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 administrations tenure just how many criminal aliens had been released, how many murderers, how many rapists, how many people convicted of violent assault had been released into the population . Secretary 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. But i do think we could do a better job which is why i elevated the approval for that. 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 didnt 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 im , interested in promoting Public Safety and thats why i directed these changes, sir. Senator cruz thank you, mr. Secretary. Ill follow up with the written request for the information i requested. Senator franken i think its important to acknowledge the events taking place in baltimore right now. My heart goes out to freddie grey and the city of baltimore. I understand the events surrounding the death of mr. Gray 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 and the community. As we await for the result of that investigation and as we secure justice for mr. Gray and his family, join mr. Grays 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 agrees 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 Orientation and gender identity. 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 who are singled out for additional screening and questioning at the same minneapolisst. 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. Id 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. Secretary 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 or earlier this year. We found that given our different missions, that policy, which was intended for Law Enforcement, didnt quite fit. As we have as you pointed out, aviation security, Border Security. Senator franken i understand. Secretary Johnson Administration of our immigration laws. There is the general rule we should not engage in racial profiling. That was the case before, thats 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 have 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 versus minneapolis their own airport, and weve 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 its something thats 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 id 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 longterm 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 . Secretary 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 know that the very purpose of family unit space is to keep Families Together so that youre 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. Im hearing a fair amount about issues with family detention. And so im currently evaluating whether the current policy is the best one. Im 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 were getting it right. Because i hear the issues being raised by a number of people. Senator franken thank you. Ill ask further questions for the record. Ill submit them, rather. Senator cornyn good morning secretary johnson. The chairman said you have a very difficult job, and i think thats 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. Thats what this hearing is about. But its 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 didnt 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 id like to just refresh your memory and ours, what the court said when it issued the preliminary injunction. So this court finds that dapa, thats the name given to the program, the executive action the court finds that dapa does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement. It is an announced program 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. Hes 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 countrys 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 hes only issued a preliminary injunction and the trial on the merits still remains and this could go back and forth to the United StatesSupreme Court a couple of times before its over with. But to me beyond the unconstitutional act by the administration in issuing this executive action, i agree with judge hannons characterization that wont 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 who are on the gang of eight, senator schumer, senator durbin said they havent 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 comprehensive immigration system does not work. Thats 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 its going to be very, very hard. Much harder than if the president had not undertaken this action. So id like to ask you, do you regret the actions that you and the administration have taken that have gotten us to this point . Secretary johnson no, i do not, senator. I believe that the undocumented population in this country which at least half of which has been here more than 10 years has to be reckoned with. We know theyre here and they are not priorities for removal. I would note in two places judge hannons 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 drivers licenses. Theres 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 senator cornyn so do you think it is an excuse for the president to act unconstitutionally because congress does not act . Secretary 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 is its 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. Id like to ask you in the short time remaining, you have said on numerous occasions we have good results in terms of the number of people being detained at the border. Last year 479,000. Dont you think it is a little premature to be declaring victory when it comes to Border Security . Let me asked you as well, let me ask you as well ive always found it strange that we count success when the number of people actually detained goes down. Because it strikes me that its 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. Secretary johnson senator, im 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 were 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 didnt have the time yet. 57 of the 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 theyre going to stay here , and thats a problem. We still havent fixed and we still need to address. Thank you. 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 reevaluating its family detention policy. As you well know, the judges opinion in my view, at least requires it. And also many have objected to family detention policies, including myself. So id 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 thats been the result, i think, of some of the conscious decisionmaking and policymaking that policy the department has adopted. So id like to ask you what specific measures and steps you contemplate in revising the family detention policies . Secretary 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 were looking at that case. We have a pending motion for reconsideration in the case, but im continually evaluating whether such a policy is necessary in the current climate. Theres another case in california right now where the judge has given us 30 days to try to find an appropriate settlement and so im working with the lawyers beginning this week on responding to the judges request. But overall i think its important for people to know that im sensitive to family detention. Ive personally visited artesia, dilly to satisfy myself that what were doing is the appropriate course. I believe that our expanded detention capability in the face of last years 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 reevaluate the policy. Because i hear the concerns raised by you and others, sir. Senator blumenthal maintaining a capability is expensive, isnt it . Secretary johnson yes. Senator blumenthal and detaini