of the high likelihood that they are probably
    going to reoffend when they go back in.
        And I am also frustrated because Casey's mother Wendy
    Hartling, she said very recently that she has not received any
    answers from ICE, that your agency has not been very helpful
    with helping her get her head around what happened. Why is
    that?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I am not familiar with us not providing her
    information as much as we can under the law. I will certainly
    take that back and find out if we have a pending inquiry from
    her. But ----
        Mr. DeSantis. Let me ask you this. How many times in the
    last 7 years has DHS actually done a notification for State
    under section 243 delta? Have there been any?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I do not believe we've done it at all.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay.
        Mr. Ragsdale. But I would note, though, again, that we
    signed the MOU 5 years ago, you've seen the correspondence from
    Secretary Johnson to Secretary Kerry and the response. The
    Secretary, in front of Senate Judiciary last week, you know,
    noted that this is on his radar. So it is not from our lack of
    interest in raising recalcitrant countries ----
        Mr. DeSantis. Well ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--as appropriate.
        Mr. DeSantis.--right, but we have tools and we want to use,
    and what we have is we get these reports--you guys give us the
    reports--the number of people here illegally, and you actually
    enumerate the crimes that they committed. And so these are
    people that have been in ICE custody and yet they end up
    committing crimes. And it is varied. It varies from murder, it
    varies from things like theft and robbery, DUI. I would say all
    those are menaces to the public in obviously varying degrees.
    And so that is there.
        Let me ask you this, Ambassador Bond. You said in your
    testimony that State has and will implement visa restrictions
    when necessary, but you wanted to make sure that was the right
    approach depending on the circumstances. But doesn't the
    statute mandate that if you do receive that notification from
    the Department of Homeland Security that you are required to
    suspend visa issuances?
        Ms. Bond. Yes, it does.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay. And just to make sure it is consistent
    with what Mr. Ragsdale says, has the State Department received
    any notification from DHS over the last 7 years under that
    section?
        Ms. Bond. We have not received the formal message from the
    Secretary of Homeland Security directing that this be
    triggered.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay. So here is the thing. We have tools
    that Congress has legislated. I think you guys need to use
    them. And obviously it goes to the Department of Homeland
    Security first because that really triggers your responsibility
    at State. But those are what Congress did. I think it would be
    tremendously effective if you did it. I think the countries
    would be very much more likely to fall in line. You would be
    using leverage, and I think we could engineer better outcomes
    for the American people.
        But clearly, law enforcement--I wish we could prevent every
    single crime that happens here. The fact of the matter is
    people are going to commit crimes; you have got to hold them
    accountable. But when people are here illegally and they have
    actually been convicted of crimes and then they are released
    rather than being deported, well, that is on the government and
    that is something that could be prevented. And I think people
    like Casey Chadwick, these tragic stories need to come to an
    end.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts,
    Mr. Lynch, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
    for being here.
        You know, too often, the wider discussion in Congress about
    immigration ends up in a shouting match between what I would
    loosely describe as the open-borders crowd against the throw-
    them-all-out crowd, those extreme ends of this debate. This
    does not help. This does not help. When you have got 86,000
    criminals here illegally being released into the general
    population, you have got situations like Ms. Chadwick, you
    know, and my heart goes out to their families. I cannot imagine
    the anguish that they have gone through and they are still
    looking to have their questions answered.
        You know, we have a very basic duty in this country to
    protect the people, to protect the American people. And, you
    know, cases like Ms. Chadwick just infuriate, infuriate the
    American people, and rightly so. And it looks like we can't get
    our act together here. You know, I understand, you know, that
    ICE didn't notify the State Department about its difficulty in
    obtaining travel documents for Mr. Jacques, is that right?
        Mr. Ragsdale. It is correct that we did not notify ----
        Mr. Lynch. Okay. So ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--Consular Affairs on that particular case.
        Mr. Lynch.--it is not just about the one case, but this is
    not helping. And, you know, you got people that just see a case
    like that and say that is it, no more immigration. We are not
    going to have that. We have got to keep our people safe. It
    informs their opinion of what is going on here. It also informs
    their opinion of the job that the government is doing to keep
    them safe. It is pathetic because, you know, if we are going to
    have a--and we need a coherent, a robust, a sane, a sustainable
    immigration policy, and we are never going to get there if you
    keep doing things the way you are doing it.
        We have to at some point at least acknowledge that we
    should not allow foreign countries to import dangerous
    criminals to our country. There is a cost-shifting there that
    is put on the American taxpayer, and there is also a perverse
    incentive for those countries to do that because they can get
    rid of their problems by sending them to us, you know?
        I want to explore something that you mentioned, Mr.
    Ragsdale. You know, we have got a situation in Germany where
    they ended up with 1.4 million Syrians and refugees from other
    countries, and so they have worked out an agreement with Turkey
    on deporting a certain number of those people. And there is
    sort of a third-party agreement, like you talked about. Are
    there any countries like that that we can deal with where
    people come in illegally--and, you know, unfortunately we are
    at this point because of the logjam we have got here. I think
    that that solution of just telling people we are not going to
    accept any more visas until you take these people back.
        And by the way, I would like a list. I would like a list of
    the countries that are recalcitrant. I want to know how many
    people they are refusing to take. And I think that is
    information that Congress should have when we make foreign
    appropriations because we can zero out foreign aid to countries
    that don't cooperate.
        If you are not going to do it at your level, I know there
    are Members of Congress who will embrace that duty if it not
    being done. And I bet you we will get great response. If we cut
    off funding to countries that are not doing the right thing and
    not taking back criminals from their own countries who are here
    illegally, I think in a heartbeat they will respond to that.
    And unfortunately, it looks like that--it is a blunt tool and I
    don't like it, but if it is, you know, the only tool in the
    toolbox, then I guess we have got to use it. Tell me about
    third-country agreements, Mr. Ragsdale.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Well, I do not think in the United States at
    the moment has the type of program you are talking about with
    the EU and Turkey. However, DHS has worked with some in-country
    processing in Central America where we are looking to find
    refugees in the tri-border area as opposed to having them make
    an illegal trip north.
        And then from the investigative side, we have worked to
    dismantle the transnational criminal organizations that are
    bringing folks from our southern neighbors to the United States
    illegally. So I mean there is much work that is getting done on
    both fronts. We are not simply in a completely defensive
    posture.
        However, once people get to the United States and the law--
    the Immigration and Nationality Act allows people to apply for
    protection when they are here, they have to go through the
    entire process. And if they are unsuccessful, we will have to
    go back to that country to get a travel document for them to
    remove them.
        Mr. Lynch. Okay. So can we make an agreement here that this
    committee, Oversight, is going to get notice of when you have
    got a removal order and you are requesting travel documents? We
    just need to know that. You know, since it is a two-step
    process, we need to know when both of those happen.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Yes, but so I understand, for which--I mean,
    there's 23 recalcitrant countries that are--that we are
    monitoring.
        Mr. Lynch. Okay.
        Mr. Ragsdale. I mean, I'm happy to provide the data
    associated with that.
        Mr. Lynch. Yes. How about we just work with those 23
    countries, and that would be a good start.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It looks to me like we have got frankly a double failure of
    our government. On the one hand, we have got the State
    Department failing to force nations to accept their own
    citizens back who are criminals here in our country; and then
    secondly, we have got the Homeland Security failing to notify
    local law enforcement when these individuals are released into
    our streets.
        And, you know, all of this just puts the American public at
    risk. When it all comes down to it, that is what is going on
    here, which is absolutely unacceptable to me and to millions of
    Americans, probably everyone in here. And our job is to keep
    the public safe, and we are not doing it here.
        Let me kind of walk through the process. Let's just say an
    individual who is illegally in this country commits a sex
    offense in this country, gets convicted, serves time, then gets
    turned over to ICE to be deported except ICE cannot deport them
    because their country of origin does not want to accept them.
    So at that point we have an individual who is released back on
    our streets.
        Now, as already has been discussed, we have a solution
    here, and that is to deny visas from these countries until
    these countries accept back their citizens who have committed
    crimes in our country. It doesn't seem to me frankly to be
    rocket science. We could fix this problem relatively quickly if
    we would just abide by the law that we have to work with. We
    have the tools on hand it seems to me. And this is the method
    that Congress has created, and yet it is not being utilized.
    So, again, this putting the American people at risk.
        Now, let me go back to the example here. Let's just say we
    have a sex offender. Let's look at it from two perspectives. On
    the one hand we have an American citizen who commits a sex
    crime. They serve their time, they are released at some point.
    When they are released, local law enforcement is notified that
    they are released, and they are placed on a national sex
    offender registry so we know who they are, where they are
    located. Law enforcement and communities are aware. That is for
    an American citizen.
        Now, we have someone who is illegally in this country who
    commits the same type of sex crime. They serve their sentence,
    turned over to ICE. ICE can do nothing with them so they are
    released. Local law enforcement is not informed, community is
    not informed. We have the same type of sex offender running
    around, no one knows who they are, where they are. There is no
    follow-up on them. And ICE does not have the requirement to
    make sure these individuals are placed on the sex offender
    registry, and so they are not. And this has been problematic.
        I actually have introduced a bill that would require ICE to
    place these people on the national sex offender registry when
    they are released. It is H.R. 2793, the TRAC Act. I would
    encourage everyone to jump on board with that.
        Mr. Ragsdale, let me just ask you, does the fact that ICE
    is not required to place these individuals on the national sex
    offender registry, does that mean that you cannot place them on
    that registry?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So, generally, the prosecuting agency, the
    State or the local--the municipality does not make a
    distinction between the person's nationality and would place
    them on their sex offender registry.
        Mr. Hice. They are not placed on there.
        Mr. Ragsdale. That is up to the law of the prosecuting
    municipality. But more importantly, what we have done over the
    last 2 years is create a system that every time we release a
    criminal alien from our custody, we, in an automated fashion,
    notify the jurisdiction to--where that person will be released.
    It's called the LENS system.
        Mr. Hice. That is not happening.
        Mr. Ragsdale. It is the Law Enforcement Notification
    system, sir. I would be happy to get you a briefing on that.
        Mr. Hice. Listen, I deal with all the sheriffs in my
    district. Georgia has not--that is not happening. You may think
    it is happening, but it is not occurring.
        Mr. Ragsdale. We were just at the National Sheriffs
    association talking to folks about this. This is done by what
    they call ORI code. It's done biometrically based on the
    arresting agency's fingerprints. So I'd be happy to get you a
    brief on what we've done. We've made great progress in this
    area to notify local law enforcement every time someone is
    getting released from ICE custody who has a criminal history.
        Mr. Hice. The sex offenders are not being placed on the
    national sex offender registry.
        Mr. Ragsdale. ICE ----
        Mr. Hice. They are being released. Local law enforcement
    are not aware of these individuals, communities are not aware
    of these individuals, and you ought to take responsibility to
    make sure that they are registered at least.
        Mr. Ragsdale. We would be happy to work with you on this. I
    think obviously information-sharing in law enforcement is of
    critical import and can only benefit the American public.
        Mr. Hice. Absolutely ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. I completely agree.
        Mr. Hice.--and it is not occurring.
        Mr. Ragsdale. I'd be happy to get you a brief ----
        Mr. Hice. Mr. Chairman ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--on what we've done ----
        Mr. Hice.--I see my time is expired.
        Mr. Ragsdale.--over the last 2 years.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Lieu, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The United States of America is the world's premier
    superpower. I find it absurd that we cannot return foreign
    nationals that have been convicted of heinous crimes back to
    their home country.
        The case of Jean Jacques, the Haitian foreign national, it
    is stories like that I agree with Congressman Lynch that makes
    it hard for those of us who want to support comprehensive
    immigration reform to get that through because it is these
    stories that make the American people very angry and just make
    our country want to shut down in terms of immigration.
        And as you know, in that case Jean Jacques was convicted of
    attempted murder, served his time, released, and then ICE tried
    to get him back to Haiti, the Haitian Government refused to
    accept him. He then kills Casey Chadwick.
        It is clear to me ICE should have notified the State
    Department. That was a failure. But I find it much more
    disturbing the reason ICE did not do this. And in this New York
    Times article in July, I am going to give you the reason. ICE
    officials say that they did not raise the case with the State
    Department because they did not believe it would intervene to
    encourage a foreign country to accept a violent offender like
    Jacques.
        So what this is telling me is that one entire agency of the
    Federal Government, ICE, believes the State Department is so
    weak, so incompetent on this issue that they don't think it is
    worth their time to notify the State Department.
        So I am going to ask you some questions, Ms. Bond. Thank
    you for being here. Why would ICE think that? And I am thinking
    maybe it is because the State Department has only one time in
    its entire history used the tool Congress gave you to deny
    visas to these countries. Why is it that you have only done it
    one time?
        Ms. Bond. You asked why would they believe that we wouldn't
    intervene and assist unless it was a case that involved
    terrorism?
        Mr. Lieu. Yes, I did ask two questions. That is the first
    question. The second is why is it that only one time you have
    used the tool that Congress gave you? So there are two
    questions there.
        Ms. Bond. I cannot account for the fact that somebody
    believed that because the fact is that we work so closely. We
    are very much a team in terms of looking for ways to support
    each other. ICE has the lead so we are in the supporting, but
    we are working together as effectively as possible on
    individual cases. So why someone would've had the idea that we
    wouldn't be responsive I simply don't know why they thought
    that. We would have been responsive. And ----
        Mr. Lieu. Would you have denied visas?
        Ms. Bond. So the question about, you know, why is there
    only one example to date of actually applying this particular
    case, excuse me, I think it's--in the case of Guyana--and we
    agree that it was very effective and we also agree that this is
    an important tool. We keep it in consideration at all times. It
    is not something that we're looking for reasons not to do.
        Mr. Lieu. I think ----
        Ms. Bond. In the case of Guyana ----
        Mr. Lieu.--the sentiment of this committee on a bipartisan
    basis is that you are actually not looking to do it, and I
    think what we want is we want you to do it. We want you to make
    an example of a country that is recalcitrant. Just do it, and
    then hopefully others will listen more, right? We should make
    no apologies for acting like a superpower. We should use the
    tools that the Congress has given you and just do it.
        So let's now move to foreign aid, right? It is true, isn't
    it, that the U.S. is the largest foreign aid donor since 1973
    to Haiti?
        Ms. Bond. I'm sorry. What was the question?
        Mr. Lieu. Is it true that the U.S. is the largest foreign
    aid donor to Haiti since 1973 or about then?
        Ms. Bond. That's probably true. I don't know, but I believe
    ----
        Mr. Lieu. So I understand that we have sovereign nations
    and Haiti doesn't have to take back its folks that commit
    crimes, but we also don't have to give foreign aid. And would
    you support reducing or eliminating foreign aid to Haiti
    because they are unwilling to take back their own murderers?
        Ms. Bond. You know, in the case of Haiti, that is a country
    that is not on the list of recalcitrants. They are generally
    cooperative. They are not a country that is problematic in that
    sense. It's not typical for them to be saying in the case of
    particular individuals we don't think this person is Haitian.
    So that is an example of a situation that you have to keep
    trying to work with that government, but it's not a sign that
    you have a government that is ----
        Mr. Lieu. So let me just stop you there.
        Ms. Bond.--deliberately saying ----
        Mr. Lieu. The U.S. Government clearly believed he was
    Haitian, right? And, you know, it is discretionary whether they
    want to take back their person. It is also discretionary for us
    whether we want to give foreign aid. So it should be the view
    that if our government believes a fact and we want to send that
    person back based on these facts and the host country doesn't
    take it, I think this committee wants the State Department to
    do some action, right, because I think it is our view that
    diplomacy, without the threat of consequences, is meaningless.
    It is just happy talk. We want you to put in some consequences.
    We want you to do that soon.
        And my time is up. I yield back.
        Ms. Bond. Thank you.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
    Grothman, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Grothman. Yes. Mr. Ragsdale, first question for you.
    When did you get your position as deputy director of
    Immigration and Customs?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Since June of 2012.
        Mr. Grothman. June of 2012. Okay. And, Ambassador Bond,
    your position previous to being the assistant secretary was--
    did I read that you are a former Ambassador to an African
    country?
        Ms. Bond. Yes, immediately prior to becoming the assistant
    secretary, I was the deputy principal assistant secretary, the
    number two in the Bureau. And before that I was the Ambassador
    in Lesotho in southern Africa.
        Mr. Grothman. And when were appointed to that?
        Ms. Bond. I'm sorry, when was I ----
        Mr. Grothman. When were you appointed to the Ambassador of
    Lesotho?
        Ms. Bond. I was there from 2010 to 2012.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. So you are both, I am sure--Ambassador
    Bond, you are an appointee of President Obama, correct?
        Ms. Bond. To this job, yes.
        Mr. Grothman. Yes, and the Ambassador job was ----
        Ms. Bond. That was also during the Obama administration.
        Mr. Grothman. Correct. And I am not sure. Mr. Ragsdale, is
    your position an appointed one by President Obama?
        Mr. Ragsdale. No, I am a career ----
        Mr. Grothman. You are career?
        Mr. Ragsdale.--senior executive, yes.
        Mr. Grothman. Is there a political determination of who the
    deputy director is or not?
        Mr. Ragsdale. No, it is a career job.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, we will focus on you, Ambassador
    Bond. I mean, you know, there is something going on in the
    background here we are not talking about, but I would like to
    talk about it. You have been appointed in this position by
    President Obama, and there has been a theme, I think, through a
    variety of hearings we have had in which there doesn't seem a
    lot of sincerity in enforcing our immigration laws at all
    around here, whether it is people just coming across the border
    and letting to go back, whether it is not deporting people who
    commit crimes, whatever. To what degree do you believe
    President Obama is aware that you folks are not using the means
    at your disposal to remove the dangerous criminals back to the
    countries from which they came? Does President Obama know about
    this at all? Do you guys report to him? Have you heard anything
    from the White House about your horrible ----
        Ms. Bond. There have been instances where the President has
    raised the issue with his counterpart, the head of other
    countries, and so I know that he's aware of the issue of the
    task of dealing with recalcitrant countries and looking for
    ways to get them to meet their obligations ----
        Mr. Grothman. But those ways haven't included denying visas
    or trying to prevent foreign aid from going to these countries?
    President Obama is aware of this and he still--I guess what you
    are saying is President Obama then is aware of this situation,
    right?
        Ms. Bond. President Obama is aware of the fact that some
    countries are not meeting their obligations to cooperate in
    removing their citizens.
        Mr. Grothman. And has he weighed in with you guys at all to
    say let's withhold foreign aid, let's withhold visas from these
    countries or is he just kind of chit-chat, talk, talk, talk and
    not doing anything about it?
        Ms. Bond. So actions that have been taken include a fairly
    recent--about a year ago a message from the deputy Secretary of
    State to every Ambassador telling them to raise this,
    particularly in the cases where we're not seeing ----
        Mr. Grothman. Raise what?
        Ms. Bond. Raise the question of the importance of resolving
    issues of ----
        Mr. Grothman. About a year ago?
        Ms. Bond.--returning citizens ----
        Mr. Grothman. So about a year ago somebody said we ought to
    raise the issue. But has he ever threatened or has President
    Obama ever come down on you guys in saying, hey, we have a
    bunch of criminals in this country, we have the ability to deny
    visas, we have the ability to withhold foreign aid, let's do
    something about it? Or is President Obama just--all you can
    come across is a year ago he said, well, maybe we ought to look
    at this sometime and see what we can do?
        Ms. Bond. Maybe we ought to look at this sometime is not
    the message that was sent.
        Mr. Grothman. What was the message?
        Ms. Bond. The message was to raise the visibility and to
    emphasize the importance of resolving these cases where they
    occur. And we completely agree with you and other members of
    this committee ----
        Mr. Grothman. I don't think you ----
        Ms. Bond.--that taking the actions, including visas
    sanctions, are--that is a real deterrent and it is a real
    threat.
        Mr. Grothman. Has ----
        Ms. Bond. But what we've seen ----
        Mr. Grothman. Well, talk about threats. Has President Obama
    threatened with removing any of those appointees who haven't
    followed through on this?
        Ms. Bond. I--you know, what we ----
        Mr. Grothman. I mean, I didn't vote for the guy.
        Ms. Bond.--are doing is working to make sure that we
    establish a process with every single country, focus on the
    ones that are not doing the job ----
        Mr. Grothman. But does the process ----
        Ms. Bond.--that will work.
        Mr. Grothman. We only get 5 minutes here. Does the process
    include withholding foreign aid or withholding visas?
        Ms. Bond. The process includes that possibility,
    absolutely.
        Mr. Grothman. Has it ever happened ----
        Ms. Bond. It ----
        Mr. Grothman.--under your tenure?
        Ms. Bond. It has happened that we have talked to
    governments and said if we're not seeing results ----
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. So it has never happened, right, under
    your ----
        Ms. Bond. It has not been imposed but it has been
    discussed, and countries know that they are on the line.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Well, we only got about, what, 5 months
    to go on this administration. If he is going to impose it, he
    better do it quickly, and otherwise, I think the American
    people have to, you know, make sure the next President has an
    entirely different view of things. But thanks much.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms.
    Plaskett.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ambassador Bond or Mr. Ragsdale, before my colleague leaves
    I understand that one of these statutes was previously invoked
    with Guyana in 2001. Mr. Ragsdale, do you know if that is
    correct?
        Mr. Ragsdale. That is my understanding.
        Ms. Plaskett. And at the time that it was invoked with
    Guyana, what were the problems that our government was facing
    with Guyana in deporting individuals there?
        Mr. Ragsdale. This was during the days of the Immigration
    and Naturalization Service, which was part of the Department of
    Justice ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Right.
        Mr. Ragsdale.--so I cannot speak from personal knowledge,
    but I understand there was a delay in repatriations to Guyana,
    and we worked--at that time the Immigration and Naturalization
    Service worked with the Department of State to have visa
    sanction imposed.
        Ms. Plaskett. And was that an effective use of the statute?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I understand that it was.
        Ms. Plaskett. So we have used it in the past?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I understand that is the last time it has
    been used.
        Ms. Plaskett. And that was section 243(d) of the
    Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows for the Secretary
    of Homeland Security to formally notify the Secretary of State
    that a foreign government is denying or unreasonably delaying
    the acceptance of their deportees? Is that correct?
        Mr. Ragsdale. That is what the statute says.
        Ms. Plaskett. And why has the statute allowed it to remain
    at a Cabinet level with the Secretary of State requiring it to
    discontinue immigration or non-immigration visa status as
    opposed to Members of Congress who don't like a particular
    administration and want to impose that on other states?
        Mr. Ragsdale. If I understand, I mean, the statutory
    language actually reads ``Attorney General,'' as folks have
    mentioned. At this point, that now is read to be the Secretary
    of Homeland Security, but the legislation itself grants that
    authority to that Cabinet-level position.
        Ms. Plaskett. And that is legislation that this Congress
    has given and found in putting that law in place that it was
    best to be left with the Secretary of State, with the Attorney
    General, and at a Cabinet level as opposed to Oversight and
    Government Reform Committee when they don't like how a
    particular administration is operating its visa and immigration
    status? Yes?
        Mr. Ragsdale. That's my understanding of the way the ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay.
        Mr. Ragsdale.--statute reads.
        Ms. Plaskett. So it was effective in the use of Guyana.
    Could I ask you, Secretary Bond, is it possible--how would this
    affect--if we were to do something like this with a place like
    China, what would be the effect on our own economy if we were
    to impose something like this?
        Ms. Bond. If you take a particular country, in any case
    you're going to be looking to see what would be the likely
    effectiveness of taking the step of, for example, sanctioning
    them on visas ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay. So I guess let me be ----
        Ms. Bond.--and what would be the cost ----
        Ms. Plaskett.--a little more specific. I am asking--so if
    we decided that we were going to revoke the ability of China to
    have immigration visas in this country because they were
    recalcitrant about returning one or two or three individuals
    back to China, what would the effect on a regular basis be of
    China not being allowed immigration visas into this country,
    work or otherwise visas?
        Ms. Bond. This is obviously a hypothetical question.
        Ms. Plaskett. Of course.
        Ms. Bond. The likely response ----
        Ms. Plaskett. It hasn't happened.
        Ms. Bond.--of any government, one response would be that
    they would reciprocate. It would ----
        Ms. Plaskett. Impose the same things on us, right? And the
    economy, the work that is done between China and the United
    States is how many visas a year would you say in terms of work
    visas going back and forth between the Chinese nationals and
    Americans into china?
        Ms. Bond. I don't have that breakdown, but it's well over a
    million-and-a-half visas that are issued.
        Ms. Plaskett. Would that also affect American adoptions of
    Chinese children?
        Ms. Bond. It's impossible to predict what a foreign
    government might decide to do in response, and important to
    remember that the purpose of doing it would be to get them to
    change what they're doing on removing their aliens. We want to
    focus on that. We would be looking for measures we can take
    that are likely to steer them in that direction not to trigger
    retaliation where we then end up arguing about visas and not
    making any progress on removals.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions
    at this time.
        Ms. Bond. Sir, if I may just quickly correct the record --
    --
        Mr. Russell. Yes, please.
        Ms. Bond.--to make it clear that I'm ----
        Mr. Russell. You bet you.
        Ms. Bond.--also a career member of the government, a career
    foreign service officer in addition to being politically
    appointed to this particular job. Thank you.
        Mr. Russell. And let the record note. The gentlelady has
    yielded back and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Alabama, Mr. Palmer, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ambassador Bond, you stated in your testimony that some
    recalcitrant countries like China wouldn't be largely affected
    via sanctions because they control foreign travel of their
    citizens. A recent GAO report this year found that the United
    States is the largest source of remittances in the world, in
    fact, 54.2 billion abroad in 2014. Mexico, China, India, the
    Philippines received the most money from us. But I notice many
    of the countries who received significant remittances from us
    are also the same ones who refuse to repatriate citizens who
    commit crimes on U.S. soil.
        If the State Department's highest priority is the
    protection of U.S. citizens, why shouldn't we block remittances
    to these countries?
        Ms. Bond. Sir, some of the countries that you mentioned are
    not countries that have been recalcitrant or have been a
    problem in this particular ----
        Mr. Palmer. I understand that.
        Ms. Bond.--issue.
        Mr. Palmer. I just ----
        Ms. Bond. Our goal in dealing with each of the countries
    that are designated recalcitrant, as well as those that are on
    a list that we're watching and working with to make sure that
    their performance doesn't get worse, our goal is to look for
    ways to incentivize them to do what they need to do and to
    establish a process that routinely works.
        We agree that the possibility of visa sanction can be an
    effective tool. I would argue that part of what makes it
    effective is that when it's imposed, it's very clear to the
    other country, very clear to anyone who's looking at the
    situation that we did our best to find a way to resolve that
    problem without going to that step and that they left us no
    choice. We were not seeing cooperation, we were not seeing
    response, and therefore, we took that step.
        Where we're seeing a response, where we're seeing a step in
    the right direction and movement in the right direction and
    commitment to keep that going, we push to keep that going and
    ----
        Mr. Palmer. I appreciate all of that ----
        Ms. Bond.--that's the approach.
        Mr. Palmer.--but let me--this just seems to--this is
    problematic for me. We have talked about the cases where people
    who had been arrested multiple times have committed crimes that
    resulted in the deaths of their victims, okay. That is an
    enormous cost. But if you take into account--and this has
    happened in my home State of Alabama where our local law
    enforcement have arrested people multiple times. It goes on all
    around the country where people are here illegally and the
    United States has not been able to repatriate them to their
    countries of origin, have committed other crimes. There is an
    enormous cost there that the taxpayers are paying, in some
    cases the victims, and I guess in every case the victim of the
    crime is paying, yet we are sending $54 billion. I mean,
    doesn't it make sense to at least deduct the cost?
        And, I mean, it is across the board with the whole issue of
    this administration allowing illegals to come into the country
    and we are taking care of them, we are paying for it, the
    taxpayers are paying for it. If we can't get the administration
    to at least recognize that, can we at least get the
    administration to recognize that we are paying an enormous cost
    for the crimes that are being committed and deduct that from
    the remittances? Doesn't that make sense?
        Ms. Bond. We absolutely recognize the cost in terms of ----
        Mr. Palmer. But you are not doing anything about it.
        Ms. Bond.--the cost of detention and the penalty paid by
    victims of folks, and that is why this is a priority and we are
    looking for effective and more and more effective ways to
    address this.
        We do have examples of countries where we have been
    successful, where we've been working with them and they are not
    on the recalcitrant list. So this is not a static list.
        Mr. Palmer. But there are countries who are persistent, and
    all I am saying is in that case where we are making remittances
    doesn't it make sense to at least deduct the cost, maybe even
    compensate the victims? I mean, doesn't that make sense?
        Ms. Bond. So the option of eventually taking a look at
    having the foreign assistance that we provide to a foreign
    government be affected by their performance in this field, that
    option is on the table. It's there.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, I can tell you, and I don't know if you
    picked up on it, but I am extremely frustrated by how our
    country has handled this. We have allowed this to go on. We
    have allowed our own citizens to be victimized by it. We have
    put enormous burdens on our law enforcement as though they
    don't have enough on them already. I think it ought to be
    evident that they do. And the administration's policies,
    frankly, are not only disappointing, it is just
    incomprehensible that we continue to allow this to happen.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence, for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Yes, Mr. Chairman, before I start my
    remarks, I would like to recognize Judith Cummins, who is a
    British Member of Parliament. She is joining eight other
    Members of the Parliament who are on the Hill today, and she is
    in the audience. I just wanted to recognize her and welcome her
    to the United States Congress.
        I want to start my remarks to say that I am hoping this
    dialogue leads to some sense of awakening to Congress that we
    need comprehensive immigration reform, and that requires action
    of Congress. It is very easy to point your fingers and
    criticize or have opinions against the administration when
    repeatedly there has been calls and requests for us to do our
    job as Congress and to develop a comprehensive immigration
    program for America. We need it.
        It is refreshing to hear that my colleagues on the other
    side actually recognize that. And so I hope from this hearing
    we will get some action and we will actually step up and do our
    job.
        I want to ask a question to Mr. Ragsdale. Does ICE request
    for alternative measures referred to in these series of letters
    that are sent out to these recalcitrant countries refer only to
    denying visas or also other tools within the state's purview?
        Mr. Ragsdale. The precise what I'll say is remedy would not
    be something that ICE would propose. In other words, we would
    work with our colleagues in Consular Affairs to figure out the
    precise interaction diplomatically. The only thing we are
    interested in is getting a travel document or somebody on an
    approved manifest that were are allowed either to board them on
    a charter air flight or a commercial air flight to remove them
    from the United States. So I would defer to my colleague from
    the State Department in terms of the precise ----
        Mrs. Lawrence. Secretary Bond, could you respond to that?
    What are the tools or what are the alternative measures that is
    referred to? Is it only the visas? What are the other tools?
        Ms. Bond. So when we agree because we are working really
    consistently, closely, and when ICE flags for us their sense
    that they are just going--getting nowhere with a particular
    country and they want to look with us at ways to increase the
    pressure, increase the focus and the attention and get results,
    some of the things that are options include for us to be
    raising that issue at a higher level of government to say at
    the working level this is not being resolved. It's not being --
    --
        Mrs. Lawrence. Who are the higher levels of government?
        Ms. Bond. Well, it could include, for example, our
    Ambassador in that country going into the Foreign Minister or
    the Ministry of Interior, whoever there might be responsible
    for issuing passports and say, you know, we need to find ways
    to address whatever is keeping you from doing your job to
    identify and document citizens. There are some cases where
    foreign governments say we don't think this is our citizen. All
    right. Well, we want to see evidence that they are really
    putting effort into making a legitimate determination and that
    they've looked carefully at that case.
        This happens to us as well overseas where foreign
    governments will come to our embassy and say we think this
    person in our jail is an American. We go talk to them and we
    don't think it's an American, and that's what we tell them.
        Mrs. Lawrence. The letters that were sent, ICE that sent
    describe the difficulties with the country in question, the
    joint efforts of ICE and the Consular Affairs have been taken
    to date and each agency's view on the proposed next steps.
    Secretary Bond, how useful is the information in these letters
    in coordinating additional efforts with ICE? And I am really
    interested because ICE keeps saying that they are so limited.
    Here, we are saying there is additional efforts that ICE should
    take or can take. So can you respond to that?
        Ms. Bond. Well, perhaps I could respond giving the example
    of Liberia because that's one of the countries that's been
    raised. I visited Liberia in March, and when--and I had the
    ability to sit down with the Foreign Minister and their
    Attorney General and senior members of their government. And
    that was the number one issue that I was raising with them was
    to say we have lots of things, important things we want to
    accomplish together, Liberia and the United States. This issue
    needs to be resolved.
        And your embassy, your consulates, many of them have a
    consulate in New York that follows events at the United
    Nations, we need you to be in touch with them to be very clear
    about the priority you place on cooperation on this.
        Now, we have seen a change in the way Liberia is operating
    in this issue since March, and we are seeing travel documents
    issued, a commitment that they will continue to issue and a
    commitment that they will accelerate those issuances. If they
    don't follow through on that, they know that the threat of visa
    sanctions is a real one. This is not something where we just
    mention that that could happen. We have made it very clear to
    these countries ----
        Mrs. Lawrence. My time is up. And before I turn it over to
    Mr. Chairman, I just want to say President Obama has been
    invoked a lot in this discussion. I am proud of the fact that
    we had a President--lack of action of Congress--did try to
    address this issue and put some measures in place, and I would
    be proud to say that my Congress has stepped up and really
    started working on comprehensive immigration reform because we
    need to address these issues. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Russell. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ambassador Bond, just a few minutes ago you said in
    questioning from Congressman Palmer, ``We at the State
    Department believe denying visa can be an effective tool.'' How
    can it be effective if you never use it? In the past 7-1/2
    years during the Obama administration, how many times have you
    used denying visas as one of those beliefs that it ``can be an
    effective tool''? How many times have you used it?
        Ms. Bond. We have not sanctioned--in other words, we
    haven't ----
        Mr. Jordan. Is the answer zero?
        Ms. Bond.--applied that, but what we have done ----
        Mr. Jordan. Is the answer ----
        Ms. Bond.--is to say to foreign governments this is the
    pattern that we're seeing. We're not seeing responsiveness from
    you. We're not seeing a legitimate effort to ----
        Mr. Jordan. But my question was how many ----
        Ms. Bond.--identify the citizens ----
        Mr. Jordan.--times have you used what you said you believe
    to be an effective tool? How many times have you used this
    ``effective tool'' in the last 7-1/2 years?
        Ms. Bond. We have not used it.
        Mr. Jordan. Never? Okay. Now, is there any part of the
    statute you don't understand? ``On being notified that the
    government of a foreign country denies accepting an alien who
    is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of that country,
    the Secretary of State shall order consular offices in that
    country to discontinue granting visas.'' Any part of that you
    don't understand?
        Ms. Bond. No.
        Mr. Jordan. So I don't either. That is as plain as you can
    write it. So in 7-1/2 years this ``effective tool'' that you
    believe is so effective, you have never used it even though the
    statute says you shall do it if, in fact, you are given notice
    that this is going on. Is it going on? Mr. Ragsdale, do we have
    deportable aliens who have been released back on to U.S.
    streets because their home country refuses to repatriate them?
    Do we have that phenomena going on in the United States today?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Jordan. And how many people are in that category, let's
    say in the last--we will stick with the same time frame. During
    the Obama presidency in the last 7-1/2 years, how many people
    fall into that category?
        Mr. Ragsdale. It's tens of thousands of people.
        Mr. Jordan. Tens of thousands? Tens of thousands. The State
    Department says it is an effective tool to deny visas for tens
    of thousands, and yet they have not used it once. And the
    statue says you shall do it. Now, I am missing something,
    Ambassador. What is going on here?
        Ms. Bond. The statute says that when the Secretary of
    Homeland Security informs the Secretary of State, that they--
    that he wants to trigger this sanction, we shall do so, and we
    shall.
        Mr. Jordan. But you haven't. Mr. Ragsdale ----
        Ms. Bond. We have not received such a notification from the
    Secretary of Homeland Security.
        Mr. Jordan. Well, it is about time. Mr. Ragsdale, how many
    of these thousands wound up doing some kind of violent offense
    against an American, some kind of violent crime?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So there are criminal aliens in this group.
    There is no question about that.
        Mr. Jordan. A lot? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds have done
    violent crimes and there should have been at least some
    sanction against their home country ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. It is ----
        Mr. Jordan.--that wasn't put in place?
        Mr. Ragsdale. It is a substantial number.
        Mr. Jordan. How many of those thousands--do you know any of
    those thousands, any of them on the terrorism watch list?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I do not believe any pose a national security
    threat for that reason.
        Mr. Jordan. That is not what I asked you. Are any of them
    on the terrorism watch list? There are thousands who are in
    this category where we haven't taken any sanctions against
    their home country. Any of them on the terrorism watch list?
        Mr. Ragsdale. We do a full background check on all the
    appropriate indices before we release anyone.
        Mr. Jordan. Is the answer yes or no to that question?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I would loathe to speculate, but the answer
    should be no.
        Mr. Jordan. Should be no but you can't say definitively?
        Mr. Ragsdale. With substantial confidence ----
        Mr. Jordan. Any of them on the no-fly list?
        Mr. Ragsdale. With substantial confidence I would say no.
        Mr. Jordan. Any of them on the no-fly list?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Again, I don't want to speculate because of
    course that is a fluid list. Somebody may not have been on the
    no-fly list in one year and added and vice versa. So in the --
    --
        Mr. Jordan. I am talking the Obama administration, in that
    time frame, any of these folks who should have been sent back
    to their home country and we took no sanctions against the home
    country, any of them wind up on the terrorism watch list or the
    no-fly list?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So I cannot speculate over the course of 7-1/
    2 years.
        Mr. Jordan. Can you get us that information? That would be
    something we would like to know.
        Mr. Ragsdale. We certainly can--what I can tell you for
    certain is we do every appropriate background check before we
    release someone. That I am certain of.
        Mr. Jordan. So why aren't you giving notice to the State
    Department to do what the statute says?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So as the chairman noted, our director has
    worked with Assistant Secretary Bond on ratcheting up on at
    least four countries with the potential for 243(d) sanctions,
    and we will work on that. You know, again ----
        Mr. Jordan. It is always we will work on it, we are looking
    at it, we are trying, all this wonderful talk. I think it is
    clear, statute is very clear, if the State Department believes
    it is an effective tool, then you have got to put them on
    notice so they can use the tool. I don't know if they will, but
    let's hope they would. It is the old line, when you do
    something right, you don't have to do it often, right? But if
    you never do it, you never send the message. And that to me is
    the takeaway here.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Maloney, for 5
    minutes.
        Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Russell.
        I think we have found something, Mr. Jordan, we can work
    together on. I couldn't agree with you more. And I think we
    ought to change the law, just take Homeland Security out of it
    and put the State Department in charge. And when it says that--
    by the way, I have a lot of respect for both of your offices
    and you and thank you for your public service. But if it is not
    working, we have got to change it. And everybody says, well,
    maybe if the State Department got involved, we could negotiate,
    as you have done with Liberia, to get a better result. I would
    say let's change it and get the State Department involved in
    the beginning and then start using this. Since Homeland
    Security is focused on other things more than this, maybe we
    should rewrite it, take them out, and have the State
    Department--you would have to wait for a referral.
        I think the number one duty of government is to protect our
    people, and the fact that dangerous people are put back on the
    street that can murder people like Ms. Casey Chadwick is one of
    the reasons we can't pass comprehensive immigration reform.
    They keep reading these stories and it is hard to get people to
    agree if we can't even agree on how we are going to make this
    work.
        So I think you have taken some positive steps having that
    list that you put together. I think that the Jean Jacques case
    highlighted the need for our government to identify what
    countries are the most noncompliant so that both of you, State
    and ICE, can work together to get them to comply.
        And it is my understanding that in 2015 ICE began using a
    pilot tool to help identify the countries that are the most
    recalcitrant, and I think that that is important. Do you make
    that list public? Is that list public? Is it up on the Web site
    like your tips report is on what countries are not
    participating in combating sex trafficking? What do you do with
    that list? Is it a private list or do you put it out on the
    Internet or what do you do with it?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So I don't believe we have it necessarily on
    our Internet post. I mean, it's certainly something that we've
    discussed with some real clarity here. And I will tell you
    that, you know, the--as you note, we had sort of an anecdotal
    list over the course of years on determining who was
    recalcitrant. This tool is what I'll say is a positive step
    forward that puts some analytics behind it. We also use ----
        Mrs. Maloney. How does the tool work? Can you describe it?
        Mr. Ragsdale. It weighs various factors. It weighs ----
        Mrs. Maloney. Pardon me?
        Mr. Ragsdale. It weighs whether someone would take charter
    flights, it weighs how long it takes them to issue travel
    documents, it weighs by nationality the removal rate versus the
    release rate. It also takes into consideration the conditions
    of each country. There may be countries that are recalcitrant
    because there's no functioning government. So it takes all of
    those into account and then produces essentially the analysis.
        Mrs. Maloney. Well, I think if you have a country that
    doesn't have a functioning government, that is a no-brainer. We
    should use our visa sanctions. And if you have a country that
    won't take a Jean Jacques back after he has murdered people,
    gone to jail, and been a bad, bad actor in our country, then we
    should give them a visa sanction.
        I think we have got to start acting on this and not just
    talking about it because as long as you have all these
    criminals running around causing problems that are illegal
    immigrants, it is very hard to get any functioning immigration
    discussion going.
        And we are the greatest country on earth. We can figure
    this out? I think you have to put the State Department in
    charge because they will make it a focus. And you have been
    successful, Ms. Bond, as you mentioned in your meetings with
    Liberia, and make some changes to the law and make it function.
        I think also a very successful tool in the State Department
    was the report you did on trafficking. I think we should do the
    same type of report on how they are cooperating and taking back
    illegal immigrants that are killing people in America and put
    it up for the American people to see. And I think you should
    take strong actions on it.
        This is something we can do. This is something I would
    think that every single American in this country would agree
    with in one of the most controversial areas, immigration. So I
    hope we can work together to make that happen, and I hope that
    Congress will legislate on it and come out with some specific
    ways to make this move forward.
        My time is expired, I believe, but in any event, why have a
    law if you don't use it? And it is getting to the point where
    people do not trust our immigration system or trust our
    government to protect them.
        Anyway, I yield back.
        Mr. Russell. The gentlelady yields back. The chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Mica. If I may start and follow up on the gentlelady
    from New York's questions, we started asking about countries
    and noncooperation or countries where these folks are coming
    from. Can you tell us like what is the leading country?
        Mr. Ragsdale. In terms of the overall number of folks that
    are ----
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Ragsdale.--have a final removal order? It would be
    Cuba. Cuba or China, excuse me. China, I think, is number one.
        Mr. Mica. Well, we just established relations with Cuba and
    we have had relations with China. And can you provide the
    committee with some numbers?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Certainly.
        Mr. Mica. Do you have them?
        Mr. Ragsdale. They are roughly, I think, about 39,000
    individuals from China. It looks like Cuba is around 36,000.
        Mr. Mica. Wow.
        Mr. Ragsdale. So what I will importantly note that both
    from China and Cuba, as the assistant secretary said ----
        Mr. Mica. And ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--we have raised the issue with Cuba, first
    and foremost as--and folks are doing it as we speak, and with
    China ----
        Mr. Mica. Because that just opened up and I would think it
    would be one of the top diplomatic issues that we would raise.
    Is that right, Ambassador?
        Ms. Bond. It is. It is a subject we're ----
        Mr. Mica. But they have not--have they acquiesced in any
    way?
        Ms. Bond. Their response has been that they want to reopen
    the broader issue of immigration rules of travel between Cuba
    and the United States.
        Mr. Mica. But there is no progress then?
        Ms. Bond. Not yet.
        Mr. Mica. Okay. You also said, Ambassador, while we are on
    you, that you hadn't gotten any indication from DHS to move
    forward, and that is what you were waiting on on moving forward
    with some of the visa restrictions?
        Ms. Bond. The specific question was why hadn't we imposed
    the sanction ----
        Mr. Mica. And you said because you had ----
        Ms. Bond.--and the technical--you know, the legal answer --
    --
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Ms. Bond.--is because we didn't get that--but again, it's
    so important to stress that we work very, very closely with DHS
    ----
        Mr. Mica. But obviously ----
        Ms. Bond.--on this issue.
        Mr. Mica.--you are not doing anything because they didn't
    ask or tell you to do anything, did they?
        Ms. Bond. We're not imposing visa sanctions for that reason
    ----
        Mr. Mica. But, again ----
        Ms. Bond.--but we are doing ----
        Mr. Mica.--the reason ----
        Ms. Bond.--lots of things ----
        Mr. Mica.--as you said--I thought you testified, Mr. Jordan
    asked the question, that you had not been directed, so you were
    waiting to hear from DHS.
        Ms. Bond. It is correct to say that we ----
        Mr. Mica. Okay.
        Ms. Bond.--have not received that notification ----
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman ----
        Ms. Bond.--but not correct to say ----
        Mr. Mica.--the committee and members ----
        Ms. Bond.--that we're waiting.
        Mr. Mica.--and this appears to have some bipartisan appeal,
    we can send a letter from the committee asking DHS to get the
    word to Ambassador Bond and State to take action here. Maybe
    that would help. Sometimes we don't have to legislate, although
    that is another question that I have further on is any gaps in
    legislation to allow you to proceed.
        Let me go back for a minute here. About half the people
    here I guess were here illegally, came in illegally, totally
    illegally, and then about half I guess came in and overstayed a
    visa, a student permit, or work permit. I guess that is about
    right, Mr. Ragsdale?
        Mr. Ragsdale. It would be a blended set.
        Mr. Mica. Just--yes. But the President's Executive order or
    directive on amnesty, that affected about half of the
    population I think. And of that, your--well, one of your
    responsibilities, whether they are part of that population or
    other population is to remove criminal illegals, right?
        Mr. Ragsdale. We--once ----
        Mr. Mica. Yes?
        Mr. Ragsdale.--a removal order is final ----
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Ragsdale.--and we are able to execute it, we request a
    travel document immediately.
        Mr. Mica. But you remove them. And what is interesting from
    our last hearing we found 2013--these are domestic not at-the-
    border removals--you had 110,000 in 2013. In 2014 86--I will
    give you credit for--you were close to 87,000. In 2015 you are
    down to 63,000. We keep seeing a reduced number in those that
    you are actually removing. Those figures are correct?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I think as you've known for your last hearing
    the complexity in arresting, locating, and removing folks ----
        Mr. Mica. But ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--in the interior of the United States ----
        Mr. Mica.--the net result is ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--is a challenge and the numbers have fallen,
    yes.
        Mr. Mica.--not quite half in several years, but we are
    going forward.
        And then finally, just about out of time, any legislative
    tools--there was this Executive directive and then there was
    a--and for a while you all said and a lot of people said they
    didn't know what they could do or couldn't do because of the
    status, and then you had this court case that said they had to
    be released within 180 days. Then you had the reversal of the
    Obama decision. Where are you now in your ability to remove
    criminal illegals?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Again, we still need final orders of removal
    and travel documents, so that doesn't change. I think, as
    everyone has said, a comprehensive reform could fix a lot of
    challenges.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Russell. And the gentleman yields back.
        And I would like to follow on to one thing that Mr. Mica
    had said. You know, with respect to Cuba that is still kind of
    an underdeveloped relationship there but not so much with
    China. What is the reason that China is giving for not taking
    these citizens back? What is the big holdup? Is there a trend?
    Are there specifics? Ambassador Bond?
        Ms. Bond. I have discussed this myself with the Chinese in
    Beijing and yesterday with China's Ambassador here to emphasize
    again that we want to see this be a higher priority for the
    Chinese Government. We want to see them put the resources in to
    this issue that would be required to resolve the high numbers
    that you have just heard cited. So there are, you know,
    different reasons that they give ----
        Mr. Russell. Such as?
        Ms. Bond. They say, for example, that in some cases
    people--people may be in the United States with a Chinese
    passport, and they say, well, we would need to be able to look
    into whether that was a legitimate passport and whether it was
    issued to that individual. There are people out there in false
    identities and so forth. Some of the people have no
    identification because they tore up whatever they had before
    they came into the United States, and the Chinese have said
    it's difficult for us to confirm the identity of some of these
    people, especially if they turn out to be from a rural area.
    They have said in some cases someone may be Chinese ethnically
    and sound Chinese and so forth but actually be from Malaysia or
    another country, and they're not willing to document someone as
    a Chinese national unless they can confirm that that's the
    case.
        All of those are perfectly legitimate things to raise as
    issues that need to be addressed. What we're looking for is
    evidence that they are seriously addressing them and that they
    are paying attention to this. And that was the point that I was
    stressing to the Ambassador. It's--we don't want to hear
    excuses for why it's so hard. China is a big country. They do
    hard things. They can do this.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you. And the chair now recognizes the
    gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Cartwright, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman,
    like you, I take protecting the safety and security of American
    citizens as my most solemn duty as a Member of Congress, and I,
    like I think most Americans, am troubled when I hear these
    stories about illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the
    United States, served their sentences, and then are released
    back into the population.
        And I understand that happens because of that Supreme Court
    of the United States decision in 2001, and I also think that
    the wrong answer is to punish local police forces and local
    municipalities. I think the focus does have to be where it is
    today on these nations that are recalcitrant in taking back
    these illegals that committed crimes in the United States.
        Assistant Secretary Bond, I understand the list of those
    nations is in the neighborhood of a couple of dozen. Is that
    about right?
        Ms. Bond. Yes, sir. There are 23 countries on the list.
        Mr. Cartwright. I also understand that Mexico is not among
    those, am I correct in that?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Mexico is not among them.
        Mr. Cartwright. Okay. Well, I ask that because there are
    voices out there screaming about Mexican illegal immigrants who
    are committing crimes in this country, but Mexico has
    cooperated in taking back illegals who have committed crimes,
    served out their sentences, and need to go back to Mexico, is
    that right?
        Mr. Ragsdale. That is right, and they do that both along
    our southwest border and we also have an interior repatriation
    flight where we fly criminal aliens directly from the United
    States into Mexico City.
        Mr. Cartwright. All right. Now, Mr. Jordan was going on
    about the question of whether we have ever issued these section
    243(d) sanctions in the last 7-1/2 years in this
    administration, 243(d) sanctions meaning revoking visas for
    people who want to come to our country from those so-called
    recalcitrant nations. And he made the point that we have not
    issued those sanctions, and I guess that is the reason for the
    title of this hearing today.
        Here is my question. Ambassador Bond, have we ever
    threatened the use of those sanctions or intimated or hinted
    that we may impose those sanctions in individual relations with
    particular nations?
        Ms. Bond. Yes, we absolutely have done that.
        Mr. Cartwright. Is that part of your toolbox?
        Ms. Bond. Yes.
        Mr. Cartwright. Do you use it?
        Ms. Bond. We have informed specific countries that are on
    the recalcitrant list that we have to see results and--within a
    time-bound period of time or there is going to be a real
    likelihood that the next step would be visa sanctions.
        Mr. Cartwright. And visa ----
        Ms. Bond. And what we have seen in many cases is that you
    do get a response to that, that ----
        Mr. Cartwright. That was my next question. Does it work?
        Ms. Bond. It does. The--but let's be clear. It works in the
    sense that we do see a response, a reaction, an additional
    attention being paid, actual travel documents being issued, and
    aliens being removed from the United States. It requires
    constant pressure because what you can't do is to issue a
    threat and they give you a response and then that doesn't
    become a pattern. What we are working to do is to make it a
    routine. With more than 100 countries, this is a routine,
    normal thing. This is what governments do.
        I've been responsible when serving overseas for documenting
    someone who's coming out of jail and making arrangements to put
    that person on a flight and sometimes making arrangements for
    U.S. Marshals to fly with him or meet him because there's an
    outstanding warrant for that person in the States.
        But it is the job of a government to identify and document
    its citizens and to take that seriously.
        Mr. Cartwright. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I have
    only got half-a-minute left. If you want to use the threat of
    visa sanctions effectively, would it make sense to actually
    impose them once in a great while?
        Ms. Bond. It absolutely would make sense to do that in
    cases where we are--we're able to say to that country you
    simply are not responding.
        Mr. Cartwright. Right.
        Ms. Bond. You have left us no choice. But in cases where
    people are responding and you are moving forward, then it can
    be a distraction and unhelpful to say, okay, we see you doing
    this and now we're going to bring the hammer down.
        Mr. Cartwright. I understand that. So one size fits all
    doesn't make sense, but I urge you to consider redoubling your
    efforts and your focus on this area. I do want to associate
    myself with the thoughtful remarks of Congresswoman Maloney.
    She has a point when she says these stories, these stories of
    criminals going back and engaging in recidivism in the United
    States are retarding our ability to get the message out about
    the importance of comprehensive immigration reform. That is
    going to continue to be a problem, and you can really help us
    if you redouble your efforts to focus on these recalcitrant
    nations.
        And with that, I yield back.
        Ms. Bond. Thank you.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Blum, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Blum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
    witnesses today shedding some light on this most important
    topic.
        I am a career businessman. I am used to getting things
    done. When I go back to my district and Iowa citizens way, you
    know, that is really nice, these oversight hearings, it is
    great you are pointing out waste, fraud, and abuse in the
    Federal Government, but whatever gets done? Whatever gets done?
    So I am here to ask you those type of questions.
        I have heard a recurring theme today, same message, both
    sides of the aisle perhaps stated in different ways. I would
    like to ask each of you what have you heard today? What are you
    going to take away from this hearing today? Ambassador Bond,
    can you summarize for me?
        Ms. Bond. Yes, sir. What I have heard is a clear message
    from this committee, both sides of the aisle, that this is a
    critical issue, that members want to see more effort focused on
    getting results, getting people out of the country who are
    subjects of final order of removal and that you want us to use
    every tool at our disposal to make that happen.
        Mr. Blum. Mr. Ragsdale?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I would completely agree with that summary,
    and I would also add and thank the committee for bringing this
    hearing and your voice to this important issue. I will tell you
    on behalf of the law enforcement men and women of ICE there is
    nothing we would like to do more than remove every single
    person we can who is the subject of final order, particularly
    criminal aliens.
        Mr. Blum. Most every citizen of this country agrees with
    what you just said. Now, as the businessman in me, what is
    going to be done? I think you have got the message, and that is
    good to hear, A. Now, what is the action plan? What is going to
    happen, anything, or is this just going to be a hearing and
    that is it, nothing is going to change?
        Ms. Bond. Sir, as Mr. Ragsdale has pointed out, it helps us
    in our efforts that we are able to point out to these countries
    that this is an issue that is receiving attention and priority
    broadly, not only in the executive branch but also in Congress
    and that they have got to deliver, they have got to show actual
    results and not just promise that they're definitely positively
    absolutely going to do things differently.
        And so we are in regular communication with--especially
    with the countries on this list but with all of them, with all
    of them, and we will make it clear we have to see results. We
    do have commitments from these countries that we will, but we
    will be making it clear. If we don't, then Congress is looking
    for examples of every tool being employed, and we are going to
    have to comply with that obviously and working with ICE because
    this is a joint operation. This is a good example of the kind
    of issue that requires diplomatic and law enforcement and the
    combined effort of more than one agency, and we are a strong
    team working on this issue.
        Mr. Blum. Mr. Ragsdale?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Again, I completely concur that ----
        Mr. Blum. What is going to be done?
        Mr. Ragsdale. There's two things we're going to do. We're
    going to continue to refine the model so we make the most
    persuasive case we possibly can from the analytical tool that I
    talked about to make it clear when countries are in fact
    recalcitrant. So we're going to arm the State Department with
    the best information possible.
        The other thing we're doing is we are expanding our
    overseas footprint so we are not completely relying on the
    diplomatic side, but where there's law-enforcement-to-law-
    enforcement connectivity in countries where we can work state
    and local governments shoulder to shoulder when we work with
    them on many other topics to try to get travel documents. So
    there's a partnership both here, and we're going to work abroad
    to get action.
        Mr. Blum. I am frustrated because the statistic on my paper
    says since 2011 13,511 criminal aliens have been released back
    into American communities. This isn't rocket science. I know we
    are dealing with other countries. Americans want action. They
    are behind you. They want you to do this. They are behind you.
    I don't know if the administration is at 1600 Pennsylvania
    Avenue, but the American people are behind you. They want
    action. Thirteen thousand five hundred and eleven have been
    released back into American communities. We need action, not
    just hearings, we need action.
        I would like to have a follow-up hearing on this to see
    what action has taken place 6 months from now. And why hasn't
    this action taken place in the last 5 years? We all would agree
    it is not rocket science. Thirteen thousand five hundred and
    eleven, why? Where is the holdup? Where is the block at? What
    is stopping each of you in your departments, your agencies from
    doing exactly what you heard here today and what you profess to
    agree with? What has been the blockage? Tell me so we can
    remove it. Let's be honest. Tell me.
        Ms. Bond. This is a difficult situation. We are dealing
    with countries, all of them, and specifically with ones that
    consistently have a pattern of failing to step up and do
    everything that they can do on their side. We are pushing them
    for action. When we are seeing results, we keep pushing so that
    they'll keep moving in that direction.
        But we have heard you loud and clear that the committee
    believes that using every possible tool has got to be something
    that is a real threat and that people are--don't think, oh,
    yes, there they go again raising that, but that they know that
    we will do it if we aren't seeing the cooperation that they are
    obliged to provide under international law.
        Mr. Blum. Mr. Ragsdale?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So, briefly, I'll simply say this is pressure
    that has been brought to bear over the course of years, and
    while it may not have included visa sanctions, the charter
    flight to India, the charter flight to Africa that I mentioned
    earlier on are successes from groundwork that was laid over the
    last couple of years. So we hear you loud and clear on using
    every option, and we'll work together to do it.
        Mr. Blum. I implore you to take this message today back to
    your agencies. And my time is expired. Thank you for your
    insights.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
        And I am sorry to be late. I was on the Floor and then had
    a markup in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and it is a
    busy today, our last day in session. So I thank the indulgence
    of the chair.
        Mr. Ragsdale, section 243 of the Immigration and
    Nationality Act allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to
    formally notify the Secretary of State that a foreign
    government is denying or unreasonably delaying the acceptance
    of deportees, is that correct?
        Mr. Ragsdale. That is what the statute says, yes.
        Mr. Connolly. And the last time we did that was when?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I understand it's 2001 when it was the
    Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Attorney
    General.
        Mr. Connolly. With Guyana, was that ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. With Guyana, yes.
        Mr. Connolly.--the country of Guyana? And, Ambassador Bond,
    so the law further stipulates that when that happens, certain
    things are required of the Secretary of State. They
    automatically are supposed to occur, is that correct?
        Ms. Bond. Yes.
        Mr. Connolly. And can you delineate for us what are those
    things?
        Ms. Bond. Yes. If the Secretary of Homeland Security
    notifies the Secretary of State that he wants to trigger this
    sanction against a specific country, then we would decide what
    exactly are we going to do.
        In the case of Guyana, the decision was made to stop
    issuing visas to members of that government and their family
    members, spouses, and children. And it was effective. It played
    a role that this was a small government where everybody who
    needed to be part of making a decision to make a change was
    part of a small group, and it played a role that the citizens
    of that country, including their members of government, for
    them, if you had the means to travel, the destination was the
    United States. So those are factors that did help to make it
    very effective in that particular case.
        There are some countries where the destination for most
    people would be Europe and they would be less impacted by our
    decision not to issue a particular kind of visa. But--so, all
    right, our job then would be to figure out what is the measure
    you could take that's going to have the biggest impact and the
    most likely to get their attention and to have the effect that
    you're going for, which is the removal of those aliens because
    that's the goal. We want them out of the country.
        Mr. Connolly. Right. Is one to construe--and this goes to
    both of you, and you, Mr. Ragsdale, first. Should one construe
    from the fact that the last time the head of Homeland Security
    provided that notification to the Department of State,
    Secretary of State was 15 years ago that we haven't had a
    problem in the interim?
        Mr. Ragsdale. No, we certainly could not construe that. But
    I would also say it does not--one should also not construe that
    nothing has been done to ----
        Mr. Connolly. That is ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--try to address the problem in the interim.
        Mr. Connolly. Right. What should be construed?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So there has been--again, if you note, the
    MOU between Consular Affairs and ICE was signed in 2011, so, I
    mean, this--the formalization of our process to identify and
    work on recalcitrant countries is 5 years old.
        The work to get countries off the recalcitrant country
    list, and there have been some that have come off, that's work
    that's been done over the ----
        Mr. Connolly. So ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--that period of time.
        Mr. Connolly.--one might--if I may interrupt, and again,
    feel free to comment, Ambassador Bond, one might conclude from
    what you just said that, look, this authority or strengthening
    this authority through new legislation is a very crude weapon
    and that what we are trying to do is use other means of
    coaxing, eliciting cooperation from an offending nation. Would
    that be a fair conclusion?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I would agree.
        Mr. Connolly. Ambassador Bond?
        Ms. Bond. Yes, that's the case.
        Mr. Connolly. Why is that a better way to operate than just
    bludgeoning somebody over the head, we are going to shut it all
    down if you don't do what we say? You are a diplomat.
        Ms. Bond. What we are going after ----
        Mr. Connolly. This is a softball question. This is the
    opportunity to promote diplomacy, Ambassador Bond, in 46
    seconds.
        Ms. Bond. Well, I hope I don't blow it. The--we all agree
    on what the goal is here. We want the process with every single
    country to be one that works automatically and smoothly, and
    when there are inevitable individual cases that are problematic
    that we have an efficient means of addressing those and
    resolving them so that we don't have the numbers that we've
    been talking about here. So ----
        Mr. Connolly. And real quickly, has that been effective
    from your point of view?
        Ms. Bond. It has been effective in a number of different
    cases where there are countries that were not taking their
    citizens back, were not prioritizing this, were not putting the
    resources into saying, yes, let's figure out who is and isn't a
    citizen, and now they are. And some of them are countries that
    have a lot fewer resources than countries like China ----
        Mr. Connolly. My time has expired. I would invite you to
    submit such a list, at least illustrative list to the committee
    to substantiate that. We don't have time to pursue it.
        Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for your
    indulgence.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you both for your testimony, your longstanding
    service. Ambassador Bond, I want to thank you for your service
    not only in your current position but obviously your
    longstanding service in the Foreign Service.
        So I want to clear up a few things because we have been
    talking and you hear--I guess rarely in this committee do we
    get as much bipartisan support of using a particular tool. Some
    would suggest to use it more cautiously. I would suggest,
    Ambassador Bond, that you have used it extremely cautiously,
    and that is perhaps why we are here today. And so I mean that
    as a caution that you can take back to the Secretary and
    suggest that not only are we looking at this but we expect real
    progress. And by that, I know the difficulties you have with
    diplomacy and how it is most of the time a carrot, not a stick,
    but it sounds like we are using a lot more carrot than stick.
    Does that make sense?
        Ms. Bond. Yes. What we are using is the power of
    persuasion, pointing out ----
        Mr. Meadows. Yes, but let me just be frank is if you were
    speeding and you have a law enforcement officer who pulls you
    over for speeding constantly and you never get a ticket, the
    typical person will continue to speed if they never get a
    ticket. And for 7 years you have never given a ticket. You have
    never really invoked the powerful tool that is at your
    disposal.
        And so it sends a chilling message to many people who say
    we will listen, we will take their calls, we will be polite,
    but there is no incentive for them to take back these criminals
    other than being nice and the little bit of pressure.
        So here is what I am asking you to do is to report back to
    this committee on those that are making progress because you
    said if they are making progress, we don't invoke it, so that
    would say that you are making progress on all those areas. We
    need to understand what the progress is, and even if we need to
    do that confidentially, we are willing to do that. Are you
    willing to do that in 6 months to help us understand this a
    little bit better?
        Ms. Bond. Yes.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Ragsdale, you are a very eloquent speaker, and you have
    said a number of things, but let me tell you where I am
    concerned. And I love my law enforcement officers. In fact, you
    won't find anybody in Congress who loves their law enforcement
    officers more than this guy right here. Here is what I am
    hearing from the ground. As much as you say, well, we are being
    diligent and we are doing it all, there is a real frustration
    within ICE that you are handcuffed with regards to actually
    dealing with this problem.
        And when you say that you don't know if any of the people
    that you have released were on the terrorist watch list, that
    is very concerning to me that you wouldn't check it against
    that because you said we did a full background check I think is
    what you said, is that correct?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So, no, let me be clear. If--we would have
    cleared every single release against all appropriate databases.
    I didn't specify which ones, but I will assure you, it is
    also--it includes national security ----
        Mr. Meadows. So have you released people who have been
    accused of murder and rape?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So ----
        Mr. Meadows. I know the answer so go ahead and you can ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. Yes. So the answer is yes, and I think the
    thing ----
        Mr. Meadows. So how ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. Those are two very, very different things.
        Mr. Meadows. I understand that, but it doesn't make my
    neighborhood feel any better if you are releasing murderers and
    rapists than it would be terrorists.
        Mr. Ragsdale. And we are as frustrated as you are, but
    let's be clear ----
        Mr. Meadows. So ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--there are distinctions ----
        Mr. Meadows.--what do you need?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So our ----
        Mr. Meadows. What do you need?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Our detention authority, after the Supreme
    Court has ruled on this issue, is only for the purposes of
    removal. We do not have preventative detention. So if ----
        Mr. Meadows. Well, hold on just a second because I looked
    that up because after you mentioned that I went to look it up,
    and it says that you can hold them for 6 months ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. Correct.
        Mr. Meadows.--if there is no reasonable likelihood of them
    being removed. Now, during that 6-month period of the
    Department of Homeland Security sends her a notice, there is a
    reasonable likelihood that they will be removed. And yet there
    hasn't been a single solitary notice to the Department of State
    from the head of your agency. Why is that?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Well, again, I'm not sure I would agree with
    that characterization.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, has Jeh Johnson ever sent them a notice?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So the head of our department--so this is
    what we've done ----
        Mr. Meadows. Answer it yes or no. Has Jeh Johnson ever sent
    anything to the Department of State?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Not to my knowledge for 243(d) sanctions,
    but, as you know ----
        Mr. Meadows. Exactly.
        Mr. Ragsdale.--there's a 2014 letter ----
        Mr. Meadows. So ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--in the record ----
        Mr. Meadows. So is ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--on this point.
        Mr. Meadows. So is it your testimony here today that it is
    okay to release murderers and rapists into society without
    doing anything about it?
        Mr. Ragsdale. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Meadows. I agree. So ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. And what's also clear is ----
        Mr. Meadows. So the point ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--what I can't do, sir, is detain people
    indefinitely. I just want to be clear that we are proposing,
    you know, the fact with reality.
        Mr. Meadows. But the ruling is very clear. If ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. We will ----
        Mr. Meadows. So do I have your commitment that you will
    lobby Secretary Johnson that if you are holding him for more
    than 6 months that he will make a referral to the Department of
    State ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. I have briefed the Secretary on this issue
    personally. That is what--one of the things that prompted the
    letter.
        Mr. Meadows. So he said he wouldn't do that.
        Mr. Ragsdale. He did not say that.
        Mr. Meadows. So when are we ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. In fact, I think in front of the Senate
    Judiciary Committee last week he noted that 243(d) sanctions
    were something that he is in fact considering.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, at one point does it get elevated to a
    level where it makes a difference? Because her testimony said
    is her number one priority is make sure that Americans abroad
    are safe. I find that very difficult--I want to make sure that
    Americans here are safe as well ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. And we ----
        Mr. Meadows.--and unless you are doing your job, it is not
    going to happen.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Sir, you have no disagreement. We completely
    agree.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So here is what I would ask you to
    do. Are you willing to commit--last question, Mr. Chairman. Are
    you willing to commit to start putting on the Internet the
    number of people that you release that have criminal
    backgrounds on a monthly basis?
        Mr. Ragsdale. We will certainly take that for consideration
    and talk to our folks in terms of--rolled up data, we probably
    could do, yes. We--there's obviously some legal constraints in
    how much data we can actually put out there.
        Mr. Meadows. There is no constitutional problems. They are
    not U.S. citizens. I will yield back.
        Mr. Russell. The gentleman yields back.
        We are pleased to welcome and recognize the gentleman from
    Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for 5 minutes. Welcome.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Russell. And I want to thank
    the chairman and the ranking member for allowing me to sit in
    on this hearing.
        And as was mentioned at the outset, I come from the
    district where Casey Chadwick lived when she was murdered in a
    case that falls squarely in the purview of today's proceedings.
    And it is obviously something that in Connecticut people are
    watching intensely and again are still very frustrated about
    sort of the unfolding facts that have emerged since that
    horrific incident occurred.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the inspector general's
    report was formally entered into the record for these
    proceedings, but I would ask, again, unanimous consent to have
    the IG's report admitted.
        Mr. Russell. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Courtney. Thank you. And, again, I was here for the
    opening testimony, and I would just say anyone who reads the
    IG's report and compares it with the opening testimony, it
    paints a far different picture in terms of what the IG found.
    And again, they intend to probe deeper with a second phase in
    their report.
        So, for example, on page 4 of their report, you know, they
    kind of go into the nature of the integration or interaction
    between DHS and the Department of State. It is virtually
    nonexistent in terms of the picture they painted. The case of
    Mr. Jacques is a case where, again, the State of Connecticut
    did everything right. They convicted this individual for
    attempted murder back in 1996, served 16 years, was released
    into the custody of ICE. There were three unsuccessful attempts
    that were rebuffed by the country of Haiti, and a decision was
    made by really lower-level folks that, again, he should not be
    detained any further because there did not appear to be a
    likelihood of repatriation. Again, that was done with
    absolutely no consultation with the Department of State.
        When asked, the deportation officer's response was that it
    was their understanding that only cases of terrorism and
    national security would be elevated to State for the purpose
    of, again, pushing back against, you know, that nation state.
        So I guess, again, just for the record, you know, Ms. Bond,
    again, there is no limitation in terms of State's discretion in
    terms of using either visa suspension or letters demarche or
    whatever in terms of pushing back on an individual case, is
    that right?
        Ms. Bond. That's correct. And we would engage with a
    foreign government on any individual case, as well as on the
    broader subject.
        Mr. Courtney. Right. So as the inspector general
    determined, I mean, there clearly is a real problem in terms of
    the policy level of awareness in terms of deportation officers
    and people making decisions at DHS about whether to move it up
    the food chain. So whatever the memorandum of understanding is
    between the two departments, I mean, what this report shows is
    just a totally dysfunctional implementation of the two
    departments working together in these very difficult cases.
        The other finding that they made was that the case load of
    the deportation officers in Newark, which is where Mr. Jacques
    was being supervised, was that there were three or four
    deportation officers assigned to approximately 37,000 released
    aliens. Again, a number of us have worked in the court systems
    and understand what that means in terms of whether you are a
    probation officer or a parole officer or a public defender.
        I mean, the notion that four deportation officers could
    coherently manage that number of cases both in terms of
    supervision in the community, as well as following up on
    repatriation, I mean, there is clearly, sir, Mr. Ragsdale, a
    management problem in terms of, you know, really creating a
    situation that is totally mission impossible. I mean, I don't
    care how smart or capable a deportation officer is. You can't
    manage a caseload like that. Are they wrong or is that what you
    are seeing out there?
        Mr. Ragsdale. No, I think you have characterized that part
    of the report correctly. I mean, it is a daunting challenge.
    You know, there is certainly some recommendations in that IG
    report that we will look at very closely. That IG report did
    not make recommendations formally, but there are certainly some
    things in there that need to be jumped on immediately. And we
    are ----
        Mr. Courtney. So ----
        Mr. Ragsdale.--absolutely doing that. And certainly ----
        Mr. Courtney. Well, the Connecticut delegation just sent a
    letter to Director Saldana about the fact that, you know, this
    is something that she does not need Congress to act on. And
    frankly, the fact that anybody who manages an agency or
    department wasn't aware of that kind of caseload disparity, I
    mean, that just screams out dysfunction when you just look at
    those numbers.
        Again, the other, you know, again, finding was that there
    really, again, needs to be a change in terms of training and
    education of deportation officers. So, I mean, those two
    factors alone in terms of caseload and training just gets us to
    a point where we can intelligently implement the memorandum of
    understanding.
        If you have got a situation right now where people on the
    ground whose job it is to supervise these cases don't know what
    the policies are and can't even really intelligently do it
    because of overwhelming caseload, then the memorandum of
    understanding, it is just a--it is a dead letter. It doesn't
    mean anything.
        And that is why, frankly, I will just tell both of you the
    testimony that you have delivered here today in the wake of the
    IG's report--in my district where we saw the horrific
    consequences of a system that clearly didn't do its job, I
    mean, it is almost offensive to listen to it because it is so
    divorced from the reality that the IG found. And obviously, you
    know, the consequences are something that are being felt by
    this family to this date.
        So, again, I think there is going to be legislation that is
    going to really stiffen the mandated reporting requirements
    between DHS and State because clearly that is not functioning
    pursuant to the memorandum of understanding. And frankly, your
    department, Mr. Ragsdale--I don't mean you personally--but they
    have got to do a better job of getting this game up in terms of
    understanding what the rules are, put some metrics in place
    about people who really deserve to be prioritized in terms of
    their dangerous criminal history, and that clearly just did not
    happen.
        And again, I want to thank the committee for giving this
    case an opportunity to be fleshed out. And, you know, we have
    got work to do. And again, it is not partisan. The issue of
    immigration rises above that because if we can't function in
    these kinds of cases the way--the public support for any kind
    of immigration system is going to collapse.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Russell. We thank the gentleman for being with us here
    today, and the gentleman yields back.
        I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ragsdale--and first, let me thank both of you for your
    distinguished service to our country. It is greatly
    appreciated.
        As you can see here today, this is not a partisan issue.
    This is an American issue. Security is absolutely paramount.
    And each of you have, in the scope of your responsibilities, an
    authority, a direct means to impact it. Mr. Ragsdale, you spoke
    that regulations had been issued to allow for detention
    exceptions in special circumstances in your testimony. And you
    also said that you had faced significant legal challenges with
    your department in Federal court, and thousands of criminals
    had been released as a result. What is the basis of the
    challenge that you are receiving from Federal court, and what
    provisions of law can Congress change to assist in solving the
    problem?
        Mr. Ragsdale. I think all of this has to be considered in
    light of the Constitution, the Fifth Amendment's due process
    clause. It applies to individuals, does not necessarily have to
    be citizens. So indefinite detention is something the
    Constitution does not permit.
        The--our authority to detain people, whether it's before we
    have a removal order or after, is related to our ability to
    process them and ultimately remove them.
        Mr. Russell. So what can ----
        Mr. Ragsdale. It is not for preventative detention except
    ----
        Mr. Russell. And we understand the lengthy detentions, in
    fact, not just in terms of, you know, unauthorized aliens that
    are in our land that have committed criminal activity but we
    see it on a number of other issues with national security. What
    can Congress do within the scope of the Constitution and these
    precedents that we have had in the past to allow you to do your
    job? This isn't the first time since we have been wearing
    tricorn hats that we have dealt with criminals that are
    illegally in our country.
        Mr. Ragsdale. Again, certainly this hearing is helpful.
    Putting pressure on countries abroad to issue travel documents
    solves the problem from the right angle. It is not a question
    of necessarily more detention, but it is the speed in which we
    can remove people. So I think that is particularly helpful.
        Again, I very much take the point from the Representative
    from Connecticut. There are things we can do better, and we
    need to redouble our efforts with the State Department to put
    pressure on countries to issue travel documents.
        Mr. Russell. Well, in that regard with the State
    Department, now, there has been testimony here today that no
    real direct request from State Department have been forthcoming
    to address some of this issue, yet in April ICE director Sarah
    Saldana stated that with respect to the so-called recalcitrant
    countries that ICE is working through diplomatic channels with
    its partners at Department of State to increase repatriations
    to the previously noncompliant countries and that progress had
    been made.
        So my question to you, Madam Ambassador, is this. With
    which recalcitrant countries has the situation improved?
        Ms. Bond. If we look specifically at--to, for example, of
    the countries that Director Saldana raised specifically in
    letters to us this spring, we are seeing response from Guinea
    and from Liberia to resume or accelerate the removal--
    identification and removal of their citizens. There's a team
    from Guinea that has arrived this week to finalize an MOU with
    the U.S. Government and to look at specific cases, interview
    specific individuals to make a determination of whether they
    are citizens and then document them. So those are two examples
    of countries where ICE has on the record--but it didn't come as
    a surprise because we're working together, but they said we are
    very concerned about these countries and want to see greater
    pressure brought to bear. And we are seeing the results of that
    pressure.
        Mr. Russell. Okay. Both of you I know, and you have stated
    here, and we have certainly seen the view from the members'
    questioning today believe that no criminals from foreign
    countries should be released into the American public. I mean,
    we all believe that. You have stated that. And so my final
    question to both of you is what are you willing to personally
    do to prohibit these individuals from remaining in our country
    within the scope and power of your current position? Madam
    Ambassador?
        Ms. Bond. We've described the fact that we work very
    closely with ICE on these cases. One of the things that I want
    to do is to look at taking members of my staff and actually
    having them work directly, let's say, at ICE so that they're
    seeing the individual cases and considering are there elements
    of this where we might be able to take some action or are there
    elements of this and the other cases where we might be able to
    say to a foreign government this aspect of this case clearly
    shows that you need to take action on this. In other words,
    what I'm looking at is how can we work even more closely
    together so that where there are opportunities to move a case
    more quickly, it'll be spotted and we can take that action.
        Mr. Russell. Okay. Mr. Ragsdale?
        Mr. Ragsdale. So in addition to everything the assistant
    secretary said, you know, we need to make sure that every
    single one of our officers is responsible for this process, is
    equipped with the best tools to do their job. And clearly, that
    is with the access to what Consular Affairs can do but even in
    terms of best practices around the country where we have
    consuls located in certain cities that are more amenable to
    issuing travel documents, making sure that we are physically
    putting in individuals who appear to be--from a country that's
    recalcitrant in front of a consular officer, and then also just
    to make sure that our guidance is fully updated. We will again
    carefully look at what the IG has done and what the follow-on
    report has done and make sure that every best practice is fully
    implemented.
        Mr. Russell. Well, I thank you for those answers. And while
    the formal questioning is complete, I would like to recognize
    Ranking Member Cummings for any final thoughts from today's
    hearing.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I think it is abundantly clear, as I said a little bit
    earlier, that we can do better. I want to thank Mr. Courtney
    for being a part of all of this. This is one case that shows
    how serious this situation is and how, when there is failure--
    and I do consider there are some failures here, something went
    wrong, a lot went wrong--but we have got to deal with this. And
    I know we have the power to do it, and we have got to put our
    minds together and do better.
        So often in this committee we are divided on partisan lines
    unfortunately. And when we have issues where we see things in a
    bipartisan way, you know, which is wonderful, then I think that
    that should tell everybody something. And what it should tell
    you is that we are very, very serious about this, and all of us
    have very genuine concerns.
        And so I am looking forward to hearing about progress. It
    is one thing to talk. It is another thing to deliver. And it is
    one thing to make excuses. It is another thing to carry out the
    letter of the law. And if the law is not sufficient, we need to
    know that because it is up to us to create those laws so that
    you can do what you have to do effectively and efficiently.
        And so I thank you two for being here, and I look forward
    to hearing about the significant progress that you will be
    making. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Russell. We thank the ranking member for those
    comments, and I would like to, you know, agree with that. We
    know it is a difficult problem, but here is a great
    opportunity. We have virtually this entire committee, we have
    people outside of our committee, we have broad bipartisan
    support to do nothing but aid and assist your efforts.
        What we need is a commitment that where there are
    roadblocks, where there are obstacles, with this much political
    will and with this much American public desire, there ought to
    be nothing that would stop us in a case of solving these
    problems. It is not insurmountable.
        And so my challenge to each of you would be within the
    scope and the authority that you have been blessed to have as
    officials in this great republic, don't try to find ways that
    you can't get around or just accept that as some obstacle. You
    have the will of the American people behind you. You have the
    help of this committee. You have the help and aid of bipartisan
    effort in this Congress. We cannot take no for an answer
    because when we do, what happens is that the faith of the
    American public in our institutions erodes. And if we lose
    that, then our problems are far greater than the issue that we
    have discussed at length here at hand.
        I want to thank our witnesses for their patience and their
    thorough answers. We still have work to do, and there are a lot
    of unanswered things that we have requested. And I would ask
    that you show due diligence to get that to us. Oft times we
    come to this committee and we have promises and we don't see
    those reports. Please take due care and diligence to get that
    to us. But thank you for taking your time to appear today.
        And if there is no further business, without objection, the
    committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                    APPENDIX

                                  ----------

                   Material Submitted for the Hearing Record

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]