caller: good morning. i'm calling for those -- i am in support of gay marriage because i don't feel i have the right to tell anyone who they should marry. especially if they are a taxpayer of a great country. thank you. host: one more call. montana calling us from brunswick, maine. go ahead. hello? that will be our last call on that topic. more information about those proceedings. if you were go to the senate -- to go to the senate judiciary committee j johnson is appearing before the committee to talk about issues related to his department. you can see that hearing live on c-span as it starts. thank you for joining us today. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> thank you mr. johnson for coming. oversight is a critical function and a constitutional responsibility of our branch. mr. grassley: every year this committee tries to invite the secretary of homeland security to brief us on the state much affairs at that department. it's an opportunity to question the administration's policies as well as an opportunity for the department to take responsibility for its actions. it's a pleasure to have secretary johnson here. this is the first opportunity for our committee to question him publicly since the president's executive action on immigration announced in november. even though there is an injunction against the executive's actions, we can still get a good idea what to expect from the enjoined programs based on the way the department has implemented the daca program. it appears, for example, that applications for deferred action are being rubber-stamped. evidenced by the fact that criminals and gang members are receiving special benefit despite supposed policies against it. take for example, the case of a daca recipient north carolina, emanuel hernandez who is accused of murdering four people. last week the department admitted hernandez had received daca despite his gang membership which was known to adjudicators, and despite being in deportation proceedings. the agency response indicated a lapse in the processesing of wrangle-hernandez's application. however it's not yet clear who ultimately made the decision to approve the application. but we need to get to the bottom of it. we know that the agency has terminated 282 daca requests because of gang and/or criminal issues so this appears to be a bigger problem. this tragedy compels the question what background chks are in place and are they -- checks are in place, and are they adequate to ensure benefits are not being provided to those who pose a threat to homeland and public safety? and does this administration truly have a zero tolerance policy for granting immigration benefits to criminals and gang members as suggested by the president? the committee will also want to hear from the secretary about the proposed expansion of daca and why the department provided over 100,000 daca work authorization extensions despite assurances as lawyers gave the federal court that it would not implement any aspect of the president's executive action until february 18 2015. whether discussing the 2012 daca program or the 2014 executive actions, there remains questions about the legality of the president's action. there are also questions about how the department will fund the program and whether illegal im-- legal immigrants will suffer due to the pryor at thisization of residents in the country illegally. the secretary must also answer as to why this add allowing people here illegally to be put on a path to citizenship which is clearly a constitutional responsibility of congress. this path to citizenship is afforded to the administration's use of advanced encouraging daca applicants to take advantage of. this loophole will set a dangerous precedent that will allow lawbreakers to obtain the benefits of lawful permanent residents and citizenship after a showing total disregard for american law. one thing seems to be very clear. there's little we all or desire by the administration to force the laws on the books and backup agents in the field who swear to uphold the law. the administration needs to answer for the release of crime al aliens into the community. in fiscal year 2013 the department released from detention over 36,000 convicted criminal aliens and removal proceedings or after they had been ordered removed. and in 2014, it released 30,558 convicted criminal aliens that had convictions ranging from homicide sexual assault kidnapping to aggravated assault, to drunk driving. according to i.c.e. statistics, 56 8/10% of 30,558 releases in 2014 were purely discretionary. the remainder were due to court mandates and the ability to optain travel documents. why did the administration -- obtain travel documents. why did the administration release almost 60% of the criminals in their custody? and what are they going to do about it? i expect the secretary to address that today. i expect the secretary to also address the problems with eb-5 immigrant investor program. not only are there gaping holes that risk our national security there are serious management problems that were highlighted by the inspector general. the i.g. laid out how preferential treatment was granted to those well connected. it is very clear that the secretary does not plan to hold the former director who now sits in the number two post accountable for his actions. instead, it appears that the violations of ethical conduct will go unpunished all while agents and adjudicators in the field are being reprimanded and threatened if they don't get to a.e.s. and follow the president's policies. i'd also like to hear secretary johnson's thoughts on combating an array of national security issues that the country faces. the rise of issa, of course, presents a -- isil, of course, presents a threat to the homeland. we are investigating an isil plot of a terrorist attack in the united states perhaps in california. the transportation secretary t.s.a. alerted local law enforcement to be on the lookout and to increase security. earlier this month there were a number of arrests of american citizens for their involvement with isil. the justice department's also allegationed that isis helped to train a man from ohio. the man had traveled to syria, was directed to return to the united states and commit terrorist attack here. other individuals including a kansas man, two people in new york were allegedly inspired by isis propaganda. and numerous other americans have been arrested on the way to the airport as allegedly attempting to travel to isis. the president has down played the threat posed by isis, but reportedly has billions of dollars, control significant territory, and is accusing innocent men, women, and children across the middle east including americans. it's obviously a threat that requires a serious, sustained response to keep our homeland safe. another threat i expect the secretary to address is ever increasing risk of cyberattacks whose reports are filled with shocking examples of the federal government's lack of preparedness against the threat. it was reported this past weekend that the president's unclassified email was hacked late 2014, defense secretary carter recently disclosed that earlier this year russian hackers accessed an unclassified pentagon computer network. moreover the government accountability office report found that d.h.s. lacked a strategy for protecting government buildings and access control systems from intrusion by hackers. cybersecurity can't be on the periphery of our national security strategy any longer. it has to be at the center. there are many issues to discuss today and i thank the secretary for being here and i'm told that senator leahy cannot come and i'm willing to call on anybody on that side of the aisle. go ahead senator shoeman. senator shoeman: thank you for choosing me among all the choices. i appreciate that very much. i thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, secretary johnson. secretary, it's always a pleasure to see you and speak with you about the critical issues confronting our nation. as a fellow new yorker i'm proud of the work you have done since being confirmed. i think most americans join me. you have done a great job and i think can i speak for our friends on both sides of the aisle, you're always available. you're always candid. you ask the right questions. you give answers so you are a credit to your department and the country and your depth and breadth in counterterrorism and defense issues has served the department very well. and i want to tell you you have a great staff. they hear from me constantly. new york's the center of terrorist target. new york, we have all of the sandy issues and defense issues, and your staff is fabulous. i thank you for that. we all know that d.h.s. is tasked with an enormous range of responsibilities from guarding our borders and coastline to administering immigration, responding when disaster strikes, shielding the president, protect our airports, securing the homeland is a huge job. in my state from new york to buffalo, new york city to buffalo, and along the northern border the department's work directly impacts our economy as well as our security. whether it's the peace bridge in buffalo, the j.f.k. international airport, hurricane sandy relief efforts d.h.s.'s work is vital to new yorkers and your dedicated civil servants who fill these responsibilities are essential. unfortunately, we have an appropriations battle where we fought from the beginning of the year. we emphasize time and time again that 90% of d.h.s. personnel would be declared essential in the event of a departmentwide shutdown. that meant they would have to work without pay unless congress got its act together. it befuddled me how so many people could want to hold up d.h.s. funding when you have so many vital issues at stake unrelated to immigration, because it was hostage taking at its worse and i'm glad the department didn't shut down. i'm relieved, too, that you were able to keep your hands on the helm during those difficult times. so i want to close by addressing two issues that my dear colleague, senator grassley, as addressed. first is isis and terrorism. there are new terrorist threats, believe me. as a new yorker, who lived through 9/11, knew people who died, i know that. i would say this to my colleagues with the new threats and the changing threats, we ought to be taking our hat off to the secretary, his people, and all the people in the c.i.a., d.o.d. n.s.a. who do an amazing job. it's not an accident that, praise god, we have not had a 9/11 like incident in america. in fact, just about every, with the exception of boston, which was unique, just about every major terrorist incident has been thwarted ahead of time as senator grassley talked about. that's not an accident. that is not an accident. and i think that the men and women who work for you c.i.a., d.o.d. n.s.a. and all the other agencies, f.b.i. deserve a tremendous amount of credit. they are wonderful. they are like our soldiers. they are wonderful civil servants -- i talked to so many of them who are truly dedicated to preventing, god forbid, another terrorist attack on our homeland. so i salute them. and certainly questions should be asked. let's not forget to give a little praise where praise is due. second, on immigration. i find it truly befuddling about my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, they cry out against a broken border. the bipartisan immigration bill passed, senator mccain and myself, the gang of eight, does more to tight enup the border than any proposal made by the other side. more than any. we talk about a broken system. but our colleagues are just happy to let the status quo go on. employers are allowed to hire new illegals. our bill stopped that with things taken from jeff sessions book e-verify and things like that. so we get a lot of complaints that the president's moving forward on immigration, but we have no activity, no solutions from the other side of the aisle. only complaints. that's not governing. now they are in the majority, they have a responsibility to start governing on this issue instead of just complaining when the administration, because of the paralysis in congress on this issue, not caused by democrats, blocks us from moving forward. i would just say you'll hear a lot of those complaints, but let us all bear in mind that this senate bipartisan, came together on a solution that dealt with border, dealt with illegals crossing the border, dealt with all of the issues we faced, had overwhelming support in the contry, a majority of republicans supported the bill, but because of a hard right few we have been unable to pass a bill. that should be constantly borne in mind as you will hear the criticisms that you will hear today. with that, mr. chairman, i yield the floor. the microphone. not the floor. senator grassley: before i have you go ahead, stay seated, but i'd like to have you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. if secretary johnson: i do, sir. senator grassley: thank you. proceed. the speaker pro tempore: thank -- secretary johnson:, thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the members of the committee for hearing me today. you have my prepared statement. let me just say a few things in the five minutes that i have. in my view, counterterrorism needs to remain the cornerstone of the department of homeland security. -- homeland security's mission. it's the reason we were formed and the reason why i accepted service as the secretary for this department. in my view, the global terrorist threat has evolved to a 23450u phase -- new phase. it is more complex, it is more decentralized. in many respects it is harder to detect. there are more groups. and we therefore, need a whole of government approach that includes very much so the department of homeland security. we have the phenomenon now of foreign fighters, who leave their home countries go to places like iraq and syria and return. we need to track foreign fighters. we need to track foreign fighters from countries for which we do not require a visa. my staff is developing as a follow on to what we did last summer greater security measures that can be taken with regard to travelers from those countries. we continue to focus on aviation security. i want to build preclearance capability on the front end of a flight to the united states, and we are working daily to do that. a lot of our efforts continue to center around airport security. we directed a number of things last week concerning airport security. we are engaging state and local law enforcement which in my view given the nature of the homeland threat, which involves the threat of the lone wolf, the independent actor, it's much more important that we work with city police departments commissions, commissioners, state law enforcement as well. we have our engagements in the community to counter violent extremism. i traveled to places like minneapolis, boston, lang large chicago, columbus, ohio -- los angeles, chicago, columbus ohio, to engage community leaders counter violent extremism. i'm pleased that the congress is active in evaluating and voting on cybersecurity legislation. it's one of my top priorities. i'm happy to discuss that further. we are doing a lot to enhance border security. we have added resources stemming from last summer. we have prioritized those apprehended at the border. we have developed what i briefed to some of you the southern border campaign strategy. which is a d.h.s. wide combined effort at border security on the southern border. as i reported last week our numbers of apprehensions on the southern border midway through the fiscal year are down considerably from where they were this time last year and even the year before that. apprehensions are an indication of total attempts to cross the border illegally and they are down considerably, though i believe that there is more we can and should do. as all of you know the president and i are interested in reforming our immigration system. we announced a number of executive actions that include deferred action for parents, which is the subject of the litigation in texas, but it includes a number of other things as well. added border security. the southern border campaign strategy. pay reform for immigration enforcement personnel. and so forth. we are ending the controversial secure communities program, which led to a lot of resistence from state and local law enforcement, in an effort to get at the criminals who should be removed from our country. i am interested in enhancing public safety. i'm interested at -- in getting at the criminals. so we are working with mayors, governors, county commissioners sheriffs chiefs, to introduce them to our new priority enforcement program so they will work with us again in an effort to get at the criminals who should be removed from this country. i'm sure we will have an opportunity to discuss the eb-5 program. there are a number of security enhancements i would like to see for the eb-5 program. i wrote a letter to the chairman and the ranking on that yesterday. we are doing a number of things to reform the way we manage the department, to make it a more effective and efficient place. last but not least i want to thank the members of the senate for helping us fill the vacancies in our department. over the last 16 months we have had 12 senate confirmed presidential appointments. to the department including myself our nominee for undersecretary for management, russ, was confirmed two weeks ago. i'm very appreciative of the senate for that. and our nominee to be the new t.s.a. administrator should be announced shortly. perhaps even today. i thank the committee in advance for your time and attention. and i am interested in building a more effective and efficient department of homeland security and i appreciate the supreme court in doing that. if senator grassley: i'm going to start with a statement on -- that i don't expect you to respond to but i want you to know how i feel about it. the inspector general report on mr. meyer kiss and the eb-5 program. the inspector general clearly laid out the evidence against mayorkis. the report explains how he intervened on three political cases each had high profile connections. despite the outrage, it seems to me you have no intention of doing anything and planning to stick by mr. myorkis even though he provided preferential treatment and violated the very rules he wrote about ethical conduct. it's no n wonder that there is a morale -- it's no wonder that there is a morale problem. employees see leadership getting away with violating the rules. employees are given clear rules on preferential treatment and how do you adjudicate eb-5. yet when the director himself breaks those rules there is no recourse and then what are employees to think about that? the only defense that i have seen so far on the reverential -- preferential treatment is the agency gets pressure from members of congress and from both sides of the aisle. i think that that's comparing apples and/or rangs. it is no ex-- and oranges. it is no excuse. members in congress are in a position to effect final decisions like a director. so secretary johnson i think that it is -- causes a loss of credibility with many people that work within the department. it's a shame that there has been -- it's been tolerated by you and others in the administration. that's that statement. i'll go to my first question. i want to ask you about mr. wrangle-hernandez, gang member that committed those murders i referred . to according to your april 17 response to me, mr. wrangle-hernandez's application should have gone through several layers of review, including by u.s. citizenship immigration services background check unit, because of his gang affiliation the department's headquarter should also have reviewed the case. thus the adjudicator would only be able to approve such an application after a sign off from washington leadership. there was obviously a lapse, but it's unclear who dropped the ball. first question why was mr. wrangle-hernandez approved for deferred action despite his known gang ties? in other words which office is responsible for approving the daca applicant. and was it the adjudicator, background check unit, or uscis headquarters? microphone. secretary johnson: the answer to the why question is simply he should not have received daca. i believe on balance daca is a good program. i also believe that this case is a tragic case and this individual should not have received daca. i cannot state that in stronger terms. in reaction to that case, as i think you know, we have gone back and we have retrained the entire work force that deals with these cases to make sure that they identify trouble signs such as suspected membership in criminal gangs. if you're a known member of a criminal gang, you should not be receiving daca. you should be considered a priority for removal. we retrained the force and we have done our retrospective review of every daca case, every daca participant to see whether there are any similar to this case. we identified some and we continue to evaluate this to make sure that we have reduced situations like this to zero in the daca program. i'm interested in deporting criminals, sir. and that's one of the reasons why we have engaged in things like operation crosscheck, which is interior enforcement. this was an operation conducted several weeks ago where we rounded up some 2,000 priorities for removal. i'm interested in getting at the criminals, sir. this case is a tragic case and he should not have received daca. senator grassley: do you know whether it was the adjudicator or the background check unit or the uscis headquarters that made the mistake on hernandez? secretary johnson: i believe that the err remember -- error occurred i i don't have the facts, i believe the error occurred once he was referred to those who normally conduct the background checks. i don't know the name of that unit, but i believe the error occurred at that point. senator grassley: you just talked about a zero tolerance policy. and i guess it would appear to me that you don't have a zero tolerance policy. you just told me you do have. so i guess in the future then, we would expect things like this not to happen. secretary johnson: in the future i am interested in deporting criminals, including those who have committed crimes who are in the daca program. they are priorities for removal. senator grassley: on april 9, and all this question is is can i have a response by may 1? on april 9 i wrote you about another individual i think it's pronounced jose burquez in the country illegal, an alleged daca recipient, that's been charged with suspicion of second degree murder in tempe, arizona. i have yet to receive a response. could you see i get a response to that? secretary johnson: i will undertake to provide you a proper response, sir. senator grassley: it's clear to me that the department no longer seems to have a will to enforce immigration laws. i start with the statistics interior removals. plummeting from 237,000 fiscal year 2009 to 102,000 fiscal year 2014. saying that officers were reassigned from the interior to the border, i don't think -- i guess i'd say a red herring. it doesn't explain why interior removals had already declined by 44% between 2009 and fiscal 2013, well above the surge. what can the committee expect with regard to removals in the interior? will they continue to decline, showing a continued disregard for enforcement of the law? secretary johnson: with the resources we have, sir, i am interested in focusing on criminals and recent illegal arrivals at the border. so we prioritized criminals, we prioritized those who came into this country after january 1 2014 and we prioritized those who are apprehended at the border. and so that is one of the reasons why we have a new priority enforcement program where we want to work with law enforcement to get at those who are behind bars. it's one of the reasons why we have developed operation crosscheck. greater interior enforcement against criminals. so i'm interested in going after the criminals. one of the reasons, i believe, that the removal numbers are down this year, and we are in the middle of the fiscal year is because lower apprehensions. there's lower intake. lower apprehensions as i referred to in my opening remarks. there are fewer people attempting to cross the southern border, and fewer people apprehended. the other reason, frankly, is because of all of the resistence that we were receiving in state and local law enforcement to the secure communities program. something like 239 jurisdictions where resisting, cooperating with us in our enforcement activities. so we developed a new program that i believe removes the political and legal controversy with the old program. and i am now personally engaging in conversations with mayors, governors about the new program so that we can work together again at interior enforcement against criminals, those who represent public safety. i also believe, sir, that one of the reasons the numbers are not as high as they used to be when it comes to removals is because of the changing character of the migrants. they are increasingly from noncontiguous countries. and the process of a removal of someone from a noncontiguous country is more time consuming. we see greater claims for humanitarian relief, for asylum, and so it's not as simple as just sending somebody back across the border. senator grassley: senator klobuchar. senator klobuchar: thank you so much, senator grassley. and thank you so much, mr. secretary. we have talked about this in the last week and you are very aware what's happened in minnesota where six men from the twin cities area were arrested for plotting to travel to the middle east to fight for isis. our u.s. attorney there as you know is doing a good job as are our law enforcement officers on the federal level. i hear people. and i think you also know one of the reasons we were able to make these cases is because of the relationship that law enforcement has built over the years with the somali community, of which we are very proud, and been able to get information and be able to bring these cases. i think that gets forgotten sometimes. part of this is the effort that the -- you mentioned your coming to minnesota. i was with you then. and the idea of fighting extremism in the pilot program that's going on in minnesota. i would hope that this is a long-term priority of the department of homeland security. one of the concerns that we have about the current state of the program is that the grant programs that support the extremism initiatives are not sufficiently focused on helping the programs in the pilot cities. you mentioned the pilot cities. i was wondering if we can get some more funding to be so blunt, given that we have shown we are actually having these problems. this pilot has been recognized. we did just get $100,000 from the justice department. but it's kind of hard to add to everything else we are doing with the prosecutions. that's what we are trying to pursue in the twin cities right now. secretary johnson: senator, i agree wholeheartedly that our so-called c.b.e. names are fundamental to our overall homeland security counterterrorism efforts, which is why i'm spending a lot of my personal time doing it myself. so as you know i came to minneapolis some months ago. i think it is important that we engage communities, community leaders, the islamic community in this country. and i believe that through the good works of people like u.s. attorney andy luger, there's been a lot of progress made in building trust between community leaders, family members, and law enforcement, even federal law enforcement. so when i go to these communities, myself, i recognize it's an exercise in building trust. so they want to talk to me about profiling at the airports or some of their issues with how we enforce our immigration laws. and i want to listen. i want to learn from those experiences. but i also have an ask, as you know, which is it's everybody's homeland security. it's your public safety. it's your homeland security. and help us with public safety. senator klobuchar: i want to move on to something else. i want to put that pitch in. in the past when i was law enforcement and pilot programs were set up, it usually came with some kind of funding that would support the kind of goals of the program. i think that's very important if we want to show that this works. second thing on u.s. customs and border protection, as you know one of their key responsibilities is enforcing our trade laws, including the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, particularly important in the iron range minnesota, we have had 1,100 workers laid off. this is true to my heart. where my grandpa worked my grandpa worked 1,500 feet underground his whole life. it appears we could be doing more based on the white house, talking to people with various departments, with u.s. customs to be checking these shipments when they come on our shore if they are filled with illegal steel products, why can't we see it and call it as it is? that sends just as strong message as changing statutes, which is very important to make it easier to bring these cases. i would like to stop these things from getting on our land to begin with if they are not supposed to be there. could you talk about the efforts going on with that right now? secretary johnson: part of what our mission is is promoting lawful trade and travel. and combating customs fraud, illegal dumping as you refer to it. so our c.b.p. personnel as well as homeland security investigations are spending a lot of time dealing with fraud in connection with our imports, exports, false statements, counterfeit items. i think h.s.i. in particular does a pretty good job when it comes to tracking inappropriate illegal shipments of things. and we are also focused frankly, on promoting lawful trade and travel. and we have had record numbers of imports inspections last year in that regard. but our efforts need to be focused on the items you refer to as well. senator klobuchar: we are going to be pursuing this as we move along in the next month or so. to me this could give a lot of bang for the buck if we did a better job enforcing the laws when the shipments come in. it seems to me it's easy to find a bunch of steel rebar when we are able to find drugs in smaller containers of things. if you have a whole shipment of steel there has to be a way to see it and track it and figure it out. i think it would be a very smart way of enforcing these walls. the last thing i wanted to ask the visas for victims domestic violence and trafficking. i know you are supportive of comprehensive immigration reform and we worked on this as part of the bill that passed the senate but on the first day of the fiscal year, uscis filled its limit of 10,000 visas. the vermont service center as an example is now processing new visa applications filed in march of 2014 that will not leave the waiting list until fiscal year 2018. what are the ramifications of running out of these victim visas so early? secretary johnson: the ramifications, if demand exceeds supply obviously, is that a lot of people worthy of these visas don't get them. so i appreciate the efforts that were undertaken in the comprehensive senate bill to address this issue and i hope we can readdress it. senator klobuchar: i know this isn't your issue from a policy standpoint because you are supportive. it's important for my colleagues to know that as my exsmeerns as a prosecutor -- experience as a prosecutor people would deliberately prey on people and tell them to shouldn't up after they raped them because they would report them. that's why the program has been so successful to get people to come forward who are victims who have documentation issues. . i'm hoping that we will be able to resolve this going forward when we do pass some kind of comprehensive immigration reform bill, but people need to note nationwide numbers on what's happening. thank you, mr. secretary, for your work. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership. senator sessions: secretary, good to have you with us. well, first of all on the comprehensive immigration bill it was not supported by the people in over 10-year period the number of green cards would increase from lawfully then 10 million people getting permanent residence to 30 million people getting permanent residence. and as to the enforcement situations, senator grassley offered a bill that said, we want to see the border secure for six months before the amnesty occurs. that was rejected by the democratic majority in the senate. senator cornyn had a bill that would call for a commission to certify and improve the border situation using governors and others. that was rejected. so that's part of the reason we had such a difficult time. secretary johnson, i believe senator grassley is correct to say that we see a lack of will in your department. before you took the office and from the president, frankly, on down you mentioned interior enforcement, 40% of the people here unlawfully today. came lawfully and refused to leave on time. we have no real ability to deal with that and have not taken steps required by law to deal with that. first day the president took office, he stopped work site inspections and basically threatened agents never again to do that. he canceled and effectively ended the 287-g program that welcomes state officers to be trained by the federal officers to help them improve their situations and their ability to help. sanctuary cities continue unabated. they don't even honor your detainers. onet even honor your detainers. why we would not push back against that. utilizing financial incentives i don't know. operation streamline that worked in a number of border sectors has been cut back dramatically if not ended. true interior removals are much lower than they have been. the president's push for amnesty is continual discussion of it. his promise of amnesty and actually tearing out executive amnesty after congress refused has increased immigration unlawfully into the contry. we continue to allow foreign countries to refuse to accept back people that we are trying to deport. if they don't accept that, then they shouldn't be -- have other members -- other citizens admitted here. morale in your department is the lowest in the government. indeed, they even filed a lawsuit against your predecessor because the department was blocking them from carrying out plain law. deportations are down 41% over three years. 25% over last year. 160,000 criminal aliens are on the streets. and now you announced a program to fly people from central american countries who apply for refugee and parole status in those countries to do -- to the united states of america. at the expense of the u.s. taxpayers. all this has led i believe millions to conclude if they come here illegally they'll be successful. we've got to change that fundamentally. if you do that, i believe we can make progress. in fact, i would note that you have gotten a good bit more resources, although border patrol numbers are beginning to slip again. and fiscal year 2006, before the first big battle over amnesty occurred, there were 12,000 agents. now there are 21,000 agents. although they declined for the last three years border patrol agents. just can't say, mr. secretary, that you have led and the president and your predecessors have led effectively demonstrating a will to do what the american people want. which is a lawful system of immigration that serves the national interest. one that we can be proud of. we are not there yet and you need to do more. can you do more with the resources you have. if you need more resources and legal changes, please let us know and i think congress will respond. let me ask you this. a fundamental question. how many aliens with final orders of removal are currently in the united states and not -- have not been removed? secretary johnson: i don't have the number sitting here right now. i'm sure it is a large number by your measure and mine. and it's an unacceptable number, but i know that there is a huge backlog in our immigration enforcement efforts. we need to prioritize those in my judgment who are public safety threats in this tremendous backlog. and those who have come to this country illegal recently, which is why in the new priorities we put an emphasis on those who arrived here after january 1 2014. senator sessions: with regard to your priority. i understand you need to prioritize. but a priority can become in itself an amnesty. a priority can say huge numbers of people are not going to be deported. what i hear you saying and i think others could hear you say that if you don't commit a serious crime, you are ok. you're not going to be deported. let me ask you, this according to the border patrol statistics in fiscal year 2014, 479,000 individuals were apprehended at the southwest border. how many of those remain currently in the united states? secretary johnson: a lot had been removed. a lot were sent back on a expedited basis. last year. but as i said a moment ago, a number of those are from noncontiguous countries and they have asserted claims -- senator session: that is a problem. i think we need to help you pass laws that would make that easier. how many of -- easier to remove. but how many of those are actually here having been released on bail, have not been deported and have gone someplace throughout the country? do you not have the numbers? secretary johnson: let me say two things. one, when we had the spike last summer in the rio grande valley we expedited the return flights to central america. we refused to the turn around time from something like 30 days town to four days. and we surged resources. and so we turned them around quicker. and we have kept the resources on the southern border. senator sessions: my time's up. i'll submit a written question. i think you need to be able to tell us how many of those have actually not been deported but have successfully entered the country through that illegal process. secretary johnson: senator, that's a knowable number and i'm happy to provide it to you. i don't have it sitting here. >> secretary johnson thanks for your leadership at the department of homeland security. you have a tough job. unfortunately, congress has made -- hasn't made it any easier for you. my friend and colleague from alabama says what america wants is a lawful system of immigration. couldn't agree with him more. senator durbin: lawful. would that suggest that congress should pass a law? wouldn't that be novel? we did pass a law in the senate 68-32, comprehensive immigration reform act. the house of representatives refused to call it up or anything since. if we are going to have a lawful system of immigration, perhaps we should have a law from congress. which has been opposed by most of the critics you are hearing today. what the president has tried to do is step in with a broken immigration system and make it bert. i don't know how anyone could argue that we are more secure homeland if we don't know who is living here. what the president has said is that if you are a young person brought here through no fault of your own and grown up in this country through daca, we'll give you a chance on a temporary renewable basis to submit yourself to a criminal background check and to live in america without fear of deportation. temporary renewable process. criminal background check. seems to me that's not only fair but makes a country more secure. when congress failed to pass a comprehensive immigration law the president said of the 10 million or 11 million undocumented in this country, we are better off as a nation to know who they are, where they live they submitted themselves to a criminal background check, and they'll pay their taxes while they are here. i think most americans agree that makes us a more secure nation. but there are people who just loathe this notion that the president would use his power as an executive as other presidents before him to try to make this a more secure nation. i have a special interest in daca. introduced the dream act 14 years ago. hearings in this committee. called before congress. before comprehensive immigration passed. but sadly the house of representatives refused to even consider the issue. i am concerned of reports that say that more than 11,000 dreamers who applied to remove daca in a timely manner have lost their status because of delays in processing at your agentcy. through no fault of their own. so can you tell me what the status is on applications for renewal on daca, mr. secretary? secretary johnson: yes, sir. we, as i'm sure you know, encourage daca participants if they are renewing to do that months in advance of when their current authorization expires. you're correct in a a number -- that a number were not issued their work authorizations in time. i think you're right that the number's about 11,000. most who renewed, renewed timely and were able to get their work authorizations on time. i also know from the director of c.i.s. that we have set up a hotline, so to speak, for expedited treatment. if somebody is facing the lapse of their work authorization and they haven't got a new one in time, and that in that process is utilized, we'll do our best to try to turn that around in a timely manner. making sure that we have appropriately assessed the renewal application. i do know there is a expedited route to getting work authorization before it lapses if people know about it and they take advantage of it. senator durbin: i thank you for that. as you might imagine i joined a number of senators encouraging the president to create the daca program. my understanding is some 600,000 have successfully applied for that protective status on a temporary renewable basis and submitted themselves to criminal background checks. and i have met many of them and they are getting on with their lives and on the path to making a great contribution to this country. it would certainly be helpful with our broken immigration system if congress stepped up to its responsibility, too. and that we did something to enact a law which would make us a more secure nation. when it comes to our border, we have not only invested more resources in protecting the border of the united states with mexico than ever in our history it's one of the largest federal law enforcement agencies that we have in this country, and the comprehensive immigration reform, which many on the other side voted against, would have dramatically increased that. technology and manpower to protect the border. in your opening statement, you talked about a decline in apprehensions at the border. could you repeat that for the record and suggest what that says about what we are doing at our border? secretary johnson: i think we have invested -- i believe that our investment in border security over the last 10 15 years is showing results. we have more people, more technology on the southern border in particular now than in the history of this nation. and i think that it is showing results. in the year 2000, there were 1.6 million apprehensions on the southern border. that number in recent years has ranged somewhere between 350,000 to as senator sessions noted, 47 9,000 last year. that increase last year was due almost majority, to the spike in the rio grande valley sector. i expect that the number will be down considerably from 479,000. but longer term, our investment in border security is showing good results. i believe that the down turn in the numbers is due to that. i believe it's due to the fact that we got the word out in central america that there are no coyotes last summer. you can see our public awareness campaigns posted at bus stops in guatemala city, for example. i believe our law enforcement efforts against the smugglers are showing good results. and all of this is in the face of an improving economy in this contry. normally illegal migration is tied to the economic conditions in this contry. we have an improving economy. so the factors are there but we are seeing a pretty marked decrease in apprehensions this fiscal year. i looked at the april numbers this morning. the april numbers are pretty much consistent with the march numbers. senator durbin: i have a few seconds. i want to close by saying that i believe that when we are judged in the course of history on an international basis the world will point to the humanitarian crisis in syria and ask every civilized nation on earth what did you do? some nations have made an extraordinary sacrifice. turkey lebanon, and jordan have accepted huge numbers of refugees. we have helped pay for their care. the united states in the last four years has accepted 700 refugees from syria. we can do more. we should do more. i hope that there is an effort afoot in your agency to find ways to safely, safely bring in those refugees who are not threat to the united states but represent a true humanitarian challenge to our country. senator cruz: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, thank you for joining us today. thank you for your service. i'd like to address two different topics. i want to start with an issue you raised which is isis and foreign fighters. to the best of d.h.s.'s knowledge, about how many americans have traveled abroad to join up with isis? secretary johnson: senator the way i -- the way we calculate that is there are approximately this is the last time i looked, it could be higher now 180 individuals who have left to join the conflict in syria and iraq, or attempted to leave. that number as i said is probably a little higher by now. but that's the number we have said publicly. and i think that that's a fairly accurate number. there is an unknown factor, clearly, sir. senator cruz: on the order of magnitude 180 is a good approximation. secretary johnson: the last time i saw a number it was about that. but it's probably higher by now. senator cruz: chairman grassley and i have joined together in introducing legislation the expatriate terrorist act, that provides that an american citizen who travels abroad and joins isis and joins up with a foreign terrorist organization has in so doing constructively forfeited his or her american citizenship. there is existing legislation on the book that provides for other grounds for forfeiting your citizenship, but right now joining a foreign terrorist organization is not one of those. in your judgment, would it be beneficial to have additional tools to prevent u.s. citizens from using american passports to come back to this country and potentially wage jihad in attempt to murder american citizens here at home? secretary johnson: senator i don't know that stripping somebody of their american citizenship is the most effective tool. i do believe that we need to enhance our efforts to interdict those who are attempting to leave the country and prosecute them for material support or deny them boarding or deny them boarding on the return flight or in some way investigate and apprehend them before they can get on the flight and once they return. we have spent a lot of time with our counterterrorism partners overseas and within the department of homeland security at better efforts to detect those who are engaging in travel to iraq and syria including broken travel. we spend a lot of time in d.h.s. and law enforcement doing exactly that. senator cruz: i guess the track record of apprehending people when they are coming back is not what it should be, if i recall correctly the elder czar -- czar 1/2 -- czar neff brother who carried out the boston bombing, when he came back to america his return and travel was not flagged although it was supposed to be, is that correct? secretary johnson: very clearly there were alsoons -- lessons learned from that case and we have done, i believe a better job at connecting the dots in reaction to that case. senator cruz: left's shift to a different topic which is the enforcement of the border. i am very concerned by the lack of enforcement at the border, the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws. and i'm very concerned on multiple levels, number one, from a perspective of national security and dangerous illegal immigrants being allowed to come into this country, and number two, from the perspective of this administration not enforcing the law. now, last week the "washington times" ran an article, the headline of which was, illegal immigrant deportations plummet as amnesty hampers removal efforts. . and it described this year deportations this year have fallen another 25% this year and indeed overall deportations of those who are here illegally are down 41% from three years ago. and the article goes on to say almost at the beginning of president obama's illegal amnesty. mr. secretary, how do you explain a 41% drop in removals of aliens here illegally? senator johnson: a couple of things, sir. one, the apprehensions are in fact lower on the southern border so the intake is lower this fiscal year in particular. two, secure communities. secure communities was a controversial program that led to the enactment of restrictions prohibitions on croopting with our personnel in a number of local localities. mayors, governors were passing laws ordinances that prevented cooperating with us in our enforcement efforts. and so we've ended the secure communities program, as i mentioned, and put in its place a new program that i believe will promote enforcement so that we can get at the criminals. but secure communities, in my judgment, is one of the reasons why we're seeing lower numbers along with a few other things, sir. senator cruz: you talked about getting at the criminals which is the same of the president's purported justification for the illegal amnesty program, that it would allow the focus of prosecutorial resources on violent criminals. it strikes me that it's not talking about criminals. it has declined 23% from last year and declined 39% since the peak in 2011. so when it comes to violent criminals, the department is not stepping up its efforts and indeed if you look to 2013, in 2013 the department released 36,007 criminal aliens with serious convictions. that included 116 with convictions for homicide. 43 with convictions with negligent manslaughter. 14 voluntary manslaughter. one with a conviction as i.c.e. classified willful, kill public official, gun and that individual was released. in addition to that 15,635 criminal aliens who had been convicted of drunk driving that were released back into the population. 2,691 who had convictions for assault that were released into the population. why is the department releasing so many criminal aliens? and secondly, can you tell this committee in the 6 1/2 years of the obama administration's tenure just how many criminal aliens had been released, how many murderers, how many rapists, convicted of assault had been released into the population? senator johnson: yes. as you pointed out, senator, in fiscal year 2013 there were about 36,000 individuals convicted of a crime who once in our immigration system were bonded out. that number declined to about 30,000 in fiscal year 2014 but in my judgment that number is still too high. so in reaction to this situation, i directed that we do a number of things differently including elevating the approval for a circumstance where somebody who had been convicted of a crime is released from immigration detention. it is the case that some of these cases are due to releases by immigration judges or by the supreme court jurisprudence in zavadas vs. davis. and i believe we can do a better job which is why i elevated. and we no longer release people for lack of space. that was an issue in 2013. especially when we were dealing with sequestration. we had a situation where we released a lot of people because we were concerned we didn't have the space. and i directed that that should not be an excuse for releasing somebody. we should find the space. and so this is a problem i recognize exists and i'm interested in promoting public safety and that's why i directed these changes sir. senator cruz: thank you mr. secretary. i'll follow up with the written request for the information i requested. >> i think it's important to acknowledge the events taking place in baltimore. my heart goes out to freddie grey and the city of baltimore. i know the events surrounding the death of mr. grey are subject to an independent investigation and i believe that a full and thorough accounting of the facts is a necessary first step in helping restore trust between police officers in the community. as we await for the result of that investigation and as we secure justice for mr. grey and his family, join mr. grey's family in urging all the protestors or those that do protest do so peacefully. secretary johnson cooperation between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve remains the focus of national attention and it seems that everyone gruss that racial and ethnic profiling undermines trust in the authorities, that it causes resentment among targeted groups. i was pleased to see former attorney -- rather, attorney holder -- former attorney general holder -- i got to start saying that now -- revisit d.o.j.'s policies on profiling and extend the banned on profiling to cover gender, sexual owe yen take, religion and these new guidelines do not apply to the t.s.a. or customs and border protection which are d.h.s. agencies. these agencies are still permitted to use profiling when screening airline passengers and individuals crossing borders. i understand that it is challenging to ensure public safety while simultaneously building trust with communities who have experienced profiling. minnesota, as you know, is a large -- has a large community of somali minnesotans, somali americans, for example, and i want to thank you for traveling to minneapolis last year and meeting with members of the cedar riverside community to hear their concerns. but i continue to hear from members of the community to report they experience profiling and who are singled out for additional screening and questioning at the same minneapolis-st. paul airport so routinely they prefer to drive to chicago, over 400 miles away rather than fly out their hometown. instead of fostering respect and cooperation, i worry that our current practices are nurturing fear and resentment. i'd like to know what steps, in your view, d.h.s. can take to ensure we do a better job of protecting our security while simultaneously respecting the dignities of those that are new to our communities. senator johnson: thank you for that question, senator. first of all, we looked pretty hard at whether we could sign on to the d.o.j. nonprofiling policy last year orerier this year. we found that given our different missions, that policy, which was intended for law enforcement, didn't quite fit. as we have -- as you pointed out, aviation security border security. senator franken: i understand. senator johnson: administration of our immigration laws. there is the general rules we should not engage in racial profiling. that was the case before that's the case now. nationality, given the nature of our mission, is taken into account, for example. i have heard just as you have heard from the somali community in minneapolis that because of the profiling that they perceive occurs at the minneapolis airport they prefer to go to chicago. i heard the exact same thing. i asked t.s.a. to undertake an evaluation and study of that. they have come back to those in the community to address the concerns. i think it frankly continues to be a work in progress but t.s.a. knows my view that we should not profile at airports. and we should not make it the case that somebody prefer to go to chicago rather than minneapolis, their own airport, and we've had, i think, some productive conversations with the community along these lines but i think it also probably continues to be a work in progress and it's something that's on my radar personally. senator franken: thank you for that response. i understand that last night a court issued a decision that needs to be evaluated regarding families in immigration detention facilities, but i'd like to talk about that issue nonetheless. in the past few years, the department of homeland security has significantly increased its use of family detention centers at an annual cost of nearly $2 billion. family detention centers often separate parents from their children and their recent expansions led to complaints of poor conditions, inadequate services and physical dangers for those detained. such allegations would suggest that family detention centers pose long-term developmental challenges for immigrant children and families. what is your view of the current family detention system? should the use of family detention facilities be expanded or reduced in the future? senator johnson: before we encountered the situation we had in the rio grande valley last summer, we had among the 34,000 beds for immigration detention, only 95 for family units, for members of families. and so in the face of what we were dealing with last summer, which included a lot of families, we expanded our detention space beyond 95 and we opened several new facilities which i believe are important to maintain. i personally visited several of them to ensure myself that the conditions of confinement are appropriate. i he no that very purpose of family unit space is to keep families together so that you're not sending the parent in one direction and the child the other. the very purpose of it is to keep the families together, as you point out. there is a case or two involving family detention, one in california, one in washington, d.c., and as recently as yesterday and friday i have -- and i continue to evaluate whether our current policy is the appropriate one for family units. i'm hearing a fair amount about issues with family detention. and so i'm currently evaluating whether the current policy is the best one. i'm pleased that the numbers of family units crossing our border illegally is down considerably from last year, and i want to continue to evaluate it and make sure we're getting it right. because i hear the issues being raised by a number of people. senator franken: thank you. i'll ask further questions for the record. i'll submit them rather. >> good morning, secretary johnson. the chairman said you have a very difficult job and i think that's an understatement, but notwithstanding the difficulties of the job either that you have or that we have, all of us must be held accountable for the way we discharge our responsibilities. senator cornyn: that's what this hearing is about. but it's particularly difficult to be effective when the administration continues to sabotage its own efforts by embracing unconstitutional policies like the president's executive action. 22 times the president of the united states said he didn't have the authority to do what he did and now we have of course, as you know, an injunction preliminary injunction in place issued by federal district judge in brownsville. obviously the stay is on appeal to the fifth circuit, but i'd like to just refresh your memory and ours, what the court said when it issued the preliminary injunction. so this court finds that dapa, that's the name given to the program, the executive action -- the court finds that dapa does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement. it's an announced enforcement of nonenforced laws that contradicts congress' statutory goals. it does not adopt mere inadequacy. it is complete abdication. the department of homeland security does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of congress. it cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of congress but actively acts to thwart them. the court went on further and said the department of homeland security secretary is not just rewriting the laws. he's creating them from scratch. finally, judge hannon said the department of homeland security does not seek compliance with federal law in any form but instead establishes a pathway for noncompliance and completely abandons entire sections of this country's immigration law. closed quote. i know you disagree with judge hannon and the courts will finally decide the propriety of his judgment and of course this is going to take some time. i would imagine. given the fact that he's only issued a preliminary injunction and the trial on the merits still remains and this could go back and for the to the united states supreme court a couple of times before it's over with. but to me beyond the unconstitutional act by the administration in issuing this executive action, i agree with judge hannon's characterization, that won't surprise you. i think perhaps the larger tragedy is that the president has poisoned the well in congress and destroyed any trust whatsoever between the executive branch and the congress when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system. and i know our friends senator schumer, senator durbin said they haven't answered. if the house will swallow whole hog the gang of eight bill, all the problems would go away. well, the constitution gives the house authority to agree or not agree. and one thing i think we should have learned from this whole exercise is a comprehensivism gration system does not work. that's what i learned in the last 10 years working to try to fix our broken immigration system. so we need to do what we can and where we can and i still have not given up hope that we can do that. but i will say the president's executive action poisoned the well and made the congressional branch, the legislative branch so distrustful of the president's actions that it's going to be very, very hard. much harder than if the president had not undertaken this action. so i'd like to ask you do you regret the actions that you and the administration have taken that have gotten us to this point? senator johnson: no, i do not, senator. i believe that the undoimented population in this country, which at least half of which has been here more than 10 years, has to be reckoned with. we know they're here and they are not priorities for removal. i would note in two places judge hannon's opinion refers to the fact that secretary has -- he acknowledges has the authority and the discretion to engage in prosecutorial discretion. prioritize who we should remove and who we should not. there are millions of people in this country who are not priorities for removal. there are dozens of states that allow them to have driver's licenses. there's one state that says an undocumented immigrant has a right to practice law. so in my judgment we have to deal with this population. you refer to the fact that the president supposedly poisoned the well. we took the action we took after waiting literally for years for congress to act so -- korn korn so do you think -- senator cornyn: so do you think the president needs to act because congress does not act? senator johnson: i have an opinion from the office of legal council that we have the legal discretion to do what we did. unfortunately judge hannon disagrees but the case is on appeal now. senator cornyn: and my guess it's going to take literally long past the time that president obama leaves office before this matter is finally resolved by the courts. which means that not only has the president poisoned the well for any meaningful reform of our broken immigration laws during the duration of his presidency but it will also endure beyond his presidency. i'd like to ask you in the short time remaining, you have said on numerous occasions we have good results in trmsterms of the number of people being detained at the border. last year 479,000. don't you think it's a little premature to be declaring victory when it comes to border security? let any ask you as well, i've always found it strange that we count success when the number of people actually detained goes down. because it strikes me that it's an equal inference that you may be doing a better job. the truth is you may not be doing as good of job and fewer people are being detained. yet you believe that that represents a victory and the problems are taken care of. senator johnson: senator, i'm very definitely not declaring victory when it comes to border security. virtually every statement i issued like the one last week, i say here are the numbers but we're not declaring mission accomplished. i refer what more we can do to strengthen border security. and that is reflected in our f.y. 2016 budget submission. senator cornyn: mr. chairman, if i could just close on this. we didn't have the time yet. 57% fert children who were -- came across in the wave of the humanitarian crisis last year were issued orders of removal in absentia which means they did not show up for their court hearings which to me means they basically successfully navigated our broken immigration system and they're going to stay here and that's a problem. we still haven't fixed and we still need to address. thank you. >> senator blumenthal. senator blumenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing. thank you for your service to our nation, mr. secretary. i am very pleased to learn that the department is re-evaluating its family detention policy. as you well know the judge's opinion in my view, at least, requires it. and also many have objected to family detention policies, including myself. so i'd like to work with you in devising and implementing better policies. i think that these policies cannot only provide for more humane and productive treatment of young people when they come here but also continue to have the effect of perhaps providing for fewer people actually crossing the borders. and that's been the result, i think, of some of the conscious decisionmaking and policymaking that policy -- the department has adopted. so i'd like to ask you what specific measures and steps you contemplate in revising the family detention policies? senator johnson: well, the family detention issue is under review in litigation in washington, d.c.. there was an injunction issued there with respect to a class of people who had made credible fear claims and the issue in the case is whether somebody can be held as a deterrent to mass migration. and so we're looking at that case. we have a pending motion for reconsideration in the case, but i'm continually evaluating whether such a policy is necessary in the current climate. there's another case in california right now where the judge has given us 30 days to try to find an appropriate settlement and so i'm working with the lawyers beginning this week on responding to the judge's request. but overall i think it's important for people to know that i'm sensitive to family detention. i've personally visited ar teasia, dilly to satisfy myself that what we're doing is the appropriate course. i believe that our expanded detention capability in the face of last year's situation was the right thing to do and i believe that it had an influence on our overall efforts. and so i think that overall we need to maintain this capability but i want to -- i want to continually evaluate and re-evaluate the policy. because i hear the concerns raised by others and you, sir. senator blumenthal: maintaining a capability is expensive, isn't it? senator johnson: yes. senator blumenthal: and detaining whole families can be a lot less humane and productive than adopting other policies, am i right? senator johnson: detaining whole families is indeed expensive. it is a notable item in our f.y. 2016 budget request, and it can be a challenge. and so i believe that the capability is important to our overall border security efforts, but i want to make sure we have the policy right. senator bluden thall: let me ask you about access to legal -- senator blumenthal: let me ask you about access to legal services. can you enable lawyers to visit those facilities where folks are detained? secretary johnson: yes. senator blumenthal: in terms of providing counsel where private attorneys can't do so has the department provided that kind of resource? secretary johnson: we do not. in immigration cases of this nature provide counsel if one cannot be provided. we do not guarantee counsel. we do promote access to counsel, and we do a number of things to put people in touch with lawyers locally or those who are interested in representing individuals. and i know we have made improvements in those efforts since we began opening our family detention capability last summer. senator blumenthal: i know it may not be the sole responsibility of the department of homeland security, but the processing of visas in central american countries, the screening of those people who want to come here has begun. is there anything that can be done to expedite that effort, because i think it represents a real hope for stopping the flow of unaccompanied minors and others who are sent to this country and have to be sent back? secretary johnson: a piece of advice i received last summer from the u.s. conference of catholic bishops is in-country screening. in other words you can't lock the door and not provide a legal safe pathway at the same time. and so that's what we've done in the three central american countries. i'm disappointed that not more people are utilizing this, and i believe that we need to promote the new program better. i think this is a joint effort by us in this state department and the governments in the central american countries. but i've been disappointed that not more parents in the u.s. are utilizing this program to petition to get their kids here. so -- senator blumenthal: and i would agree very wholeheartedly and i was surprised a hearing that was held here just last thursday literally to learn that only a small number of parents so far are taking advantage of this program. in fact, the rules available to them it would apply to the -- if their children were here and i hope the department will make efforts and the state department obviously has a role to spread awareness about this program. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. i thank you, mr. secretary for your service and for the service of the many men and women who serve in the department of homeland security and the very diverse and difficult task that you have. thank you. >> thank you mr. chair. welcome, secretary johnson. thank you for being here and for your service. i know that senator grassley, chair grassley asked yes, sir about the rangel hernandez case so i'll go back to the record to see some of the specifics. in your answer you did mention there had been some retraining, revising the protocol, reviewing the protocol, revising and retraining so we can avoid future instances of this -- what on the surface looks like negligent decisionmaking. but the question i had for you -- i have two questions. one, i believe that mr. rangel hernandez's deferred status has bedescended a month or so ago. my question is, how many instances have been identified in the audit or review that were similar to mr. hernandez's and what is the current status of that review and the potential that others deferred status will also be rescinded and their disposition after it? secretary johnson: i know there have been a hauntful of others that have been identified in the same category. i do not know the status of whether they have been rescinded or not but we can get that information to you, sir. senator tillis: yeah. i'd like to get that and if possible on a -- to the extent that information is available, geographically what we're talking about if i have any other instances in north carolina i'd like to know about it but i'm sure the other members would be interested as well in each of their states. so i'd like to that and particularly as we go through this process for those that were granted deferred status, if there is a decision either because they've come up in the audit to continue to allow them to have the deferred status or that it's been rescinded, i'd like to get the information on both of those. secretary johnson: thank you. we'll look at that. >> is there any reason why you can't say as i said in my opening statement that there's been 282 rescinded? secretary johnson: thank you for refreshing my recollection. i believe that that is the correct number yes. senator grassley: i believe that's the correct number. secretary johnson: i apologize. senator tillis: does that mean it's an exhaustive list and in the opinion of the department there's no longer any need for further review or are there other cases that are being reviewed that may add to that 280,000 or so rescinded? are there more or have we gone back and see 280 -- or had characteristics similar to mr. hernandez's that warranted a rescinding their deferred status? is that done are we done or are there more to look at? secretary johnson: i believe that the review has been completed. i could be wrong about that but i believe the review has been completed. senator tillis: that would lead to my next question before i get on to the h-2-b these couple of questions i have. i asked the same question of representatives that came to us from the uscis. and i think going back and confirming these 280 are it, i'm looking to -- i'm going to ask the same question to you. ask you say in the future the agency will not make the same errors that were made with hernandez and that there are not any that should be subject to rescinding, that the cue has been drained the mistake that was made that allowed these folks to get deferred action will not be repeated? secretary johnson: i'm confident that we have improved our process so that if somebody with suspected criminal gang membership is identified in the process it's going to be flagged and given a lot of attention as a result of tchace. senator tillis: but affiliated gang membership would not constitute for rescinding their status? secretary johnson: no member in a gang should constitute a disqualifer. senator tillis: the h-2-b program. mr. secretary, i think that the perez vs. perez case caused a little bit of a problem kind of a two-week blip but for some reason may have affected my state, some others particularly in the seafood industry. i guess the question i have for you really relates to just -- want to go on the record. i have some things that are north carolina specific so i don't necessarily want to tie up the committee time with a couple of things. are there potentially unused visas that could potentially solve some of the problem, the negative impact that's occurred in north carolina? and if the department has any ideas on anything else that we may be able to do to relief them, it looks like it's largely just the result of that two-week period where visa applications were not submitted, if you're prepared to speak on it i'd appreciate to be enlightened. secretary johnson: yes, senator. i received a lot of inquiries from congress on h-2-b visas from both sides of the aisle. after the court's injunction, we issued on a temporary basis h-2-b visas. the court and the litigants agreed to a stay of injunction so we can do that. my understanding is that when we did that we quickly icksausted the number but going -- exhausted the number but going forward we just issued a new rule jointly by d.h.s. and the department of labor that i believe addresses this issue and addresses the lawsuit so we can continue going forward to issue h-2-b visas. senator tillis: mr. secretary, that would comply going into next year. it's my understanding we already hit the cap on h-2-b visas for this year. secretary johnson: yes. senator tillis: is there anything else we can do given the unique blip with perez vs. perez? is there anything we can do to provide temporary relief until we move into next year? some have talked about the potential for temporarily increasing the cap or something else that may still for some of these seasonal industry still provide some relief, has there been any discussion or anything you'd be open to? secretary johnson: well, i had eab open to a discussion what we can do temporarily to deal with this issue. i'm interested in having a more comprehensive discussion with congress about lifting a number of caps on green cards and addressing in a more comprehensive way a number of things in which i think our immigration system needs to be fixed through legislation. and this could very well be one of them. i think going forward we have addressed the h-2-b problem in a very aggressive, vigorous way. senator tillis: thank you. i'd like to state for the record we're going to be calling you all again. i'm going to be meeting with some of the seafood processors this week. they'll be coming up from north carolina. i think it's the industry that's primarily been hit by the h-2-b program. and -- in north carolina, anyway. i'd like to speak with y'all about anything we can do to provide temporary relief and hopefully avoid it going in the outyears for the program. thank you. thank you, mr. chair. senator schumer: thank you, mr. secretary. mr. secretary, i was shocked aand appalled by the gug smuggling ring that operated out of atlanta georgia in which criminals abused loopholes to bring loaded weapons right on to airplanes. i know you shared my outrage when it was revealed by our d.a. in brooklyn. and you quickly acted in ordering a top to bottom review. can you provide an update in the security of our airports regarding t.s.a. activities, what canges can we expect how long can it take? question one. i have a bunch of questions. i'm trying to move through these quick lease. and how can they be held accountable for the security at the nation's airports? secretary johnson: good question. senator, you said you appreciated my candor at these hearings. so i have made a public fact of the record number of firearms seized by t.s.a. last year so -- at screening points in carry-on luggage. you can imagine my reaction when i found out that someone's bringing loaded weapons in the overhead compartments of commercial airplanes. so i was to use your words shocked and appalled, upset and i directed our t.s.a. to work with the airline industry and to work with airport security authorities to tighten up our system. our advisory committee came back with some recommendations. i have endorsed them. they include random continuous, unpredictable screening of airline and airport security at the airport at the sterile checkpoints. if an airline or airport employee is going to fly, they have to go through the t.s.a. checkpoint. continuous back criminal history background checks and reducing the number of access points. there were a number of recommendations made that i have embraced. those are in my judgment the big four. i believe that our number know for t.s.a. administrator is an excellent choice and i believe that he will be very focused on aviation airport security. i believe his name will be announced sometime this afternoon. senator schumer: don't let us in on the secret. ok. just one question with regard to that quick answer. wouldn't it make sense that wherever it's feasible in some airports, it may not be, that whenever possible these employees go through a screening the way the pilots do and the flight attendants do? secretary johnson: you know, i asked myself that question and i think that a one-size-fits-all approach to every airport in this country is not -- senator schumer: i said wherever feasible. secretary johnson: i think that appropriate balanced way to go is random, unpredictable, continuous screening of employees when they show up. the way it works in atlanta is there's a guard house at the parking lot and you show an i.d. and then you drive on through. and i think that some form of continuous random screening of those people are the appropriate way to go. senator schumer: i have two questions on the northern border. one is the peace bridge, an issue we talked about regularly. my urging customs and border protection instituted pilot projects. your predecessor was very active in making that happen. as were you. we were thrilled to hear the results last year. the pilot project passed the tist with flying colors. the inspection on the canadian side will reduce wait by as much as 70%. will you commit to recommending this report to establish permanent inspection at the peace bridge? that's one question. on the northern end of our border by plattsburgh, today i'm asking customs and border patrol to start a fredge-speaking officers at the quebec border. they process millions of french speaking borders. we love having them here. because we're hampered in french speaking it slows the border down and we get fewer visitors. will you carefully consider my request for a french language program for northern border agents similar to the spanish program we have on the southern border that jiff flake is familiar with. -- jeff flake is familiar with. secretary johnson: i'm not aware of the plattsburgh situation and i'll look into that, senator. i'm sure we'll have a follow-up discussion on it. i fully support commissioner -- the commissioner's efforts tory store and maintain preinspection on the canadian side of the peace bridge. as you know, infrastructure, building the right infrastructure for this is probably the biggest issue and i understand we have a resolution with that issue. senator schumer: they're willing to put in the $44 million to do it. secretary johnson: money talks, yes. and i also believe that privileges and immunities, as you and i have discussed, is crucial. that is something that is important for the agreement to be signed for preclearance with the can -- canadians -- senator schumer: the canadians soob doing all right given preclearance. secretary johnson: what you discussed and agreed to i fully support, sir. senator schumer: well, mar see bow could you. -- well, marci bocoup. i'll add that to the record if there's no objection, mr. chairman. senator grassley: senators flake, whitehouse and purdue. senator flake: thank you. tough act to follow. i made my concerns regarding operations streamlined known to the department and to the department of justice. as you're aware operation streamline has been a very successful zero tolerance policy we've had in the southern border, particularly the yuma sector, and most in that sector attribute the success at bringing that portion of the border under control through operation streamline. yet, the u.s. attorney's office for arizona has ordered kind of a pullback on that policy. i just toured the border, toured yuma and all along the border couple of weeks ago and there's a lot of concern there that as word filters back that we don't have a zero tolerance policy anymore that we'll start to see movement again and there's a lot of concern in those communities along the border that we're going to see an uptick. it won't take much, as you know, word travels fast as we learned in spades with the unaccompanied minor issue that we had. what can you tell me -- let me ask you -- do you believe the program like operation streamline is an effective deterrent to border crossing? secretary johnson: i certainly believe that law enforcement in general is an effective deterrent to illegal border crossings. i heard the same thing in arizona about operation streamline. as you know, senator, i visited with a number of your constituents on the border. in my judgment, what matters when it comes to illegal migration on the southern border is that we crack down on the smugglers and with the department of justice we ratcheted up our efforts when it comes to prosecuting the coyotes last summer because of the misinformation that they were putting out and with the department of justice we made considerable headway in the prosecution of the smuggling organizations. i believe that has contributed to our overall efforts on the southern border. i do note that the numbers overall of apprehensions are down considerably on the southern border, including in each of the arizona sectors. so that continues to be a good thing but i also believe we need to continue our efforts. i think that law enforcement in general is an important part of that. whether that should include prrget the illegal migrants i think -- prosecuting the illegal my grants i think should be made on a case-by-case basis. you can't prosecute every single illegal migrant for a felony prosecution. i think that those judgments have to be made carefully and they ought to be made wisely because it's the use of d.o.j. resources. senator flake: well, when you talk about going after the smugglers the effectiveness in that program i would submit and those who are on the border would submit is that it goes after the smugglers because if smugglers lose those who are in their charge for a week of detention that's a big deal. and it makes them rethink, it makes them direct their focus elsewhere. that's been the history and that's why there's such concern that as word filters down these prosecutions aren't going to happen, then we're going to lose control again. we can't afford to do that. are you aware of specifics of the operation streamline changes? is that what it is just case-by-case basis, no overriding policy of zero tolerance? secretary johnson: i do know from people in arizona they think very highly of operation streamline and they believe that it contributed to overall border security in arizona. that's what they have told me. i have to assume that u.s. attorney in arizona is continuing to prosecute in certain cases cases of illegal entry or illegal re-entry but i don't know firsthand what the u.s. attorney's current policy is there. senator flake: well,ry would just note that operation streamline was included in the 2012-2016 border patrol strategic plan so it's part of your department's plan and i would hope we're working closely with the department of justice to make sure that their actions are in line with that plan because like i said in certain sectors it's had great effect and we don't want to lose that. let me turn quickly to an issue senator grassley raised. the so-called quick trip murder detention of mr. alamorano. this is a man charged with murder. we've not yet received a response on this. as you know, he was charged -- story, he was released. i.c.e. failed to remove him. they said he was ineligible for bond at $10,000 which he posed. while out on -- posted. while out on bond he had two injunctions against him. one woman feared for her life because he pointed a gun at her boyfriend. three days after the second release of injunction, he was alleged to have committed this murder. was i.c.e. aware of these civil injunctions against this man? secretary johnson: i don't know whether officials at i.c.e. were aware of the civil injunctions, but as i said earlier, senator, that case is definitely a tragedy and that individual should not have received daca. he should not have been in the daca program. as a result of this case, we've retrained the force. we've done the retroactive review. i don't know the answer -- senator flake: he wasn't in daca. he was swayed for removal and then posted bond. so -- secretary johnson: sorry. i'm sorey senator. i thought you were referring to another individual. i don't know the answer to your specific question. senator flake: is there a policy where you work with local law enforcement to find out if there are any civil injunctions against individuals like this that are -- that post bond? that are out? secretary johnson: well, i do know that those in removal proceedings, when they're being evaluated for release, there ought to be a background check conducted. there ought to be and there should be and i believe there is evaluation of risk of danger to the community. just like in the criminal justice system. senator flake: if there is a procedure like that it failed miserabley this time. and i would just ask if i.c.e. had been aware that there are two injunctions against an individual like this would he have -- would i.c.e. taken action against him to remove him? secretary johnson: i don't know the answer to your specific question but we'll get you that. senator flake: i want to know if there is a policy where there's some communication between local law enforcement and i.c.e. with regard to civil injunctions, against individuals like this. can you make me aware of that and if not advise some kind of remedy for that? secretary johnson: yes. snorling flake -- senator flake: thank you. i see my time has expired. ports of entry staffing. that's when we've committed to, you know 2,000 new agents on the border customs and patrol -- sorry customs and border protection in the blue uniforms officers, we have to make sure they're hiring and i hear it's going more slowly than we thought it should. is there any plan to speed that up to make sure we have are the staffing we have better infrastructure now, we have to make sure that staffing levels are there? secretary johnson: the answer to your question is yes, we plan to speed it up. senator grassley: senator whitehouse. senator whitehouse: thank you for your work on immigration enforcement and express my regret we could not pass the bipartisan immigration reform bill through congress entirely that would have i think made your job a lot clearer and simpler and significant responsibility for the immigration mess that we're in now lies with congress, not with you and with congress for failing to pass the senate's bipartisan bill, which i was a strong supporter of. i would like to talk to you about cybersecurity. the majority leader has announced that he's going to try to have cyberweek here on the senate floor at some point. there's a lot of activity in the house. we have bipartisan bills that are pending on information sharing between federal agencies and the big communications providers. on agency public reporting of the cyberthreat to increase public awareness, of coordinating national notification when companies have data breaches. and only updating some of the criminal penalties. when we first were working on comprehensive cybersecurity legislation, another main piece of this effort was on the critical infrastructure piece. now what i hear quite widely is that the d.h.s.-led framework process that has pulled together a great number of critical infrastructure industry sectors is going very well and that as a result of that there is no immediate pressure for legislation in that area. now, there may not be an immediate need for legislation in that area, but of all the different areas that i mentioned where there will be legislation, protecting our privately owned critical infrastructure is probably the most signal security element. so i'm interested in getting your assessment of how that framework process is going and when you think it might be appropriate for congress to begin looking at legislating in that area. i have expect that the executive process will yield recommendations as to what should be done next and i don't know what time frame you feel you are on towards that goal. secretary johnson: senator, as you know, the framework process was in lieu of any effort to legislate. i share your assessment, what you're hearing that the framework process has been going well, it's been well -received in the private sector and it seems to be working pretty well. i also want to applaud those in congress who were active in cybersecurity legislation. i'm largely very supportive of the bill that passed the house last week sponsored by chairman mccaul and others. i think that frankly some legislation is better than no legislation and i think that information sharing between the private sector and the government is crucial. any efforts is crucial. i also believe that foorm of immunity for those that share cyberthreat indicators with the department is crucial and i believe that a national data breach notification requirement is also very important. and i'm pleased that we are active legislatively in those areas. in terms of -- in terms of your precise question, i haven't thought about it the way you asked it. i think it's a thoughtful question worthy of a thoughtful answer. let me consult -- i'd like to consult my mpbd community and get you a thoughtful answer to that. senator whitehouse: i think there is a bipartisan sense that framework process run by d.h.s. has been effective, has achieved signal security goals and has enjoyed the support and cooperation of the private sector. so all of that is the good news part. the question is, is it enough, and is there a time when really implementing on it will require action from congress and how far out do you see that coming? because obviously when it's as important as the protection of critical infrastructure, we want to be able to act pretty rapidly and so being prepared, if it's going to be next year -- there's a lot of conversation that has to take place on this issue. again, very strong bipartisan support but it's not an easy one. and so a preview of coming attractions would be very good. my second question is in the same area, and i'd like to ask you and maybe even urge you to consider what the structure in the executive branch for addressing our cybersecurity concerns looks like. there's an awful lot of division and sequestration in the old sense, not the budget sense, of effort within the department of justice. it's divided into two separate sections, criminal and national security. on the investigative side, it's divided between f.b.i. and secret service with other agencies having even smaller pieces. if you look at the data, you have the nccic, which is a very well-regarded facility. f.b.i. has the ncjitf. the administration announced the cyberthreat intelligence integration center. and from the -- from our side of the legislative executive divide, this looks a lot like multiplicity and confusion. and when you consider the scope of the cyberthreat, the fact we have an agency like d.e.a. that's dedicated exclusively to narcotics trafficking and we have an agency like a.t.f. that's dedicated exclusive to alcohol, tobacco, firearms and bombs, and no specific dedication of a single agency to this rapidly emerging and very persistent and dangerous cyberthreat, i just think we have more work to do to set up the administrative structure that's going to allow us to be most effective doing this. i urge you to consider that and work with o.m.b. and d.o.j. to try to -- >> u.s. house is about to come into session so we're leaving this at this point. it continues live on c-span.org. and now live to the house floor. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] cappingscappings --s [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] mark walker to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed john a. boehner much -- john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour, and each member other than the majority and m

Related Keywords

Montana , United States , Alabama , Brooklyn , Georgia , Vermont , Minnesota , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Riverside , Syria , Russia , Quebec , Canada , Washington , Mexico , Arizona , Guatemala City , Guatemala , Spain , Chicago , Illinois , New York , North Carolina , Texas , Atlanta , Florida , Boston , Massachusetts , Columbus , Ohio , Lebanon , Minneapolis , Jordan , Maine , Iraq , Tempe , Kansas , Somalia , France , Americans , America , Canadian , Russian , Minnesotans , New Yorker , Canadians , Spanish , French , Somali , American , Rangel Hernandez , Korn , Emanuel Hernandez , Los Angeles , John A Boehner , Jeff Flake , Andy Luger ,