I think a number of prominent democrats have come out and said that they dont feel like attaching daca to the budget is a good idea and so hopefully well stick to that and get something done. It is stalling negotiations. No, i think hes worried that democrats unwillingness to actually put the country ahead of their party is what is stalling things from moving forward. Whether it is the budget or whether it is a deal on daca. All right, also happening now, youre looking at live pictures from the Senate Judiciary committee. The Homeland Security secretary Kirsten Nielsen will testify today. This could be contentious. It brings together three players who were in that Oval Office Meeting where the president dropped the sbomb, two senators whose versions of the meeting differ very much from hers. So im sure they will have a lot to talk about. Well keep our eye on this hearing. First up, abbie Philip Morris at the white house. Abbie . The debate continues to rage over that Oval Office Meeting that turned fiery. And the we learned over the weekend according to some sources that the president , while he was in florida at his maralago resort, had been calling and talking to friends about this meeting and saying that he thinks that this is going to play well with the base, that his use of that those curse words and that meeting might actually gin up his base on this immigration issue. But we talked to Sarah Huckabee sanders this morning, a little bit about that, and asked her why the president would say that to his friends and then have others like the two republican senators who were in that meeting seem to deny that the president used that language to begin with. Listen to what Sarah Sanders had to say to us. If he didnt make that remark, the expletive, why did he spend the weekend defending it . Look, the president hasnt said he didnt use strong language. And this is an important issue, hes passionate about it, hes not going to apologize for trying to fix our immigration system. Hes committed to doing that and hopefully democrats will be too. Reporter and as you mentioned, Kirsten Nielsen who is about to appear on the hill, is one person that was in the meeting. She says she doesnt recall the president using that language. So that debate continues on, but meanwhile, the president is tweeting and hes talking about the daca deal and blaming democrats already for a failure to get to come to the table and get a bipartisan compromise. The president continues to talk about his border wall, hes not backing away from that, and we still seem to be very far away, as far as the two camps are going to be able to come together on an immigration deal. The president seems pretty combative on social media this morning calling out democrats pretty sternly for the last 72 hours of back and forth, especially over this Oval Office Meeting. Abby, thanks so much. Right to capitol hill now to get a sense of the status of negotiations, if there are any. Cnns Sunlen Serfaty is there. Reporter it is a crucial day and crucial week. Congress has four working days to keep the government open and operating. They need to get a deal before midnight on friday night. And as of now, there is no resolution up here on capitol hill. Both sides really are becoming more entrenched in their positions. At this moment, it seems the direction that this is all heading is that Republican Leaders are likely going to separate daca, separate that out with the spending bill and attempt to pass some sort of shortterm spending bill. But that is exactly where this becomes really tricky and where the threat of a potential Government Shutdown becomes potentially very real. You have Republican Leaders in the house who need to corral support within their own party, many house conservatives, defense hawks, are not happy about the needing to potentially pass another stopgap measure. And in the senate, you have Republican Leaders who need democrat support to get any spending bill through. They need 60 votes. You have senate democrats, many saying, look, this is my line in the sand, im not going to sign any spending bill that doesnt include daca extensions here. So you have a situation where already four days before a potential shutdown, a lot of finger pointing, a lot of politics at play, thinking about reelection races, and, again, four days before shutdown, before the government runs out of money. All right, we all wonder what happened to the i will sign an agreement that they come to me with even if i dont like it, that was from the president not long ago. All right. So lets go back to this hearing, because there is an important hearing under way. What exactly did the president say in that now infamous meeting at the white house with the lawmakers . You can bet Homeland Security secretary Kirsten Nielsen will be asked that under oath today. She was in the room. She was. She says she doesnt recall the president saying blank hole. She hasnt been pressed on the house version of that, but lord knows she might be today. Jessica steiner has the very latest for us on the hearing. Jessica . Reporter all eyes on this hearing to see if it does devolve into really a he said she said. Senator dick durbin versus Homeland Security secretary Kirsten Nielsen. Nielsen insisted in Television Interviews over the weekend she did not hear President Trump make that controversial shole remark. But democratic senator dick durbin, he was one of the first out of the gate late last week, leading that outcry over the president s use of the word in the Oval Office Meeting. Durbin, in fact, says the president s words were hatefilled, vile and racist. Over the weekend, the president saying emphatically hes not a racist. Also in this hearing today, republican senator Lindsey Graham, hell be there, hes also stood by his recollection that the president said shole. So well see if he does challenge secretary nielsen. But secretary nielsen, she did double down this morning when she was asked how some lawmakers heard the president use that controversial word and why she says she doesnt. Take a listen. I have no problem repeating what i said. I just dont i dont thats not a word i remember being used. It is not a particular phrase that i heard. So secretary nielsen there continuing to deny continuing to deny she heard anything. So well see how this back and forth plays out in the Committee Hearing that started at 10 00 a. M. , ongoing. And, of course, amid that, the question will lets go to dick durbin, hes speaking to reporters. But we did what the president challenged us to do and now i hope senator mcconnell and speaker ryan will move forward in that spirit. If republicans dont go along with the should Chuck Schumer hold the line . All right. Hopefully well be able to cue that back up so we can hear what senator durbin had to say. Hes critical in all of this, given hes the one that came out and said the president made these remarks repeatedly. One of the senators on the judiciary committee, who will be able to ask questions to Homeland Security, Kirsten Nielsen about the discrepancy, the differing views they have. House versus hole. Back to jessica schneider, so sorry, i think we have jess, do we . So sorry to interrupt you. We were trying to hear what durbin had to say. Finish what you were saying . Reporter it will be interesting to hear what durbin has to say there. Hes standing by his understanding and what he heard inside that Oval Office Meeting. Of course, secretary nielsen has said repeatedly she did not hear any of those controversial comments. So this is all playing out amid that Senate Judiciary hearing. Of course, a lot of other issues that secretary nielsen wants to address today. She is expected to address daca, immigration, of course, big hot topics on capitol hill this week. She did say this morning that even if daca isnt extended by the deadline, she says that those socalled dreamers, they will not be a priority when it comes to ice. So secretary nielsen saying that they could be potentially still safe. Shes also expected to really defend the president s policy. She has already come out to say that it is logical to push for meritbased immigration as opposed to one that is based on quota. She did take it a step further in interviews over this weekend and this morning saying that she takes offense to the president being called a racist. So all of this, the backdrop in this Senate JudiciaryCommittee Hearing, where we know secretary nielsen is really focusing her opening remarks on immigration, and all of that, but well see, of course, if the controversial comments from the president really become front and center and if there are any fireworks that go off in this repeated battle amid this terse language about immigration. Poppy and john. Jessica schneider for us, thank you very much. A very busy day on capitol hill. Something else big going on right now behind closed doors. Thats steve bannon, former senior strategist at the white house, Campaign Chair for President Trump, behind closed doors testifying to the House Intelligence Committee. He arrived up on capitol hill an hour early for this meeting. So badly did he want to be there that he showed up an hour early. This follows the publishing of fire and fury by Michael Wolff where steve bannon said explosive things about donald trump jr. , about things having to do with russia and the russia investigation and then had that falling out with the president. Cnns manu raju outside the hearing. Reporter taking place right now, expected to go several hours as lawmakers want to question steve bannon about what he knew about any russian contacts that occurred during the Trump Campaign while he was there. As well as what he knew about contacts between michael flynn, the russian ambassador, the time of the transition period, and about why he made those rather inflammatory remarks in Michael Wolffs book about that june 2016 trump tower meeting. Bannon said it was unpatriotic, treasonous, and also questioned whether or not then candidate trump was aware of this meeting. This is something that donald trump jr. Said under oath, that there was no discussion with his father about this meeting. Bannon was not part of the campaign at the time, seemed to think otherwise, lawmakers want to understand why. Now, bannon is not the only high profile witness expected to come before the House Intelligence Committee this week. Were also expecting corey lewandowski, the former Campaign Manager, who had some separate contact with George Papadopoulos who lied to the fbi about contacts that he had with russians, lewandowski expected this week. And were also expecting hope hicks, the White House Communications director, to speak to the House Committee as soon as this week. It could happen on friday, were told. This is incredibly significant because, of course, shes a sitting white house official, which is very unusual to interview a sitting white house official as part of an investigation and shes incredibly close with the president , having been one of the first hires on the campaign trail, also by his side now, also has knowledge of that misleading statement that came out on air force from air force one in the aftermath of that donald trump jr. , trump tower meeting reports, all those questions expected to be asked this week on capitol hill. Well see if they get the answers they want, though. Lurking outside the doors. I dont think hope hicks has ever given an interview since shes been working with the president. I have not seen her speak out loud, make noise since we heard from bannon, et cetera. She gave an interview to robert mueller. Thats not exactly on tv. Our thanks to manu. President trump, he says the democrats want to shut down the government over amnesty for all. That is simply not true. Democrats are not calling for amnesty for all. How does this help or hurt the prospects to get a deal done . Also happening right now, on the russia probe beat, the former Campaign Manager for President Trump, Paul Manafort, is back in court with his associate rick gates. What does this tell us about the Mueller Probe and then specifically moving ahead. In california, a house of horrors uncovered, 13 siblings held captive in their home. Were at the site of the disturbing discovery. 75 million of us suffer from the gritty and frustrating symptoms of dry eye. We need theratears®. Theratears® is more than just eye drops. Its eye therapy. Dry eye symptoms are caused by a salt imbalance. Theratears® unique electrolyte formula, quickly restores the natural balance. So your eyes will thank you. More than eye drops, dry eye therapy. Theratears®. I have to tell you something. Dad, one second i was driving and then the next. They just didnt stop and then. Im really sorry. I wrecked the subaru. I wrecked it. Youre ok. Thats all that matters. vo a lifetime commitment to getting them home safely. Love. Its what makes a subaru, a subaru. Burning, pinsandneedles, of diabetic nerve pain these feet. Liked to style my dog as a kid. Loved motherhood, rain or shine. And were pumped to open my own salon. But i couldnt bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer. So i talked to my doctor and she prescribed lyrica. Nerve damage from diabetes causes diabetic nerve pain. Lyrica is fda approved to treat this pain from moderate to even severe diabetic nerve pain. Lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions, suicidal thoughts or actions. Tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worse depression, unusual changes in mood or behavior, swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling or blurry vision. Common side effects dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain, swelling of hands, legs, and feet. Dont drink alcohol while taking lyrica. Dont drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. Those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. Now i have less diabetic nerve pain. And i love grooming the next generation. Ask your doctor about lyrica. So we sent that sample i doff to ancestry. I was from ethnically. My ancestry dna results are that i am 26 nigerian. I am just trying to learn as much as i can about my culture. I put the gele on my head and i looked into the mirror and i was trying not to cry. Because its a hat, but its like the most important hat ive ever owned. Discover the story only your dna can tell. Order your kit now at ancestrydna. Com. The president says hes not going to spike any kind of deal over the budget and daca because of what he calls amnesty for all. Senator dick durbin had a chance to respond. Listen. Were going to be ready to go this week. Were introducing the bill, bringing it to the floor, so members can see it in detail. We want them to read it in detail and were calling on senator mcconnell as the leader, he can set the agenda in the senate. Lets bring this matter to a vote before we reach the deadline up front. And the republicans in your Bipartisan Group agree with that strategy . Yes. And were growing in number. Thanks to efforts by Many Republican senators, senator graham, senator flake, senator gardener and others, are reaching out to their colleagues. I think they want to step forward and solve this problem. I do. Most americans do. Senator, the president has labeled you, called you names, dicky durbin, said youre to blame if the negotiations fall apart. What is your response . The president challenged us at his Cabinet Meeting to come up with a bipartisan agreement to solve the problem and hit four major elements in it. We did everything he asked and presented it to him on thursday. It is the only bipartisan agreement that has been brought forward and we spent four months putting it together. So we met the president s criteria. Remember at one point he said whatever you send me, ill sign. Ill take the political heat on this. Well, we showed up thursday, with our bipartisan bill and presented it to him with a much different story. Some of these republican colleagues have impugned your credibility, essentially. They said this is what happened at your meeting. Politics and beanbag. I understand that. But ill tell you this, i stand by every word i said about what was said and what happened at the meeting. Do you intend to confront the criteria of come on down and see it. Let the press well talk about some serious issues on the part of security. Bottom line, you dont think well see a shutdown this week . It is republican majority is in control of the house and the senate. They have the white house. Were prepared to work with them. And put down a list of things that should be included and they had it for weeks. From my point of view, they should move forward. Lets stop postponing this a week or two at a time for goodness sakes. It is an embarrassment to congress we cant reach an agreement. We spent four months to reach an agreement on immigration, on daca. It wasnt easy. I had to give a lot. And so did the republicans. We did what the president challenged us to do and now i hope senator mcconnell and speaker ryan will move forward in that spirit. If republicans dont go along with this, should Chuck Schumer hold the line . There you have the lead democrat on the immigration negotiations, dick durbin, about to go into the hearing to question Kirsten Nielsen. He said as we bring our panel in with us, you heard him say we, meaning republicans and democrats, kaitlan, gave the president what he asked for. I gave a lot, republicans gave a lot. I wonder what you think at this point, the white house is risking, at this point in time. Right. Just one week ago today with that bipartisan roundtable meeting in which the president said he would sign anything and take the heat for anything, and now were in a very different situation. And a lot of ways the white house is trying to have it a few different ways here. At first saying, oh, i dont recall him saying these comments or he didnt say it in that way. On the other hand, saying that, of course, the president is going to take a very hard line on immigration. You heard something to that extent from Sarah Huckabee sanders just this morning. So durbin is right insofar as the president asked for a bipartisan solution and they offered him one. And there are republicans on the senate side who are risking some credibility here because it is not just dick durbins word against the president s, its, you know, senator Lindsey Graham and other republicans have said that they confirmed those sentiments, at least the substance of those sentiments as reported were true. Republican kevin matt at the white house, the president seems to be saying if this thing goes down, the democrats are the ones trying to spike the deal on dreamers now. Lindsey graham says to believe you can successfully blame democrats for a shutdown over the daca deal is naive. Republicans control the white house, the senate, the house. Can they avoid the blame here on a shutdown . I think there is risk for both sides. But i think one of the big problems for republicans here, i think, is first of all, to caitlins point, not a whole lot of clarity in our positions. There is too much space where some folks on the hill are with the white house. The other part is, when you are the party that is habitually promoting limited government, you always tend to take the hit when the government shuts down. Particularly as you point out, john, when youre the party that is in charge. If you look back to the last shutdown we had, i think in 2014, we saw a double digit drop in generic ballot for republicans as a result of that. So there is a great deal of risk for both sides, but i think from my party i do worry about the longterm impact it could have on the profile of the party. And the generic ballot doesnt look favorable for republicans now and this hasnt even there has been no shutdown. To you, brian, as the democrat on this panel, claire mccaskill, interesting quotes from her in the New York Times piece this morning, she says we have people running for president all trying to find their base, and then youve got people from trump states that are trying to continue to legislate the way we always have, by negotiation and never the tween shall meet. She says im not interested in drawing a line in the sand as negotiations continue. I think thats how negotiations get blown up. Shes fascinating. Shes one of the ten democrats up for reelection in the senate from a state that trump won. Won her state by 19 points. But does she have a point that democrats should heed . I think what shes saying is that democrats have to be negotiating all the way in good faith. As the comments from dick durbin tell you, they have done that, they have come to the president with a proposal that met all his demands. At this point, i think it would be very hard to dream up a scenario where the democrats didnt couldnt possibly have any more leverage than they have for four days out from a potential shutdown. Obviously neither side should be seeking a shutdown. Democrats should continue to negotiate in good faith up to the deadline. If you talk about who is going to blink first, think of all of the points in the democrats favor here. You have republicans controlling every part of government, you have a historically unpopular republican president. You have a provision that the democrats are fighting for that is extremely popular even among republicans. And you have a president who is now twice blown up a potential deal over this, once in the fall, after striking a deal on principle with pelosi and schumer, went back on that, and last week said no to this bipartisan deal that included concessions on Border Security. By the way, at the meeting where he blew up the deal last week, he made a series of racist statements that now has the white house on their heels for the last week. You want to go to the mattresses on this is what im hearing. You think given all of the advantages, that it is worth shutting the government down if democrats dont get what they want. I dont think democrats should be seeking to shut the government down. But i agree with joe score boroubor scarborough, who i rarely agree with, given all the cards democrats have and how the public is on their side and wanting relief for the daca kids, if democrats do anything more than just put the bill on the floor as dick durbin said theyre going to do, and force the republican force the republican President Donald Trump to sign it or not, i think if the democrats entertain any further concessions, as Joe Scarborough said, they should tuck their tail between their legs and walk away. And i think hes right. Caitlin, to you, this gives us a lens into the president s thinking. The deal presented to him is not what he wanted, even though it had a lot of gives from democrats and a lot of gives from republicans. That could guide us into what the president is thinking, amid all of this, right, and might be willing to risk all of what brian laid out in a shutdown. Right, and he has said as much. I think what is really interesting as a lot of people are kind of debating what exactly what terminology he used in that meeting, the substance of the meeting has not been disputed. The substance of what the president wanted, the way in which he described things has not been disputed by the white house. And instead you had Sarah Huckabee sanders saying the president going to take a tough line on immigration here. And so i dont think that, you know, the president is also tweeting of course that the democrats will be blamed and pushing it back that way. The question i have is what some of the other republicans in the conference are going to do. Yes, have david purdue and senator cotton who have proposed changes and curbs to Legal Immigration coming to the president s defense, but there are other republicans out there as well, some of whom are involved in these bipartisan talks. This puts mcconnell in a difficult position, of course, but what he brings to the floor as dick durbin said i think will be very telling. We cant let you go without asking you the question on mitt romney as the sixth mitt romney son and former adviser to the president ial nominee. Look, mitt romney, you said, will not be a supplicant to donald trump. If he decides to run. When he enters the race. Look, he put out a statement critical of the president. But is not being a supplicant the same thing as going full bulworth if mitt romney is capable of that . Will we see a mitt romney completely unshackled inside the senate . Completely unshackled, trying to think of a mitt romney version of what completely unshackled would be, but a very strongwilled, principled advocate for what he believes in. One of the big things you see now is that there has been a gravitational pull towards having mitt romney reenter political field because they want somebody who is going to promote substance, somebody going to confront, you any, a president when he says things like was alleged during that white house meeting. And that the party needs a counterbalance to that type of rhetoric. So i think he would be somebody who would be willing to do that. Full bulworth, six hairs out of place instead of two. Brian, kevin, caitlin, thank you. In federal court right now, former Trump Campaign officials Paul Manafort and rick gates, their trial is going to begin in the spring. What will this tell us about the strategy and all of this, of course, ahead of the critical midterms. Stay with us. Hi im joan lunden. Todays Senior Living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. And theres never been an easier way to get great advice. A place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. A place for mom. You know your family we know Senior Living. Together well make the right choice. But he hasoke up wwork to do. In. So he took aleve. If hed taken tylenol, hed be stopping for more pills right now. Only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. Aleve. All day strong. All right, Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen being questioned by the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, chuck grassley. Lets listen in. Sadly Congress Long refused to pass enhanced penalties for dangerous criminal aliens, penalties that could have prevented these killers from being in our country. Many of my colleagues have long claimed that they support removing dangerous criminal aliens in this country, yet theyre refusing to consider interior enforcement measures as part of a daca deal. My colleagues claim it is unfair to have the whole weight of Immigration Reform on the backs of daca kids to harm their dreams with enhanced enforcement measures. But i think it is pretty clear that state kate steinle and sara roots have dreams as well. My question to you, im sure you would agree, that they deserve to live in peace and harmony. Is it fair to their memories and legacies to continue allowing dangerous criminal aliens to remain at large in our country . No, sir. What new authority does your department need to make it easier to detain, punish and speedily remove dangerous criminal aliens, should such measures be a part of any potential daca deal . We need to relook at the basis for which we can remove an alien. There are loopholes that prevent us in various cases from removing somebody from what we would all generally consider to be a serious crime. We also are limited to court cases for how long we can detain a criminal alien after we apprehend them. We need to address that. There is a deterrence issue there, just as there is in any other Law Enforcement context. You need the ability to remove once we detain dangerous criminals. Yeah. I want to go to unaccompanied children. As you know, customs and Border Protection has reported that a number of apprehensions at our southern border are down, including apprehensions for unaccompanied alien children. Obviously good news, the journey from a minors home country can be perilous for children. For years ive written about cases in which smugglers have exploited unaccompanied alien children and taken advantage of lenient detention systems, most recently i wrote about another incentive for Vulnerable Children to come here to assess our government facilitied abortion services. Ill ask you to answer this more fulsomely in your response to my letter, but has the department seen evidence of smugglers exploiting unaccompanied alien children by promising access to Certain Health services in custody . If so, what steps has the department taken through human smuggling sale or other direct routes taken to deter smuggling or trafficking of unaccompanied alien children . Yes, sir, thank you for the question. As you know, this month we particularly look at Human Trafficking at dhs. And how to prevent it. It is make no mistake modern day slavery. We all need to work together. I know that various members have bills on Human Trafficking and i look forward to work on that. But with respect to your specific broader question, the transnational criminal organizations, the coyotes and those who traffic in people and illicit goods do it as a business. So, yes, they exploit any reason in which somebody might have the opportunity to either receive a benefit that they do not qualify for or to be able to stay in this country in an illegal status. They have that information, they provide it to those, and encourage them to take that dangerous journey in exchange for a false promise that they will not be captured and deported by the United States. Have you seen a decrease in the unaccompanied alien children, asylum cases since the decision to an end of the Central AmericanMinor Program . We have seen some decreases overall. But unfortunately we have a 30 increase in uacs from october through december. We also have a 68 increase in family units during that same time period. As you know, congress is currently considering a number of young men and women to provide legal status to in any potential deal on daca. Some people, like this senator, believe that we should limit any status to the 690,000 individuals currently enrolled in daca. These young men and women came out of the shadows and built their life around daca. They were brought to this country through no fault of their own, and didnt make a conscious choice to break our nations laws. I believe there is an equity issue that necessitates addressing their status. However, that equity issue is isnt present for their parents. Those men and women did choose to violate our nations law and made a conscious choice to immigrate here without papers. We shouldnt reward that behavior. Reports suggest several of my colleagues are now considering providing legal Work Authorization to these individuals, to the best of your knowledge, my first question, how many million of people would benefit from an amnesty that provides Work Authorization to the parents of dreamers . Sir, what i would say, i can tell you the number of daca registered which as you said is 690,000. 690,000 is the number that the department of Homeland Security begins with in any discussion. There are a variety of bills that you know that then takes that population and expands it by either increasing the time period in which they could have first entered, increasing the age for which one is considered to be a socalled dreamer, and or capturing Family Members and providing them some sort of status as well. I would just say, though, it is our position to find a permanent solution. We are not interested in addressing this through piecemeal, through year after year renewals, through anything less than a permanent solution. What impact would such an amnesty have on our nations Border Security . It would it is almost separate issues. It would take 690,000 and place them into a permanent status of some sort. Hopefully that will indicate to others that that group is alone, that we are not having a larger discussion, that we have to balance what the folks that are here and the folks who watch what we do here and decide to take that journey. I hope that it does not have the negative effect of incentivizing others to come here in hopes of eventually receiving status. Sarah feinstein. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Madam secretary, i wanted to ask you about this, a few weeks ago it was reported that a 1yearold child was separated from his father when they presented themselves at the border. It appears, and i dont know whether it is, that this was not an isolated case. And that the administration is considering a proposal that would separate children from their parents at the southwest border. As i understand it, you have yet to sign off on this proposal and your predecessor, john kelly, rightly rejected it. Is this policy still under consideration and what is your position . Thank you, maam, for the question. Im not familiar with the specific example that you provide, but i would just say under tbpra, when an unaccompanied child or child presents itself at the border, and we cannot confirm that theyre with a parent, we have to follow the protocols to assume there is a possibility they are trafficked. To be clear, one is a policy, i know it is your question ill get to, i want to make sure we also want to take care of the children who come here and make sure they actually are with somebody who is a Family Member or who can prevent who can take care of them. With respect to your question, we have not made any policy decisions. We are in a position where we are trying to be able to promptly remove those we apprehend. What we find at the border is given a variety of court cases, we are forced in conjunction with the hhs to let children after 20 days, we can no longer detain them. So what that means is once we release the child, we then release their parents as well. So were looking at a variety of ways to enforce our laws to discourage parents from bringing their children here illegally. No, maam, no policy decision has been made on that, and i would be happy to work with you and look at other alternatives. Well, how big a problem is this . Uacs is a big problem. We have seen a 30 increase in just the last few months, and a 68 increase in socalled family units, which in some cases include very young children. And what is the current policy as to how to handle this . Say the child is young, part of a family, what happens . When we encounter the child, whether theyre part of a family unit or not, they we try to detain them, if you will, in a family unit, but in some cases given a variety of court cases theyre treated as an unaccompanied child, and that situation we turn them over to health and Human Services after 72 hours. Health and Human Services looks for either a parent, located in the United States, or another sponsor who will come forward and care for that child. If we are not able to bring that child to court within 20 days or otherwise, adjust or determine their status, we must let them go. How many do you bring to court within 20 days . Not enough. I dont have that figure, we can get back. But what we do find is that 90 of those released never show up for court. 90 . They just disappear. Yes, maam. So what do you think the solution is . I think we have to look more broadly at all of the different rules and how theyre put together. I think we need a comprehensive approach. There are quite a few loopholes, for example, it should be clear if youre unaccompanied or not, if youre with your parents, you should be treated as a child coming with your parents. Youre unaccompanied, perhaps we have different duties and we need to look at that child in a different way. They also should not in my opinion receive any additional benefit. They need protection, but, for example, right now they have not only two bites at the apple in terms of our immigration process, they go through a regular process and the immigration courts, but they also have well over a year in which they can claim asylum. If youre an adult, you have a year in which you can claim asylum. You said they can claim asylum. Yes, the children. The children. How young can you be and claim asylum . You can be here many, many years as a socalled unaccompanied minor, and then claim asylum. So it is a problem because unfortunately the way that the coyotes and others have provided information to them, they realize there is a loophole. So they can wait many, many years before they make that claim and frankly what that does is just adds to our backlog. We have hundreds of thousands of cases of backlog, it is very important for us to focus on those who truly need asylum, but sometimes buried within the larger numbers of those who perhaps do not need asylum. How do you assess the size of this problem . Is it a major problem . Is it restricted just to some areas and some groups of people . I would say it is a growing problem because unfortunately what we find through interviews of those that we do apprehend at the border, they have the magic words if you will of credible fear, the standard is quite low, thats Something Else that we have asked as part of our discussions to work with congress on. There are those who truly do fear for their lives. We need to be able to protect those. There are many other many others unfortunately we find who are trained by those who are trafficking them to just use those words and given the laws and court cases we Must Immediately treat them as if they are seeking asylum and put them into the system. How many children now do you have in custody in this situation . That i dont have. I can get back to you. I would appreciate that. The administrations decision to terminate temporary protected status for haiti, nicaragua, the sudan and el salvador looks like it is going to have a significant economic and humanitarian consequence. Tps holders work in Key Industries as you know, performing a lot of indispensable jobs and theyre important. Additionally it looks like this is going to have an adverse effect on children. It is my understanding that around 273,000 u. S. Citizen children have a parent who is a tps holder. And it is my understanding that el salvador requested that this designation for its nationals continue, expressing concern about whether they could manage the return of some 200,000 individuals. Can you just tell us some of the arguments that el salvador made in support of tps designation and why those were not persuasive . Yes, maam. I did have the opportunity to speak to a variety of government officials from el salvador. In our discussions they were very concerned about the time period in which it might take for them to be ready to bring back their citizens. We did not talk generally about the country conditions and i want to be very clear on this, the law does not allow me to look at the country conditions of a country writ large. It requires me to look very specifically as to whether the country conditions originating from the original designation continue to exist. In this case, the 2001 hurricanes in el salvador. So we didnt dispute the country conditions are difficult in el salvador, but unfortunately the law requires me if i cannot say that the conditions emanating from the earthquake still exist, regardless of other systemic conditions, i must terminate tps. So the discussion was around the time period. The reason we delayed it for 18 months was because they were persuasive. Do you believe the law should be changed . I believe we we should look at that. I think we should take a look at it, absolutely. I think what we and i know there are some bills that have been proposed to do just that. This was meant to be a temporary status as you know. The difficulty with that is when people are here for 20 plus years, in the case of el salvador, they have rouots, theyre contributing to the society, theyre making our economy strong. We need to look at this and find a better way to come up with a permanent solution. Would you be willing to work with us . Absolutely. Good, thank you. I think ill end it there. Thank you. Thank you. Senator hatch. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id like to begin with religious worker visas, which are a crucially important issue for my state. I had been scheduled to meet last week with uscis personnel, the director, on the issue. Unfortunately the meeting had to be canceled at the last minute. Im hopeful it can be resched e rescheduled soon. Im planning to act the director to consider revising the regulation in instances where the petitioning charge is a frequent user of r1 visas and has a strong record of compliance with r1 rules and regulations. Increased device in r1 visa processing times have had a negative effect on applicants and the important humanitarian and work that they do. Will you please follow up with director sisna and ask him to give this request all possible consideration . Absolutely, yes, sir. Thank you. This issue may not be a headline grabber, but it is tremendously important to me and to my state. And i will be pushing upon it. Id like to turn now to h1b visas. Reports indicate the department is preparing to rescind a 2015 rule allowing h1b visa holders to obtain Work Authorization if the visa holder is being sponsored for a green card. I have to say that that the 2015 rule seemed to me to be a pretty sensible policy. It is the same policy reflected in innovation act and in the republican sponsored skills visa act that is reported out of the judiciary two congresses ago. Can you explain why dhs is planning to re sind thplan ing to rescind this policy . I would be happy to work with you on this. All the categories are numerous. I think unfortunately over the years, in general, we have gotten away from the intent of congress with respect to some of the visa categories. So we need to look wholistically. H1b, ill be happy to get back to you with that. The department is evaluating ways to stop granting three year extensions for the visa holders who are being sponsored for green cards. And who are subject to lengthy delays because of per Country Green card limits. Now, i believe that congress previously addressed this issue in 2000, and indicated its intent to allow such extensions. Can you tell me if the department is, in fact, considering ways to stop granting these three year extensions and if so, why . And i also would be interested to hear the departments explanation of how ending these extensions squares with the 2000 law. Thank you, sir. Im not familiar with the specific example on h1b, but ill get back to you immediately after this. I appreciate that. I would like to turn now to the issue of cybersecurity. This is a critically important part of the departments mission and one that demands close attention. Last month, the assistant secretary for the cybersecurity and communications announced the dhs is planning to significantly expand its engagement with the private sector to combat threats like the 2017 wannacry cyberattack, which was attributed to north korea. Can you provide specific examples of how you expect dhs cybersecurity collaboration with the private sector to change following last months announcement . Sure. I will keep it short because i would be happy to talk about this all day and all the great things were doing. In general, were looking to do a couple of things. We have as you know an automated indicator sharing program. Were looking to make sure that once we have identified threats, we can disseminate that and not only a way that is actionable, but a way that is tailored to Different Companies and different sectors. Were also working with the private sector to understand what it is that is really critical. Traditionally as you know we looked at 16 Critical Infrastructure sectors. Given the interconnectivity of the world today, were moving towards a look at essential functions, which might cross sectors. So what is the function that is true ly critical and how can we partner with the private sector to not only give them information, on known threats, but to help them anticipate threats before they get there. In terms of network defenders, we need to continue to connect them. As we see these threats propagate across the world as we saw with wannacry, the patching is extraordinarily important. I would say that the reason we did not have so many effects in the United States as we did in other places of the world was due to the good work of dhs and jeannette manfras folks in making sure they communicated quickly with the private sectors taken. It is information sharing, making sure were sharing in the right way, it is helping with vulnerability assessments and overall it is agree together, what is critical and what is the best way we can protect it together. Okay. Continuing on this issue of cybersecurity. Id like to ask about active defense, which is sometimes inaccurately referred to as hacking back. Active defense is a term that captured a spectrum of proactive cybersecurity measures, falls somewhere between passive defense and offense. Some commentators believe that active defense is inappropriate and that current legal restrictions on the practice are therefore warranted. Others believe that active defense should be more widely available to the private sector. I had two questions for you. First is active defense, a component of the departments current or planned cybersecurity assistance to the private sector. It is, yes, sir. But as you say there is wide disagreement with respect to what it means. What we mean is we want to provide the tools and resources to the private sector to protect their systems. So if we can anticipate or we are aware of a given threat and as you know, we have gone to Great Lengths this year to work with the Intel Community to also include otherwise classified information with respect to malware, botnets, other types of infections, we want to give that to the private sector so they can proactively defend themselves before they are, in fact, attacked. Do you believe current law imposes any unnecessary constraints on the private sectors ability to deploy active defense . I would say that i would be happy to work with your staff. It is rather complicated as you know. There are some limitations with respect to liability, other questions with respect to insurance. And we do need to continue to work with the private sector to understand if there is any barriers that would prevent them from taking measures to protect themselves and the american people. Okay. Turning to the departments counterterrorism efforts, a march 2017 report by the inspectors general, dhs, the Intelligence Community and doj identifies a series of concerns that the report authors concluded, quote, have made the dhs intelligence enterprise less effective, and valuable to the Intelligence Community than it could be. Can you provide an update regarding the departments implemention of the ig reports specific recommendations and any other changes the department made in the way it shares counterterrorism information. Yes. First of all, i would like to say i think that the Inspector General plays a vital role, especially at a department such as dhs with such a broad scope. So it is my intent to continue to work with the igs office, and to track all of their recommendations and to make sure we implement them. With respect to this particular report and the intelligence apparatus at dhs at large, what were looking to do is make our intel more requirement driven. In other words, what is it do the men and women on the front lines need and then lets look at how to gather and work with our intel partners on collection to provide that information. Were well past a point where we can be responsive and defensive if you will after something happens. We need to be able to gather that information to prevent. So it is moving towards an operational based intel posture that would be requirementbased on the threat. Okay. Let me just say, for nearly 20 years, we have been talking about the dreamer population. We have been talking about Border Security for just as long. It is time we did something and there is a lot of desire among my colleagues to find a path forward to make a deal if we to do that, we need to be realistic. To my democratic friends, they say it is time to stop pushing for a clean dream act. A matter of simple political reali reality, it is not going to happen. To my republican friends, i say we wont get the sun, moon and the stars. Lets be realistic. And i say, well, my time is up, but i actually think that we can get this done. I hope that youll be helpful in doing so. Yes, sir. Not only is my great hope, but i would like to again reiterate im happy to work with any member and every member who would like to work on this with the department of Homeland Security. It is a very, very important issue. Thank you. Senator leahy. Thank you. Madam secretary, welcome. I know well be seeing you here and again in appropriations committee. You mentioned your report you just issued saying that 402 individuals are convicted of terrorism since 9 11 and they were foreign born. Most of them were convicted during the Bush Administration and the obama administration, very few during this administration. How many of them does your report say how many of them came from countries subject to travel ban and how long each of them had been in this country . I dont have that information at hand, sir. But as you say, youre right, it is over a 15year period that one particular will you get to me how many of them, by the numbers, how many of them were foreign born and then a country subject to travel ban and what was the amount of time they had been here . Yes, to the extent that information is available, yes. It is all available. I mean, you it is the number of the convictions, you should have the number of where they were from and how long they had been here. Yes, sir. But oftentimes as you know what we might have is where they came from, because that would be what their visa would indicate