[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 14, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-482 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia SCOTT PETERS, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
MIMI WALTERS, California
KEN BUCK, Colorado
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVE TROTT, Michigan
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JULY 14, 2015
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 1
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 3
WITNESS
The Honorable Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security
Oral Testimony................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 6
Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 41
Material submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary............................. 81
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, and
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary..................... 94
Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a
Representative in Congress from the State of New York, and
Member, Committee on the Judiciary............................. 98
Prepared Statement of Church World Services (CWS)................ 103
Response to Questions for the Record from the Honorable Jeh
Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security................ 104
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:20 a.m., in room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob
Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Smith, Chabot, Forbes,
King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador,
Farenthold, Holding, DeSantis, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Bishop,
Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Chu,
Deutch, Gutierrez, Jeffries and Peters.
Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff &
General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief
Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian and General Counsel;
George Fishman, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and
Border Security; Andrea Loving, Counsel, Subcommittee on
Immigration and Border Security; Kelsey Williams, Clerk;
(Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel;
Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian and Chief Legislative Counsel;
Aaron Hiller, Chief Oversight Counsel; Tom Jawetz, Chief
Counsel, Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security;
Maunica Sthanki, Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Professional
Staff Member.
Mr. Goodlatte. Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will
come to order, and without objection, the Chair is authorized
to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on Oversight
of the United States Department of Homeland Security. In a
moment, I will begin by recognizing myself for an opening
statement, and then I will recognize Mr. Conyers, when he
arrives. I do want to advise everyone, as the Secretary is
already aware, many Members on the Democratic side are meeting
with former Secretary Clinton, and when they arrive, we will
recognize Mr. Conyers for his opening statement, but we are
going to proceed, because we appreciate the Secretary's time as
well.
Good morning to everyone, and I want to extend our welcome
to Secretary Johnson for testifying before us today for the
second time. When Secretary Johnson testified last year, I
stated that he was not responsible for the dangerous and
irresponsible decisions made by DHS before he was sworn in. I
stated that we could only hope that he would bring back a level
of adult responsibility to the enforcement of our immigration
laws.
Unfortunately, since that hearing, and under Secretary
Johnson's leadership, the deterioration of immigration
enforcement has accelerated. DHS, under the Obama
administration, has taken unprecedented steps in order to shut
down the enforcement of the immigration laws for millions of
unlawful and criminal aliens not considered high enough
priorities. This is done under the guise of prosecutorial
discretion.
Unfortunately, new priorities issued by Secretary Johnson
last November have turned the flight from enforcement into a
headlong rush. Although DHS previously deemed fugitive aliens
to be a priority for removal, Secretary Johnson's guidelines,
these aliens are no longer a priority if they were issued a
removal order before January 1, 2014.
This means that DHS is disregarding removal orders that
have already been issued and wasting the millions of taxpayer
dollars spent to obtain the orders.
Although DHS claims that gang members are a top priority
for removal, gang members are most often convicted under State,
not Federal law, and State convictions for gang-related
activity are ignored under Secretary Johnson's priorities.
Secretary Johnson considers that secondary as priorities
for removal of aliens convicted of significant misdemeanors,
such as domestic violence, sexual abuse, or exploitation,
burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm, drug trafficking,
or drunk driving. Yet, even this priority falls away if the
aliens simply show factors warranting relief.
Despite DHS' pledge to prioritize the removal of serious
criminal aliens, in the last year, the number of administrative
arrests of criminal aliens has fallen by a third, and the
Department continues to release thousands of such aliens onto
our streets.
U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement has admitted to
releasing 30,558 aliens with criminal convictions in 2014. Last
Friday, we received data from DHS regarding the recidivist
activity of these criminal aliens ICE released in 2014. 1,423
have already been convicted of new crimes like vehicular
homicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, DUI, burglary, and
assault, among many others.
Because of the failure of this and previous Administrations
to detain criminal aliens and the failure to vigorously pursue
fugitives, there are almost 180,000 convicted criminal aliens
currently in removal proceedings who are living in our
neighborhoods, and almost 170,000 convicted criminal aliens who
have been ordered removed yet are also living free.
Under the Obama administration, the total number of such
convicted criminal aliens who are not being detained has jumped
28 percent since 2012, as shown by this chart. The tragic
impact of the Department of Homeland Security's reckless
policies on the safety of Americans was made all too apparent
in recent weeks. A convicted criminal alien, who had been
deported numerous times, killed an innocent American woman on a
popular pier in San Francisco.
ICE had recently issued a detainer for the alien, which San
Francisco, a sanctuary city, simply ignored and proceeded to
release him. Unfortunately, DHS openly advertises that
jurisdictions can ignore its detainers.
While testifying this March, ICE Director Saldana expressed
her enthusiastic support for mandatory detainers. Then, the
very next day, she retracted that statement made under oath and
called mandatory detainers highly counterproductive.
There are now more than 200 jurisdictions, including San
Francisco, which refuse to honor ICE detainers. This
effectively releases criminal aliens onto the streets with all
too tragic results.
Secretary Johnson's solution, the Priorities Enforcement
Program, is a failure. Politely asking for cooperation from
sanctuary cities is a fool's errand. The clear answer to this
problem is for DHS to mandate compliance with detainers and for
this Administration to defend the mandatory nature of detainers
in Federal court.
Unfortunately, the Administration has taken neither of
these crucial steps to keep our communities safe. Prior to
Secretary Johnson's appointment, DHS, under the Obama
administration, went beyond simple nonenforcement and took the
leap of granting administrative amnesty to a class of hundreds
of thousands of unlawful aliens. Then, last November, Secretary
Johnson announced that DHS would grant such deferred action to
over 4 million more unlawful aliens. By granting these classes
of people deferred action, he would bestow benefits such as
legal presence, work authorization, and access to the Social
Security trust fund, and the earned income tax credit.
It is within the constitutional authority of Congress, not
the Administration, to grant such benefits to classes of
unlawful aliens. Twenty-six States believe that Secretary
Johnson's planned grant of deferred action en masse would cause
them irreparable harm. They challenged the plan in Federal
court. The judge agreed with the States and has granted a
temporary injunction.
The court stated that the Administration is not just
rewriting the laws. It is creating them from scratch. An
appeals court has rejected the Administration's request of a
stay of that injunction. While the continuing injunction
against unconstitutional affirmative grant of deferred action
is a welcome development for the health of our Constitution,
the court was clear that it was not interfering in any way with
Secretary Johnson's nonenforcement of our immigration laws.
The American people have rightly lost all confidence in
this Administration's willingness to enforce our current
immigration laws. This has become the single biggest impediment
to Congress' ability to fix our broken immigration system. I
look forward to testimony of Secretary Johnson.
And now it is my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member
of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for
his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, and our distinguished witness, Secretary Jeh
Johnson. When you last testified before this Committee, I said
that given his distinguished record of public service, I could
think of no person better equipped to lead the Department of
Homeland Security, and to carry out the President's directive
that we carry out our immigration policies in the most humane
way possible.
Much has happened in the past year, and I am pleased to say
that I stand by my initial assessment, which is not to say, Mr.
Secretary, that there is not still a great amount of work to
do.
In your written testimony, you speak in great detail about
your efforts to counter the global terrorist threat, which has
become decentralized, more diffuse, and more complex. I agree
that ISIL and al-Qaeda have moved to a new phase of the
conflict, recruiting, at risk, individuals hoping to inspire
attacks in the West. The Department rightly combats this threat
with a combination of heightened security measures and
community outreach.
But I wonder if the Department has also taken note of a
recent study by New America which demonstrates that since
September 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been
killed by White supremacists, antigovernment fanatics, and
other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims?
Another study released last month by the Police Executive
Research Forum shows that State and local law enforcement
agencies feel far more threatened by right wing and
antigovernment terrorism as they are about ISIL-inspired
attacks. And I hope that you will provide us with some
assurance today that our priorities are in order and that the
Department focuses on homegrown extremism with the same
forcefulness it has shown in countering threats from abroad.
The immigration actions you initiated last November through
a series of memoranda should make our immigration enforcement
system smarter, more efficient, and ultimately more humane.
Carrying out these reforms clearly has not been easy, but
meaningful reforms rarely are. Your job has been made harder by
the refusal of conservative leadership in the House to allow a
vote on the immigration reform bill that passed the United
States Senate 2 years ago with 68 votes.
It has been made harder by their refusal to consider the
bipartisan House bill, H.R. 15, which had 201 cosponsors in the
last Congress, and is made harder by the barrage of litigation
that you had to fight off as you have attempted to implement
common sense and entirely lawful immigration reform.
At the end of the day, it only makes sense that people who
commit serious crimes and pose a danger to the public should be
our highest priorities. Those with strong ties to this country,
the spouses of citizens and permanent residents, the parents of
citizens and dreamers, and those who have worked productively
in the United States for many years should not be. Who could
disagree with that?
We are already seeing a positive impact from the reforms
that have been implemented, and I thank you for your tenacity.
Certainly, we may disagree about the implementation of some of
the enforcement reforms, and that is something that we will
monitor, but I believe we are heading in the right direction.
One area that is particularly in need of urgent reforms
involves the detention of mothers and children in secure jail-
like facilities. You recently acknowledged that substantial
changes must be made to the current policy of detaining
thousands of these families, some for many months, and some for
longer than a year. We are monitoring these changes because we
know from experts that family detention is causing real lasting
damage to these children.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure
that all aspects of the Department of Homeland Security operate
in a way that reflects our American values and continue to
honor the contribution of immigrants to our great Nation.
One final note. The Chairman spoke about the tragic death
of Katie Steinle, an innocent young woman who was walking with
her father on a San Francisco pier. Our hearts go out to her
family. But as we think about the proper way to respond to the
situation, we must make sure we do not adapt policies that
would diminish public safety and undermine our commitment to
the Constitution and civil liberties.
And so I ask, Mr. Chair, unanimous consent to enter into
the record yesterday's New York Times editorial entitled,
``Lost in the Immigration Frenzy.'' I thank you and I look
forward to hearing the testimony of our witness, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and without
objection, the editorial will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. Without objection, all other Members'
opening statements will be made a part of the record as well,
and we will, again, welcome our distinguished witness. And
Secretary Johnson, if you would please rise, I'll begin by
swearing you in.
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Secretary Johnson. I do.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect
that the witness responded in the affirmative, and we'll
proceed to the introduction.
Jeh Charles Johnson was sworn in on December 23, 2013, as
the fourth Secretary of Homeland Security. Prior to joining
DHS, Secretary Johnson served as general counsel for the
Department of Defense, where he was part of the senior
management team and led more than 10,000 military and civilian
lawyers across the Department.
Secretary Johnson was general counsel of the Department of
Air Force from 1998 to 2001, and he served as Assistant U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1989 to
1991.
In private law practice, Secretary Johnson was a partner in
the New York City based law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
& Garrison. Secretary Johnson graduated from Morehouse College
in 1979 and received his law degree from Columbia Law School in
1982.
Mr. Secretary, your entire written statement will be
entered into the record, and we ask that you summarize your
testimony in 5 minutes or less, and we welcome you again.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, SECRETARY OF
HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Chairman. I can do that. You
have my prepared testimony, as you noted. Chairman Goodlatte,
Congressman Conyers, Members of this Committee, it's a pleasure
to see you again.
Chairman, last time I was here, I noted, or you noted that
38 years ago, I was an intern for Congressman Hamilton Fish,
who was a Member of this Committee. I recall, after talking to
some of the congressional interns who were here, 38 years ago
very vividly, Congressman Fish sent me to a hearing of the
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution over on the
Senate side 38 years ago this month. I remember it like it was
yesterday. The witness was talking about the abolition of the
electoral college, and in the middle of his testimony, he had a
massive heart attack and dropped dead. I hope not to make such
news today.
Mr. Goodlatte. We hope and pray not either.
Secretary Johnson. In all seriousness, as you know,
Chairman, the Department has many missions. We have 22
components, 225,000 people. We are focused on a number of
things. My top priority for 2015 has been management reform,
ensuring that our Department functions most effectively and
efficiently for the American people.
I am pleased that we have filled almost all the vacancies
that existed in my Department when I came in 18 months ago,
most recently with the Senate confirmation of our now TSA
administrator, Vice Admiral Pete Neffenger. We are doing a
number of other things to reform and make more efficient how we
conduct our business. We are focused on aviation security; of
course, we are focused on counterterrorism, which, in my view,
remains the cornerstone of our Department's mission.
We're focused on cybersecurity. I refer the Members to an
op-ed that I submitted, which appears today in Politico on
Federal cybersecurity and how I think we need to improve our
mission there and the things we are doing in DHS to improve our
Federal civilian.gov network
On immigration. Respectfully, it is a fiction to say we are
not enforcing the law. Apprehensions are down. They are down
considerably from where they were a year ago, but there are
still apprehensions daily, in particular, on the southern
border. I am pleased that the spike we saw last summer on the
southern border has not returned, and apprehensions, which are
an indicator of total attempts to cross the border, are down
considerably. If the current pace continues, apprehensions will
be at the lowest since some time in the 1970's.
In terms of enforcement and removal. Without a doubt, the
new policy that I announced and am directing prioritizes
threats to public safety and border security. Without a doubt,
we are moving increasingly in the direction of deporting
criminals, absolutely, and I stand by that because I believe it
is good for public safety.
I am pleased that of those in immigration detention now, 96
percent are in my top two priorities for removal. Seventy-six
percent are in my top priority for removal, that is, those
apprehended at the border, convicted felons. That is the
direction we are moving in with the resources we have. I
believe we need to continue to focus our resources on
criminals, on threats to public safety, on border security.
Part of that is fixing our relationship with State and
local law enforcement. The Secure Communities Program had
become legally and politically controversial to the point where
something like 300 jurisdictions had enacted or imposed
limitations on their law enforcement's ability to cooperate
with our immigration enforcement personnel. That needed to be
fixed because it was inhibiting our ability to get at the
criminals.
And so what the President and I did was to replace the
Secure Communities Program with the new Priority Enforcement
Program, which I believe resolves the legal and political
controversy, and we are actively reaching out to State and
local law enforcement and jurisdictions to introduce the
program and encourage them to work with us. Of the 49 biggest,
I am pleased to report that some 33 have indicated an agreement
and a willingness to work with us. Only five of those 49 have
said no, so far, but we are going to go back to them. This is a
work in progress.
The County of Los Angeles is a big one that has agreed to
work with us in the new program, to more effectively get at
threats to public safety. That is the direction, I believe, we
should go in for the sake of public safety, homeland security,
and border security. As the Chairman referenced, our deferred
action program for adults is pending right now in litigation.
The district court issued an injunction. That matter is on
appeal right now. Oral argument on the appeal was last Friday.
We await the decision.
And Chairman, Congressmen, I look forward to your
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I'll recognize
myself.
You claim to prioritize immigration enforcement against
criminal aliens, and the number of available immigration
detention beds you utilize continues to fall. Thirty-four
thousand are authorized. Only 24,000 to 26,000 are being
utilized.
So can you explain to me the continued increase in the
number of convicted criminal aliens in removal proceedings who
have already been ordered removed who are not being detained by
DHS? The number of these convicted criminal aliens allowed on
our streets has gone up by 28 percent in less than 3 years. And
again, I'll direct your attention to the chart over there. From
270,000 to almost 350,000, these people are out on the streets,
and many, many of them are committing new crimes.
And I would very much like you to explain how this priority
system is working when you're not fully utilizing it, not
removing 350,000 people who have been ordered removed, and not
even using the capabilities that the Congress is paying for.
Secretary Johnson. Well, last time I looked, the number of
those detained in immigration detention has been going up. Last
time I checked, it was up to around 31,000. That's a day-to-day
report I get, and the last time I checked, it was up to around
31,000. That is less than the full capacity that Congress has
given us of some 34,000, to be sure, but it is moving in the
direction of----
Mr. Goodlatte. Given that there is 350,000 on the street,
should we be providing you with additional capacity, or when
are you going to get to the 34,000?
Secretary Johnson. Well, like I said, it's trending in that
direction. We have, as you know, established greater capability
to detain those who bring their children with them, and I have
issued policies to reform those practices because of the
special considerations that go into dealing with children, but
we have increased the capacity. It is going up, and one of the
reasons I think it's lower than 34,000 is, frankly, the
apprehension rates are lower, and because of the problem we had
with Secure Communities, which was inhibiting our ability to
conduct interior enforcement. Some----
Mr. Goodlatte. Let me ask you about that. Why do you think
that cooperation with ICE and their detainer should be
voluntary?
Secretary Johnson. Well, if I could just finish my
sentence.
Mr. Goodlatte. Sure.
Secretary Johnson. Some 12,000 detainers last year were not
acted upon by State and local jurisdictions. I do not believe
that we should mandate the conduct of State and local law
enforcement through Federal legislation. I believe that the
most effective way to work with jurisdictions, particularly the
larger ones, is through a cooperative effort, and I believe
State and local law enforcement believes that as well, through
a cooperative effort with a program that removes the legal and
political controversy. One of the problems we have----
Mr. Goodlatte. Let me ask you about that. Isn't it true
that some of the worst offending jurisdictions have declined to
even participate in your New Priority Enforcement Program?
Secretary Johnson. I would disagree with that, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. It's my understanding that five Priority A
jurisdictions, the highest priority have said, outright, no.
Secretary Johnson. And as I indicated a moment ago, 33 have
indicated a willingness to participate in one way or another.
Of the 49 top, 11 are still considering it, and we've contacted
literally hundreds. But the 49 I'd mentioned are the 49 top
priorities because they are the largest jurisdictions, and the
overwhelming number have indicated a willingness to work with
us.
Mr. Goodlatte. Of the 276 so-called sanctuary cities where
they have publicly taken a position to not cooperate with ICE,
last year, some 8,000 criminal aliens were released by those
communities onto the streets of their communities and of this
country. And in the short time since those 8,000 were released,
they have already committed nearly 1,900 new crimes. Why
wouldn't it be a priority to do everything possible to mandate,
influence, whatever the case might be, for them to honor ICE
detainers rather than to see this occur?
Now, I have to say, the Department is not operating with
clean hands when they go to these communities and say don't
release 8,000, because the Department released 30,000 last year
under their own procedures. And again, that helped to
contribute to this growing list now of nearly 350,000
individuals who are either under a deportation order or have
deportation proceedings pending who have been released by ICE
or by others and are out on our streets.
Secretary Johnson. Well, if you're asking me should we
reduce or eliminate the criminals who are undocumented who were
released by sanctuary cities----
Mr. Goodlatte. And by the Department.
Secretary Johnson. I agree that we should work to reduce
that number, absolutely. I agree with the spirit of your
question.
Mr. Goodlatte. But the trend is going the wrong way.
Secretary Johnson. I disagree that through Federal
legislation we should mandate how State and local law
enforcement relates to us. I don't think that that's going to
solve the controversy in the courts. And in terms of the
30,000, as you know, Chairman, I have issued----
Mr. Goodlatte. How about incentivizing them?
Secretary Johnson. As you know, Chairman, I have issued new
guidelines to deal with releases of those who have been
convicted of something from immigration detention to tighten up
on it, higher level approval authority, and that we should no
longer release somebody for budgetary or reasons of lack of
space. We will find the space if there is somebody that we
think should be detained and we can detain them consistent with
the law. That has been my directive. I want to see that number
go down, too.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr.
Johnson. We are very pleased to have you here. And I was just
looking over your article in the newspapers today about
cybersecurity, and you say ``Often, sophisticated actors
penetrate the gate because they know they can count on a single
user letting his guard down, but we've increased and will
continue to increase, with Congress' help, to do much more.''
Do you have an additional comment about that? I'm going to
put this in the record.
Secretary Johnson. Yes, Congressman. I have been struck by
the fact that very often, the most sophisticated far-reaching
attacks, whether in the private sector or in the government, by
the most sophisticated actors often starts with a simple act of
spear phishing, someone opened an email that they shouldn't
have, and so a large part of our efforts have to be education
of our workforce about not opening suspicious emails, emails
they don't recognize
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. On immigration enforcement
priorities. Over the past 6\1/2\ years, this Administration has
set many new immigration enforcement records. Over the first 6
years, the number of people removed was so much greater than it
had been under past Administrations, but the President was
famously described as the deporter in chief. The Washington
Post recently reported that your Department is now on pace to
remove fewer people in the current fiscal year than in the past
fiscal years. Can you explain why the removal numbers went down
in this past year?
Secretary Johnson. Well, as I mentioned, Congressman, I'd
like to see us move in the direction of focusing on threats to
public safety, and that's what we're doing. While the overall
number of deportations has been going down, an increasing
percentage of those we detain, and hopefully those we
ultimately remove are convicted criminals, recent border
arrivals illegally, and threats to public safety. That is the
direction that I believe we need to go in.
Mr. Conyers. Good. Let me ask you about the decision to
replace Secure Communities with Priority Enforcement Program. I
understand the Secure Communities, the fingerprints of every
person arrested and booked for a crime by local law enforcement
are checked not only by the FBI, but also against Department of
Homeland Security immigration records. Will that
interoperability still be present under the Priority
Enforcement Program?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Conyers. Excellent. Now the Montgomery County chief of
police recently said his office notifies ICE when serious
criminals are set to be released, and ICE is always able to get
there on the day of release to assume custody. Would you say
ICE will generally take appropriate action when notified about
the release of a serious criminal?
Secretary Johnson. We will generally take appropriate
action to avoid the release of a serious criminal, absolutely,
yes
Mr. Conyers. Very, very good. And finally, can you comment
on this shooting of Kate Steinle in California. In general, how
do you respond to people who say that our southwest border is
not secure? How secure is our southwest border compared to
other times in our history?
Secretary Johnson. Over the last 15 years in the Clinton,
Bush, and Obama administrations, we--and I include in the
statement, we, the Congress as well--have made historic
investments in border security. For example, 15 years ago,
there was only 70 miles of fence on the southwest border. Now
there is 700 miles of fence. We are up to 18,000 and change in
terms of border patrol personnel on the southwest border, and I
believe that is reflected in the numbers.
In the year 2000, apprehensions on the southern border were
1.6 million. In recent years, they are down around 400,000.
This year, I suspect, will be somewhere in the 300,000's, even
lower. That is due, in very large part, to the investments we
have made in border security with this Congress, and I want to
continue that progress through investments in technology,
surveillance equipment, and so forth.
In terms of the San Francisco case, Kate Steinle, and I
hope I pronounced her last name correctly. It's a tragedy.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you. Just finally, I understand that Mr.
Lopez-Sanchez has returned to the country multiple times after
being deported, but in most instances, hasn't he been
apprehended right away? Can you give us a little illumination
on that subject?
Secretary Johnson. My understanding is that he was deported
five times and returned five times and he was prosecuted for
unlawful reentry three times, and served fairly significant
jail sentences.
Mr. Conyers. Uh-huh.
Secretary Johnson. He was in BOP custody serving his last
sentence. We put a detainer on him. Then he was transferred to
the San Francisco sheriff. We put another detainer on him, and
he was released. My hope is that jurisdictions like San
Francisco, San Francisco County will cooperate with our new
program.
I was pleased that Senator Feinstein wrote the mayor and
asked that San Francisco participate. As the sheriff himself
has acknowledged, I personally met with the sheriff in April to
ask for his participation in the PEP program, along with other
San Francisco area sheriffs in the month of April.
And so as I said, I'm making the rounds with a lot of
jurisdictions. My Deputy Secretary and I and other leaders in
DHS have been very, very active for the purpose of promoting
public safety to get jurisdictions to cooperate with us on
this.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy, the Chairman of the
Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
the gentleman from Texas for letting me go in his spot.
Mr. Secretary, I've been on this Committee for almost 5
years now, and I have listened as witnesses primarily called by
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have repeated
with almost catatonic frequency, certain phrases, phrases like
``citizenship for 11 million aspiring Americans,'' as if 11
million of any category could all pass a background check.
Phrases like ``functional control of the border,'' phrases as
benign sounding as ``sanctuary cities,'' and I've listened
pretty carefully, Mr. Secretary, as I've heard argument after
argument after argument made against empowering State and local
law enforcement to actually enforce immigration laws. Have you
had a chance to look at the criminal history of Mr. Lopez-
Sanchez?
Secretary Johnson. I believe I have, yes.
Mr. Gowdy. It dates back to 1991. The criminal conduct
occurred in five separate States. He's committed local, State,
and Federal crimes. He was and is, by any definition, a career
criminal. He violated at least three separate statutes when he
simply picked up the gun before he shot and killed an innocent
woman walking with her father.
So, to me, Mr. Secretary, he is exhibit A that we must not
have functional control over the border or he wouldn't have
reentered so many times. And he is, I'm assuming, not able to
pass anyone's background check. I would hope that somebody with
his criminal history couldn't even pass our friend in the
Senate's comprehensive immigration reform background check.
Now, I want us to look at a legal issue in a second, Mr.
Secretary, but I want to read a quote to you, and I want to ask
you if you know who said it. ``I want people who are living in
the country undocumented to come forward, to get on the books
and subject themselves to a background check so I can know who
they are and whether it's the current DACA program or a path to
citizenship, whether it's deferred action or earned path to
citizenship. From a Homeland Security perspective, I want
people to come forward.'' Do you know who said that?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I don't know if I said it or not,
but that is consistent with my own sentiment, so I could have
said that.
Mr. Gowdy. You did say that. Now, I want you to tell me
what in defendant Lopez-Sanchez's background leads you to
believe that he would, to use your words, come forward?
Secretary Johnson. Well, clearly he is not the type of
person that would ever qualify for any sort of deferred action.
Mr. Gowdy. I know that. Nor is he the type of person that
would come forward, Mr. Secretary. So my point is, my point is
when you have a----
Secretary Johnson. May I finish my sentence, sir?
Mr. Gowdy. Sir?
Secretary Johnson. May I be allowed to speak?
Mr. Gowdy. You are welcome to answer the question that was
asked, yes.
Secretary Johnson. Well, give me a chance, please. He is
not any kind of person who would qualify for any type of
version of deferred action in my book or earned path to
citizenship. He is a criminal, a dangerous criminal multiple
times over.
When we talk about encouraging people to come forward, what
we're talking about are people who we hope will report crime,
who will participate in American society fully. Obviously
somebody like this is not coming forward. That case is a
tragedy.
Mr. Gowdy. No, he is not coming forward, Mr. Secretary.
I'll let you answer the question, Mr. Secretary, but I'm not
going to let you run out the clock.
You're right, he's not coming forward, and he doesn't need
to get on the books because he's already been on the books. In
fact, better that being on the books, Mr. Secretary, he was in
Federal prison. So I want to know why was somebody in Federal
prison with a Federal detainer on him released to a sanctuary
city?
Secretary Johnson. You'd have to ask the Bureau of Prisons.
Mr. Gowdy. Have you asked the Bureau of Prisons?
Secretary Johnson. We've had detainer on him, both when he
was in BOP custody and when he was in the custody of San
Francisco.
Mr. Gowdy. I know you did. My question to you is----
Secretary Johnson. I'm quite sure that there are a lot of
questions being asked right now. In my book, he is exhibit A
for why jurisdictions need to work with our Priority
Enforcement Program. Secure Communities was not working. There
were over 12,000 detainers of mine that were not acted upon----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, then why don't you make them mandatory,
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Because the program was not
working.
Mr. Gowdy. Why don't you make the detainers mandatory? If
cities like San Francisco are not complying with Federal
detainers, why don't you make them mandatory?
Secretary Johnson. I think that would be a huge setback in
our ability to work with State and local law enforcement, and I
suspect they would agree as well.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I do not agree, and I'll tell you why I
don't agree, Mr. Secretary. What I find ironic is you are not
willing to mandate Federal detainers, but you are willing to
mandate that State and local law enforcement cannot assist you
in enforcing immigration laws. I mean, help me understand that.
You can empower a city like San Francisco to ignore Federal
law, but you won't empower State and local law enforcement to
actually enforce immigration laws. Help me reconcile that.
Secretary Johnson. Can I speak?
Mr. Gowdy. Yes, sir. You can have the rest of the time.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you. Thank you for giving me 7
seconds.
Mr. Gowdy. No, you take all the time you want to answer the
question because I think it's important.
Secretary Johnson. I'm sure you're aware of this. The
Secure Communities Program was hugely problematic in the
courts. The courts were saying that State and local law
enforcement does not have the authority under the due process
clause of the Constitution to hold people until we could come
and get them. Last time I looked at the Federal legislation,
you cannot rewrite the due process clause of the Constitution,
so that is a problem.
I do not believe that mandating through Federal
legislation, the conduct of sheriffs and police chiefs is the
way to go. I think it will be hugely controversial. I think it
will have problems with the Constitution. I want to see us work
cooperatively with State and local law enforcement, and I
believe that they are poised to do that.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, my time is up, Mr. Secretary. The last
time I looked, we had a supremacy clause, and Federal law
trumps State laws, so God knows it trumps the law in San
Francisco. And when I hear the phrase ``sanctuary city,'' as
benign sounding as it is, it may have been a sanctuary for that
defendant, but it sure as hell was not a sanctuary for a young
woman walking with her father.
So at a minimum, change the name of whatever benign
sounding program cities like San Francisco want to follow, and
the money ought to be caught, and I would hope that you would
insist that Federal detainers be honored and not be
discretionary, and with that, I would yield back to the
Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, first I want to welcome Secretary
Johnson, and as the former Chairman of the Constitution
Subcommittee, I would like to remind Mr. Gowdy that the
supremacy clause does not trump the Fourth Amendment, and that
the Federal courts have held detainers unconstitutional as
violations of the Fourth Amendment. So when Secretary Johnson
said there were troubles in the courts, there were, indeed,
troubles in the courts, and I want to commend the
Administration for trying to follow a policy that is not
unconstitutional and illegal on its face as the prior policy
was.
Now, Secretary Johnson, I have heard significant concerns
about mistaken, even fraudulent issuance--I realize this is off
the one topic we're supposed to talk about, of O-1B and O-2
visas to aliens coming to the U.S. to work in the motion
picture industry. Movie and TV production jobs provide the
livelihood for a great many New Yorkers, so I take very
seriously allegations that CIS is improperly allowing
unqualified aliens to fill those jobs.
I would like your agency to take a serious look at these
assertions or allegations. Would you commit to working with me
on this issue?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. On an allied topic, we have been
asked, and I've looked at it sympathetically, frankly, to
increase the number of H-1B visas. And, in fact, we voted out
of this Committee an increase of 50,000 H-1B visas, which most
of us on our side of the aisle voted against only because of
the provision to eliminate an equivalent number of diversity
visas, but the assertion that we need more H-1B visas because
we have to bring engineers and others to this country to fill
positions that we can't fill here, we've heard that repeatedly.
And yet we see the recent stories about the Disney Company
and others laying off hundreds of their own American employees
who were then forced to train foreigners who came here on H-1B
visas to replace them. Now, if that is true, that is a very
serious failing of the H-1B program, and it being used to
displace American workers rather than to supply people for
slots that American workers can't fill.
Is the Department looking into that, as to how that program
is being abused, and can it be fixed properly?
Secretary Johnson. Through the H-1B program, those who hold
visas are not supposed to replace Americans with the jobs, as
you know, as you pointed out.
Any such allegations are very troubling to me. I believe
that such matters should be investigated. I also believe that
Congress can help in this regard. I think that Congress can
help through increased enforcement mechanisms for situations
where an employer does, in fact, replace American workers with
H-1B holders. That is a recommendation that has been made to
me, and I support that.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, the United States has
a longstanding commitment to refugee protection. We pride
ourselves in our open and welcoming refugee and asylum laws. I
understand that these laws need to be balanced with legitimate
border security initiatives, obviously, but I'm concerned that
in our quest to expedite the removal of individuals from our
country, we may be deporting those with serious persecution
claims.
Recently, DHS instituted a pilot program expediting the
deportation of Central Americans beyond the normal expedited
removal process. These detainees are apprehended by CBP and
then detained by ICE away from the general population. They are
not given any ``know your rights'' presentations or access to
attorneys, and are deported in a matter of days.
Advocates on the ground are being told that these detainees
are being held at facilities, particularly in the Port Isabel
Detention Centers and other facilities in South Texas. I'm also
concerned that we may have transferred our burden of border
security to the Mexican Government, and that they are summarily
deporting Central American refugees without offering them any
protection under international law.
Under U.S. pressure, Mexico has more than doubled its
detention of deportation of Central American children,
families, and adults over the last year without commensurate
resources into identifying and offering protection to
legitimate refugees. I find these practices troubling, given
that there are several news reports about the horrific violence
in the region, especially against women and girls, An article
stating that Central Americans are being killed upon their
deportation to Mexico and the United States.
I would like to enter some of these into the record, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. If the gentleman will at some point
designate which one, we'll put them in the record.
Mr. Nadler. I will indeed. Law enforcement involves
enforcing those laws that provide protection from persecution,
too, and we have an obligation to make sure that we don't
undermine that at our borders or at our friends' borders.
What is the Administration doing to ensure that Central
Americans' refugees' international protection claims are being
honored by both our government, and, that is to say, that they
have an adequate opportunity make their claims with proper
legal assistance, and by the government of Mexico?
Secretary Johnson. Well, a couple of things there,
Congressman. First, we have prioritized, among our CIS
personnel, interviews of people on the border, particularly
from Central America who may have a reasonable fear claim and a
credible fear claim.
In the most recent guidance I issued, I directed that these
interviews be conducted in a reasonable period of time as
quickly as possible. My hope is that we can get those done, on
average, around 14 days after apprehension, so that's one thing
when it comes to refugees.
The other thing that we have begun, which I'd like to see
more use of is in-country processing in Central America. Advice
we got last summer when we were dealing with the spike there is
we need to offer people a lawful safe path to the United
States. And so we set up in-country processing, the ability to
interview kids in the three Central American countries who have
parents who are lawfully here to see if they would qualify for
refugee status.
Frankly, not enough people have taken advantage of the
program. It's in the low thousands. I would like to see more
use that method versus trying to make the journey through
Mexico, which is very dangerous and crossing our border
illegally. And so we are encouraging people to make use of that
program in Central America, and I want to see us publicize it,
put emphasis on it because it is the lawful safe path to come
to the United States.
Mr. Nadler. My time is expired. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and
recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I preface my questions
with just a comment. And that's, we mentioned the Secure
Communities Program several times this morning, Mr. Secretary,
and I would just note that the Administration never went to
court to defend the Secure Communities Program when the issue
was before the courts. But let me turn to my questions.
First of all, what is the Administration's position on
sanctuary cities?
Secretary Johnson. I'd like to see----
Mr. Chabot. Does it have one?
Secretary Johnson. Well, yes, in the sense that I want to
reduce, if not eliminate, the jurisdictions that don't want to
cooperate with us and----
Mr. Chabot. But as far as the existence of actual cities,
has the Administration actually come out and either condemn
them on the one hand, or condone them on the other hand?
Secretary Johnson. Well, whatever label you put on it,
there are a whole lot of jurisdictions, something like 300
that----
Mr. Chabot. What's the definition of a sanctuary city?
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Do not cooperate with our
immigration enforcement personnel.
Mr. Chabot. What's your operating definition of a sanctuary
city?
Secretary Johnson. There are so many around. I just know
that there are 300--something like 300 jurisdictions that have
enacted ordinances, executive orders, acting pursuant to State
law that will not cooperate with us because of the controversy
around the Secure Communities Program.
Mr. Chabot. So, in essence, these communities are refusing
to cooperate with the Federal Government in the enforcement of
the Federal immigration laws. Would that be a fair
representation?
Secretary Johnson. To one degree or another.
Mr. Chabot. To one degree or another. Okay. Thank you. And
one of the things that's so annoying, so aggravating, so
frustrating to a lot of us, and a lot of people that bring this
whole topic up with me is the fact that this Administration
seems to be anxious to aggressively pursue communities, States,
that are enforcing the immigration laws. Arizona is an example,
and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court on that.
So when a State is enforcing our immigration law or
immigration laws, we go after them. We pursue them. We
basically, in that case, stop them. However, we have
communities all over the country that are refusing to enforce
the immigration laws, and we saw this tragic incident in
California with this totally innocent 32-year old woman who was
brutally murdered by somebody who shouldn't even have been
here.
And the Administration really, in essence, hasn't actively
opposed cities that are flaunting our immigration laws. Can you
understand that frustration that a lot of people have?
Secretary Johnson. Well, all I know is I've been spending a
whole lot of time of my own meeting with mayors, governors,
county execs, sheriffs who have been opposed to cooperating
with us to encourage them to eliminate those barriers. That has
not included Arizona. That's including a lot of very large
jurisdictions that have passed these types of laws to encourage
them, to repeal them, or interpret them in a certain way
consistent with our new program, which is aiming at getting at
the criminals.
Mr. Chabot. Let me switch gears. Has the Administration
reached out to the Steinle family, to your knowledge?
Secretary Johnson. To who?
Mr. Chabot. To the family of the woman who was brutally
murdered by this individual who had committed seven different
felonies in four different States in my understanding, who had
been deported, kept coming back, has the Administration reached
out to that family?
Secretary Johnson. I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to
that question, sir.
Mr. Chabot. If I would just note that the Administration
has reached out in a whole range of homicide cases, criminal
cases around the country, and I'm not being critical of them
having done that. I think certainly there are times when the
Administration should do that, but there are also times--
perhaps they need to do that. I would----
Secretary Johnson. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr. Chabot [continuing]. Strongly recommend that. Could you
check into that and see if they have or haven't?
Secretary Johnson. Speaking for myself, I have developed a
practice of reaching out to every sheriff or commissioner or
chief who has had a law enforcement officer who has died in the
line of duty myself. I write a letter personally.
Mr. Chabot. My understanding is they have not, but I would
ask that the Administration check into that. I'm almost out of
time. Let me ask you: The fence, how long is our border with
Mexico?
Secretary Johnson. Twenty-seven hundred miles, I believe.
Mr. Chabot. And how much of the fence is actually complete
at this point?
Secretary Johnson. Seven hundred, pursuant to congressional
direction, something around 700, yes, sir.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. What did the Administration do back in
2010 which suspended expansion of the virtual portion of the
fence?
Secretary Johnson. Well, my understanding is that the 700
miles, it's 700 and change, was built pursuant to congressional
mandate. I know that there was some litigation around an
environmental issue. I also know that a lot of the southwest
border is very remote, as I'm sure you know. Some of it
includes the Rio Grande. Other parts of the border are very
mountainous, and so the fence we have built has been built in
places where it makes the most sense to have a fence.
Mr. Chabot. And my time is expired, but just let me
conclude by noting that that's one of the other things that I
think is very frustrating to the American public is the fact
that the law says the fence is to be built. I know not all of
it is a fence, as we all understand it. Some of it is virtual.
But the length of time this has taken and the environmental
lawsuits that have been filed and all the rest, the fence needs
to be completed. We need to have a secure border. I yield back
my time.
Secretary Johnson. I believe that it's almost all completed
pursuant to the mandate we have from Congress, sir.
Mr. Chabot. I don't think that's correct, but I'll follow
up on it. Thank you.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Recognizes
the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Secretary, for being here and for the work that you do on
behalf of our country to keep us safe. It is a tough job, but
you have approached your duties with skill and dignity, and we
very much appreciate that.
I want to touch just briefly on the tragedy in San
Francisco, the young lady who was walking with her father,
obviously an outrageous situation. She was shot and killed, and
I think whenever an innocent citizen loses their life, it
should cause us to review what are the policies, what could be
changed that would make our communities safer?
Some have said we ought to do mandatory sentencing, but my
understanding is Mr. Sanchez just had finished 4 years in
prison for the prosecution, so it doesn't appear that that is
necessarily the answer.
One of the questions I wanted to explore was the policy of
transferring from the Bureau of Prisons to a locality on a
warrant. It's my understanding that there was like a 20-year
old warrant, it was a bench warrant for Mr. Sanchez, but the
underlying offense was possession of a small amount of
marijuana.
Now, I don't fault--I don't know. I mean, we've asked the
Bureau of Prisons, you know, what discretion they had, and
clearly, if you had an outstanding warrant against somebody who
committed a crime, you know, 2 weeks ago, you don't want the
Department of Homeland Security to thwart that criminal
prosecution or locality, but if you have a very old warrant
with an offense that, you know, probably wouldn't be
prosecuted, is there some way that we could explore either
clearing those warrants if there is no intent to prosecute?
I mean, in that case, you would have a situation where
probably the arresting officer is retired, there would be no
witnesses, you couldn't really have an effective prosecution.
Further, in the State of California today, possession of a
small amount of marijuana is an infraction. I mean, it doesn't
even give rise to a prosecution. What are your thoughts on that
process?
Secretary Johnson. I agree with the spirit of your
question. I think that in a situation where the Bureau of
Prisons has someone that they are about to release because that
person has completed his sentence and there's an immigration
detainer, and there's a 20-year old warrant on a marijuana
charge, there ought to be some discretion and balancing built
into that so that----
Ms. Lofgren. Or maybe some communication with the locality
to find out whether they intend to prosecute?
Secretary Johnson. Look, I think we need to look at this
question.
It may be that they give priority to a criminal warrant,
which in all cases is not necessarily the best outcome. And so
I want to look at the question of whether or not we and BOP can
work more effectively together to make the appropriate
assessment that it's better that this person go to immigration
detention versus go to a jurisdiction on a 20-year-old warrant.
So----
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I'm glad to hear that, and I would like
to keep apprised of the progress on that, because I think it's
an important element of this situation that has sort of not
been examined.
I want to talk today about the GAO report just released
today. You may not have had a chance to review it. But it
really talks about the manner in which the DHS is screening and
caring for unaccompanied children when it comes to Mexican
children at the border.
And this is an issue that I've raised in the past both
publicly and privately, that Mexican children under the age of
14 are presumed not to be competent to make a decision about
whether to voluntarily return. But what the GAO found is that
we're not really getting the kind of examination that the law
envisioned under the trafficking provisions.
It does trouble me, and I know there are several Members on
both sides of the aisle who are concerned. You have a child who
may be a victim of trafficking, they may have been a victim of
sexual abuse, and yet their interrogation is conducted by a
uniformed officer who may or may not speak their language in
front of other people, other children. You wouldn't have a
police agency in the whole United States that would interview a
child sexual abuse victim in that manner.
So I'm wondering, now that we have the GAO report, whether
we can revisit how we are doing these interviews and whether we
might take a clue from police agencies around the United States
to make sure that potential sex-trafficking victims who are
children are interviewed in an appropriate setting by skilled
nonuniformed people so that we can get the truth of whether
they're in fact a victim or whether they're not.
When you've had a chance to take a look at that report,
could we discuss this further?
Secretary Johnson. I'm aware of the report and its
conclusions. I haven't had a chance to carefully study it, but
it is something that we will look at, yes, ma'am.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. Chair thanks the gentlewoman.
I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it's always good to see you. Thank you for
being here.
Secretary Johnson. Always good to see you too, Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. At the opening of this hearing, the Ranking
Member, for whom I have enormous respect, complimented the
conservative leadership of the House for impacting and even
slowing some of the policies of this Administration. I assumed
he was talking about the policy of releasing terrorists from
Guantanamo Bay or perhaps releasing criminals on our streets.
And while I'm sure the leadership would be flattered, they'd be
the first to say we still have a lot of work to do.
He also mentioned that your job needs to be done humanely.
You know, and we've talked about before, we have a huge gang
problem in the country. It's a growing problem. And, in fact,
if we took gang members in the United States today, they would
equal the sixth-largest army in the world.
So my question to you is this: Is it humane to leave
individuals who are here illegally and who have been active
participants in a criminal street gang, or who intentionally
participated in an organized criminal gang, to remain in the
United States?
Secretary Johnson. Such an individual is among my top
priorities for removal, sir.
Mr. Forbes. Good. If that's the case, and that is indeed
the memo that you mentioned, we had a little difficulty because
3 months ago your Director of ICE, Sarah Saldana, did not have
a clue when she was asked--and you can look at the testimony
and the record--when we asked her how many criminal aliens with
violent gangs has ICE and/or CBP processed and deported since
DHS updated its policies, the policies you reference? How many
has ICE or CBP released? And, third, what type of process is
DHS using to determine who is a member of a criminal gang?
So my first question to you is, can you give us today the
number of criminal aliens with violent gang ties that ICE and/
or CBP has processed and deported since your policy was
updated?
Secretary Johnson. Well, that is a knowable number, which
we can get to you for the record.
Sitting here right now, I don't know the number, but it is
a knowable number.
Mr. Forbes. And here is the problem we have. This is one of
your top priorities. The Director said she didn't have a clue.
And today when we have a hearing to look at this, we don't have
that number. So if you would get it back to us. But I would
assume then that you also don't know how many ICE or CBP has
released.
Secretary Johnson. Again, it's a knowable number, sir. I
just did not come prepared with the number. If I could have
anticipated your question, I would have.
Mr. Forbes. I would have just thought if it was one of your
top priorities, that might have been a metric you would look to
see if it was working. So let me ask you this third one----
Secretary Johnson. It absolutely is one of my top
priorities, sir.
Mr. Forbes. But you just don't know whether it's working or
not?
Secretary Johnson. Like I said, it is a knowable number. I
just don't have it with me.
Mr. Forbes. But you don't know the knowable number.
Secretary Johnson. I do know this. I have mandated as part
of that same directive that we track who we remove----
Mr. Forbes. Can I ask you this, because I don't have but 5
minutes. What type of process are you using to doing that
tracking that you've mandated? How do you know who is a member
of a criminal gang? Do you ask them?
Secretary Johnson. Well, in fact, we have tightened up the
guidance so that we can more effectively identify----
Mr. Forbes. Share with us, if you would, as a Committee how
you've tightened it up. Do you ask the individuals if they are
members of violent criminal gangs?
Secretary Johnson. Well, if you're referring to applicants
for deferred action, the answer is yes.
Mr. Forbes. So your testimony today is that you ask every
member who was an applicant whether they're a member of a
violent criminal gang. Because that would be in conflict with
what the Director said. So that is your testimony today?
Secretary Johnson. My understanding is that when----
Mr. Forbes. Let me just make sure. You're saying it is the
policy, you're sure of that, or you don't know what the policy
is?
Secretary Johnson. I know that being a member of a criminal
street gang is certainly a disqualifier.
Mr. Forbes. I understand that, but if we don't know who
they are, it doesn't help us. Can you state under oath today
that you know that each one of those applicants are asked
whether they're even a member of a violent criminal gang?
Secretary Johnson. I believe the answer is yes, sir.
Mr. Forbes. You believe it is. But you do not know?
Secretary Johnson. Well----
Mr. Forbes. Can you confirm that and get it back to us for
the record?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Forbes. Do you know whether or not they're reviewing
their criminal records, their trial records?
Secretary Johnson. I'm sorry, what's the question?
Mr. Forbes. Do you know whether the applicant's trial
records are reviewed before a decision is made as to whether or
not they will be released?
Secretary Johnson. A trial record?
Mr. Forbes. Yes, sir.
Secretary Johnson. What's a trial record?
Mr. Forbes. A trial order would be when they are going to
court and they are prosecuted for a crime, there would be a
record of that. And the reason it's important is because
oftentimes it doesn't say on their conviction that they were a
member of a violent criminal gang. Unless you're reviewing the
records, you wouldn't have any way of knowing.
I know, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but----
Secretary Johnson. I know what a criminal record is. I
don't know if I've ever heard the term ``trial record.''
Mr. Forbes. Well, let's use your word then, as criminal
record, if you want to, but the problem with the criminal
record is it doesn't always show all the details that were in
the trial. And if you don't know that, you won't know whether
when they plead they were actually a member of a violent
criminal gang or not.
Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back.
Very concerning that you have a major priority and we don't
even know the metrics as to whether or not it's working or not.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johnson. Well, that would be a
mischaracterization of what I said, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
And the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for your testimony.
To my colleagues, I think I've said this before, that I
have sat on the Homeland Security Committee since 9/11, the
tragedy of 9/11. I think it is important to note that Secretary
Johnson has made incredible advances in securing this Nation.
And I always say, when we are apt to criticize the
Transportation Security Administration and other agencies
within Homeland Security, that we have faced challenges, but
America has been made safer and more secure with the creation
of this Department.
In particular, let me thank Secretary Johnson for noting
the decrease in the surge of unaccompanied children. But as
well, when a group of us went to visit Karnes and Dilley in San
Antonio and viewed circumstances that were unacceptable to us,
viewing children and mothers, that the Department was
responsive. And we appreciate the decrease in population
legally of mothers and children dealing with the unaccompanied
circumstances.
I think it is important to take note that this is a huge
challenge in securing this Nation. And so allow me to quickly--
and, Mr. Secretary, if you would just say yes or no--the
reasons, because I want to get to my real questions. But I just
want to say the PEP program that you have announced, would that
have been a sizeable intervention for the sheriff's department
and other sanctuary cities to be able to respond to a
circumstance like Mr. Sanchez? Does this give them a greater
latitude and remain their sanctuary city----
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Status?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And let me just say for my colleagues, a
sanctuary city is not the choosing of the Secretary of Homeland
Security, it is states' rights. It is individual cities making
their determination.
I would offer to say and ask unanimous consent to put into
the record, and might I do this so my colleagues know with my
deepest sympathy to that family, and I personally apologize to
the family for this tragedy that has occurred in San Francisco,
none of us would want to counter that or to support that or to
be supporters of comprehensive immigration reform and support
that violent act.
But I do think it's important to note that murders in San
Francisco, for example, compared to cities of Indianapolis and
Dallas of the same size, those murders are at 5.75 and
Indianapolis at 15.17 and 11.39. Over the years, the homicides
in San Francisco have gone down.
I don't necessarily want to condemn sanctuary cities, but I
do want to condemn the idea of communication. And I want to
join with Mayor Ed Lee who said: Could somebody simply pick up
the phone?
I'm looking at an order of activities here, and I see that
ICE sent a detainer on 3/27/2015. And my question to the law
enforcement of that city, it would not negate the sanctuary
city authority to have simply picked up the phone and called
ICE to be able to say: This individual who has a long criminal
history is in our facilities.
Mr. Secretary, was that a possibility, in light of this
horrible tragedy, that we don't diminish, could that have been
a phone conversation to ICE at that time from the sheriff's
department and not violate their sanctuary city rules per se?
Secretary Johnson. My strong intent with the new PEP
program is that we have the type of cooperative relationship
with local law enforcement such that we get notification before
somebody is released----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. But they could have also----
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. So that we get there in
time to pick them up when they are released.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And they could have also made a call at
that time as well.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I won't get into warrants and order, but
they could have made a call.
Let me move quickly to this issue of violent extremism and
just cite for you an article from The New York Times that made
it clear that since 9/11 there were 19 non-Muslim extremist
attacks versus 7 Islamic militant attacks. And we all know that
we are concerned about ISIL and a cell in every state. But I am
concerned as well about Homeland Security looking at violent
extremism that are dealing with antigovernment feeling or
racist feelings.
I have every respect for opinion and speech that expresses
hatred toward me because I'm an African American, but not
violence, as evidenced by Mother Emanuel.
Can you explain what you will be doing about capturing
those who are engaged in violent, antigovernment activities,
and, of course, racial violence that is rising as a perspective
of domestic terrorism?
Secretary Johnson. Well, of course, there's always the law
enforcement approach to hate crime, to violence. Our CVE
efforts across the Department should be comprehensive, in my
view. I have personally spent a lot of time on CVE engagements,
as you know. We attended one together in Houston about a month
ago.
At the moment, my priority has been focusing on communities
that I believe are most vulnerable, at least some members of
the community, to appeals from ISIL, al-Qaeda, and other
terrorist groups overseas who are actively targeting
individuals in these communities. And so I think we need to
focus on communities that themselves have the ability to
influence somebody who may be turning in the direction of
violence.
Without a doubt, there is the potential, the very real
potential of domestic acts of terrorism. I just went to
Oklahoma City for the 20th anniversary of the bombing there in
April. A program that counters domestic violent extremism,
domestic-based violent extremism, is in my judgment a little
more complicated.
The terrorist threat to the homeland from overseas that I'm
concerned about is one that is making active efforts to recruit
people in response to ISIL's recruitment efforts. And so we've
been, as you know, very focused on that. But I do agree with
the spirit of your question that violent extremism in this
country can exist in a lot of different forms, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent to include these
two documents in the record? And may I just put one sentence on
the record--I thank you for your indulgence--is, Mr. Secretary,
I implore you to consider domestic terrorism. And I'd like to
work with the Department to seriously add that to its broad
agenda. I think it would be a vital and important step forward.
And let me thank you for your service.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
That was a long run-on sentence, but we will allow it. And
those two documents will be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing.
Mr. Secretary, I appreciate also your testimony here.
But listening to the testimony about ICE detainers--and I
want to pause for a minute here.
Can I have a clear path? Thank you.
Listening for the moment about ICE detainers, this first
question occurs to me, and that is that, how long have we been
operating under ICE detainers when they were mandatory? Do you
know when their inception was?
Secretary Johnson. ICE detainers go back a long way. They
go back----
Mr. King. 1996?
Secretary Johnson. When I was a Federal prosecutor 25 years
ago, we had immigration detainers.
Mr. King. Okay. So they were mandatory for a long time. And
how long has this been a problem? In your testimony you said
that in the last year 12,000 ICE detainers were ignored or not
responded to by local law enforcement, 12,000. Is that
indicative of a problem we've had over a 20-year period of time
or is that a short-term anomaly?
Secretary Johnson. I think that that number has been
growing with the number of jurisdictions that have been passing
ordinances and laws and signing executive orders that limited
their ability to cooperate with us. So I suspect the number has
been growing annually, sir.
Mr. King. Would it be perhaps in sync with a 2012 ACLU
``fact sheet'' that was sent to local law enforcement
nationwide that said that ICE detainers are not mandatory
because no penalty existed, and they have this legal rationale,
reach, if there is no penalty then there is no law to be
enforced? Are you familiar with that?
Secretary Johnson. I'm not familiar with that fact sheet,
sir, no.
Mr. King. Okay. And I would make sure you'll get a copy of
that so you are. But February 25, 2014, so can you tell me if
that's about the date that the number of local jurisdictions
ignoring the detainers began to accelerate?
Secretary Johnson. I do not know the answer to that
question, sir.
Mr. King. But we do know that the Department has cooperated
to some degree with ICE--or, excuse me, with ACLU. And I'm
looking at a letter that was sent to a Member of Congress,
Member of this Committee, dated February 25, 2014, from U.S.
Immigration, it's from ICE. It says: ``While immigration
detainers are an important part of ICE's effort to remove
criminal aliens who are in Federal, state, and local custody,
they are not mandatory as a matter of law.''
The Congress was informed February 25 that ICE and your
Department was going to back away from detainers. And I'm
listening to ICE spokesmen tell the people that are trying to
enforce the law in San Francisco that's it's all their
sanctuary city policy, not a policy that has to do with ICE's
decisions.
So I'd just raise this as a point that there are a whole
series of jurisdictions that are culpable here. And I want to
ask, have you sat down or do you have people in your Department
that have sat down and calculated the resources necessary to
enforce all of the law? And I would express that in synch with
Rudy Giuliani's former policy in New York, the broken windows
policy, we arrest people that break the law as quickly as we
can and enforce the law so that there is an expectation that
it's a deterrent.
To get to that point, to restore the respect for
immigration law, which has been damaged perhaps--I still
believe we can repair it--what would the calculation be for the
resources necessary to accomplish such a thing?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, you refer to restoring
respect for immigration law----
Mr. King. Let's just call it full enforcement, then, so I
don't run out of time.
Secretary Johnson. That's exactly what I'm trying to do
with our new Priority Enforcement Program.
Mr. King. And what resources do you need then to do that?
You've got more beds than you're using. You've increased the
number of officers. We've got significantly fewer arrests
taking place. That doesn't convince me that there are fewer
border crossings. I mean, if the order were issued to arrest
half the people you were, that would be all that it would take
to see those numbers go down. It's never been indicative to me
of lower border crossings.
Secretary Johnson. Well, I'm glad you asked that question,
what resources do we need? I would like to see our immigration
enforcement personnel put on a pay scale with other law
enforcement personnel. As you probably know, a lot of them are
topped out at GS-9. One of our executive actions was to have
pay reform for immigration enforcement personnel.
Mr. King. I'm happy to take that conversation up, as I do
believe that we ought to be as supportive as we can of
especially the people that put their lives on the line. But
they want to also do their job, and I want to make sure we have
the foundation to get that done. And when you were asked the
length of the fence, how long is the border, the southern
border?
Secretary Johnson. How long is the southern border?
Mr. King. Yes.
Secretary Johnson. I believe it's 2,700 miles, sir.
Mr. King. I brought that up because I want to give you an
opportunity to state that. It's actually very close to 2,000
miles. The estimates run just a little bit under that.
But I bring this up because I think it's important for this
Committee and for you and the public to consider what we're
doing. We're spending $13 billion on our southern border to
secure our border. That's the 50-mile line when you add
everything up. I don't know anybody else that even tracks that
number. That comes out to be a little less than $6.6 million a
mile.
Now, that might not be astonishing unless you think that
about 25 percent of those that are attempting to cross the
border actually are interdicted, and many of them are released
again, maybe for five times. Actually 27 times is the highest
number that I see.
We're building interstate highway across expensive Iowa
cornfields for $4 million a mile. That's two fences. That's
grading, paving, shouldering, and signage and all the things
necessary, plus archeological and environmental. If we can
build interstate highway for $4 million a mile, we could take a
third of that budget down there. In a matter of 2 years we'd
have that whole thing, a fence, a wall and a fence. We would
have patrol roads in between two no-man's land zones.
And, by the way, if we do that, these fences don't have
prosecutorial discretion. They will be effective. The Israelis'
is up to at least 99-point-something percent effective. They
put $1.8 million a mile in theirs. They had 14,000 illegal
crossings. In one section it cut it to 40.
And so I think there's an economic equation that your
Department could bring forward. And I'd very happy to sit down
and go through the numbers, I spent my life in the contracting
business, and I think that we could put a lot better
application to these resources than are being used today.
And I thank you for your testimony.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And first I'd like to recognize and say hello to Mr.
Johnson, who is from the other great city in Tennessee, which
has the second-best barbecue, but the greatest HBCU in the
country in Fisk, where his father was actively involved.
I want to follow up on Ms. Jackson Lee's questions. We need
to be concerned about threats from afar and recruitment of our
people from afar in ISIS. But the fact is we've got more of a
threat domestically to our lives than we do internationally.
An article in The New York Times just this past year, June
16, just this past month, cites the fact that since 9/11 an
average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in
an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in
the U.S. Most were disrupted. But the 20 plots that were
carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13\1/2\
years.
In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per
year in the decade after 9/11, causing 254 fatalities, over 5
times as many as the Muslim-caused facilities. This was
according to a study by a professor at the United States
Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center. And that total
has increased since the study was released in 2012.
So I ask you about our efforts to curtail domestic right-
wing extremists. I believe that in 2011, it might have been a
department, that funding was cut or even abolished. And is
there any consideration that you've given to increasing funding
and/or renewing that department? I think the Department of
Homeland Security in 2009, the Department disbanded the
Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland Environment
Threat Analysis Division. Do you think it would be appropriate
to have that division recreated or reinstated?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, if you don't mind, let me
answer it this way. We fund over $2 billion a year in grants to
state and local law enforcement for homeland security/public
safety purposes of a lot of different stripes. So the first
responder equipment that we fund is valuable whether it's a
terrorist attack, a mass shooting incident, motivated by
whatever purpose.
So, for example, the Boston Marathon attack, which is very
definitely an act of terrorism, the first responders there were
funded, to a very large measure, by my Department, even though
they were local.
And so our grant money goes to a lot of valuable things to
promote public safety. We have active shooter training, for
example.
Mr. Cohen. I understand that and appreciate that, sir. But
what I'm asking about is the Department had a department called
the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Homeland
Environment Threat Analysis Division, and apparently that
division was not reinstated. That's different than grants.
That's something specifically looking at the Internet and
seeing if they can't ferret out some of these folks before they
get their weapon and go to a church and commit a mass atrocity.
Have you considered reinstating such a division in light of
the fact that the statistics are overwhelming that they are
continuing to threaten our people?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I agree with the spirit of your
question when it comes to the statistics. I would have to look
into your specific question, sir.
Mr. Cohen. I'd appreciate if you would.
After Charleston, the Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations of America noted that we need, as everybody I
think would agree, freedom of worship, we need freedom from
fear. Houses of worship need to be safe. The national security
grant program provides grants to communities to buy
surveillance equipment and shatterproof windows. Much of that
goes and has been going and I'm pleased it has been going to
Jewish organizations and synagogues which have been targeted
over the years with threats.
But now that we see in the South in particular, and we've
seen it over the years, but a rash recently of attacks on
African American churches, can your Department look into
requesting an increase in funding so that it can cover African
American churches that are also threatened in this day and
time?
Secretary Johnson. We can, sir. I just met with officials
of the American Jewish Committee last week who are very
complimentary of the relationship that we have with the Jewish
community in this regard.
And as I think I mentioned to you, Congressman, my great
grandfather was a Baptist preacher in southwest Virginia near
Roanoke in a little town on the Virginia-Tennessee line called
Bristol. And back in the turn of the century 115 years ago, a
lot of that--being a Baptist preacher in that part of the world
meant breaking up the occasional lynching attempt. So I
appreciate the importance of your question, sir.
Mr. Cohen. And I appreciate your service. Thank you, sir.
I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. King, for 5
minutes--I mean, Mr. Franks for 5 minutes.
Mr. Franks. You've insulted both of us, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, sir.
Secretary Johnson, a report from the National Academy of
Sciences places ``an estimate of $1 trillion to $2 trillion
during the first year alone for the societal and economic costs
of a 'severe geomagnetic storm scenario' with recovery times of
4 to 10 years.'' Another report, from Lloyds of London, stated
that between 20 million and 40 million people in America are at
risk of extended outages for up to 1 to 2 years in duration.
And I can read you excerpts of 11 major government reports that
all share very similar findings for hours here, as you know.
And yet the Federal Government has really done next to nothing
to help protect the electric grid.
And so I just would remind you that year you testified that
it was the main responsibility of the National Programs and
Protections Directorate, or the NPPD, within Department of
Homeland Security, along with other, of course, relevant
agencies, to protect the electric grid. So I'd like to ask you
what is being done today at DHS to protect the grid from
geomagnetic disturbance or from weaponized electromagnetic
pulse, and do you support legislative efforts like the Critical
Infrastructure Protection Act that has now come out of the
Homeland Security Committee to actually focus on this threat
and act upon it?
Secretary Johnson. In general, sir, I'm very supportive of
the efforts being made. I know that the threat that you
mentioned is one that we study and evaluate. I'm happy to get
back to you more specifically for the record in answer to what
detailed steps we are taking and how we regard this particular
threat, sir.
Mr. Franks. Well, I appreciate that. I hope that you would
take a special look at the Critical Infrastructure Protection
Act. It's going to be entirely within your purview to respond
to it. And I think it's something you'll probably support.
I sort of changed the subject there, but I have to get back
to the subject now of the Constitution. I have the privilege
here of chairing the Constitution Subcommittee, and so that's
part of the predicate.
Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution--
provides that the Congress shall have power to ``establish an
uniform Rule of Naturalization,'' and grants Congress plenary
power over immigration policies. That's very, very, very clear.
Aren't your administrative actions and your agency's
administrative actions to exempt millions of unlawful and
criminal aliens from any threat of enforcement of our
immigration laws a usurpation of Congress' constitutional role?
Secretary Johnson. Inherent in the enforcement of any law,
sir, is the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and that's
what we do in the enforcement of our laws, that's what the
Department of Justice does, and that's what multiple other
agencies do.
Mr. Franks. Well, in all due deference to you,
prosecutorial discretion is one thing, the suspension of the
law is another.
And I will probably leave it right there, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a hearing where Republicans are arguing that the
Administration is not enforcing the immigration laws and that
this is leading to increased crime.
Exhibit A, the murder of Ms. Steinle in San Francisco. And
that event happened within the last 2 weeks. And I am really
impressed with the speed by which this Committee has sprung
into action to bring this issue before a hearing, you know, I
mean, and then going to take advantage of it for political
purposes is basically what's happening.
However, something like the flying of Confederate battle
flags in national park space is something that is salient,
germane, and current. They want to put that off to a Committee
for a study or for a hearing that will never be held.
So it's politics what we're playing up here, Secretary
Johnson. I appreciate your service, by the way. What we have is
a situation where Ms. Steinle was allegedly murdered by Mr.
Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, who had been in Federal custody
for about 6 years on a felony illegal entry into the U.S. ICE
had a hold on him, so that when he was released from the Bureau
of Prisons he would go into ICE custody for deportation again.
However, ICE also has a policy that when a local
jurisdiction has an active warrant against an individual, then
ICE yields to that local authority holding that warrant. And
that local authority, San Francisco County in this case,
decided to pursue its warrant. So it took custody of Mr.
Sanchez, Mr. Lopez Sanchez, and after they took custody of him,
ICE had a warrant or a detainer lodged against Mr. Lopez
Sanchez so that when San Francisco finished its prosecution,
then it would turn Mr. Lopez Sanchez back over to ICE for
deportation.
And then what happened was, after Mr. Lopez Sanchez was in
the custody of San Francisco County, the authorities there
decided not to prosecute him, which meant that he was eligible
for release, and ideally it would have been to ICE which had
the detainer in place. However, due to its local politics, San
Francisco County had a situation, a sanctuary policy, where
they did not honor those warrants.
So I go through that to say that it was not the fault of
ICE, or it was not a breakdown in Federal immigration
enforcement that resulted--that resulted in Kathryn Steinle's
murder allegedly by Mr. Lopez Sanchez. It was not the fault of
your Department, although they're trying to make it appear to
be that way.
And in fact, under this President, there have been--this
President is now known as the Deporter in Chief. Why is that,
Mr. Johnson? Is it because over 2 million people have been
deported under his Presidency, which is more than were deported
under the previous Administration in 8 years with 17 months
left on this term? Is that the reason why he's known as the
Deporter in Chief?
Secretary Johnson. Well, let me answer your question. Let
me answer--let me say two things, sir. One, as I have
mentioned, I believe it is important that we focus our
deportation resources on threats to public safety. And with our
new policy, I believe we are doing that increasingly so.
A higher percentage of those in immigration detention today
than used to be the case are those who are in my top two
priorities for removal. Seventy-six percent of those in
immigration detention today are in my top priority for removal,
the felons, those apprehended at the border. So I want to focus
our resources on threats to public safety, and I know the
President supports that and he shares that view.
The other thing I'll say in response to your question, sir,
is, as I mentioned earlier, I think we need to evaluate
carefully whether it is appropriate in every case for a
criminal warrant to be a priority over an immigration detainer.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I agree.
Secretary Johnson. It may not be. There may need to be some
additional flexibility and discretion built into that. So I
want to evaluate any such policy.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, on November 20, 2014, the President
issued his now somewhat famous executive order. You did a memo
regarding DACA and deferred action. You recall all that, Mr.
Johnson?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. All right. And then February 16 of this year,
Judge Hanen has a ruling that blocks the action of the
President and the action outlined in your memo, correct?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. And during the hearing in front of Mr. Hanen,
Judge Hanen's court, January 15, 2015, your counsel represented
to the court, ``No applications for revised DACA would be
accepted until the 18th of February 2015.'' Is that correct,
Mr. Johnson?
Secretary Johnson. I don't know exactly what the colloquy
was, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. This is from your counsel and from the
court. But regardless of what it was, the representation that
no applications would be--for revised DACA--would be accepted
until the 18th of February, that turned out to be wrong. Is
that accurate, Mr. Johnson?
Secretary Johnson. Well, in fact----
Mr. Jordan. That representation that was made in front of
the court was not accurate.
Secretary Johnson. Like I said, I don't know the exact
colloquy. I do know that in November we began issuing 3-year
renewals consistent with the policy. It was on the face of the
policy and it was in the----
Mr. Jordan. Well, let me read what Judge Hanen said,
because your counsel actually filed an advisory with the court
clarifying, saying that even though you said you would not
accept applications and they would be not be revised, they in
fact were up to 100,000. And here's what the advisory--you
advised the court, and here's what the judge said.
``The court expects all parties, including the Government
of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not
hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths. That is
why the court is extremely troubled by the multiple
representations made by the government's counsel, both in
writing and orally, that no action would be taken pursuant to
the 2014 DHS directive until February 18, 2015.''
So here's what I want to understand. You said you weren't
going to issue, but you had already issued 100,000 3-year
deferrals. You had to go tell the court: Oh, what we told you
in the earlier hearing wasn't in fact true. When did you know
as the head of this agency, the head of this Department, that
the representation made to Judge Hanen and to the court was in
fact not accurate?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I definitely know that this is an
issue for the judge that he is very troubled by.
Mr. Jordan. That's not my question. When did you know what
you had told the court--your counsel had told the court, when
did you personally know as the head of the agency that it
wasn't accurate? Did you know when they said it? Did you know
clear back in January when they had the hearing that what they
were conveying to the court wasn't true?
Secretary Johnson. No, I did not know when they said it
because I was not----
Mr. Jordan. Okay. So when did you learn?
Secretary Johnson. Sometime around--sometime shortly--I
don't have the exact timeframe, but sometime in early March I
became aware that this was an issue and wanted to----
Mr. Jordan. And who told you?
Secretary Johnson. I don't recall, sir. And wanted to be
sure that we promptly advised the court of this issue and we
did.
I will say also that the fact that we began issuing 3-year
renewals was on the face of the policy, which was in the record
of the court. I know this is an issue, I know the judge is
troubled by it but----
Mr. Jordan. He's not troubled by it. He said it was half-
truths, deceptive representation. He's extremely troubled by
it, and that's his words, not mine. So when a judge says that,
that you falsely represented something in front of the court,
you later learn you did that, according to what you just told
me, and then you convey it to them, I want to know when exactly
you learned and how long after you learned did you convey to it
the court. Do you know that?
Secretary Johnson. I've already answered that question.
Mr. Jordan. No, no. But when you learned, did you convey it
that very day? Did you wait a couple days? When did you convey
it?
Secretary Johnson. I don't know how many days it was. Could
have been same day, could have been 2 days. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know what day you happened to advise the
court that you in fact had misrepresented the facts to the
court? Do you know what day you had sent that advisory? Do you
know that date?
Secretary Johnson. I don't know when the advisory was
filed. I do know----
Mr. Jordan. March 3, 2015.
Secretary Johnson. I was going to say, I do know that it
was in early March.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Do you know what else happened on March
3, 2015?
Secretary Johnson. A lot of things, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Well, relative to your agency, do you know what
happened that day?
Secretary Johnson. Refresh my recollection.
Mr. Jordan. Same day we were having a little debate in
Congress about the funding bill for your agency. So the same
day that the DHS funding bill passes Congress is the same day
you decide to tell the court: Oh, by the way, we lied to you
back when we didn't give you all the facts earlier on.
Now, don't you think it would have been nice if the
Congress during that heated debate--in fact, I remember you,
Secretary, you were on TV that entire weekend, that March 1 to
March 2, that entire weekend, you were talking about if this
bill doesn't get done, if we don't get funding----
Secretary Johnson. You have your----
Mr. Jordan. No, no, hang on. Sky's going to fall, world. It
would have been nice if you'd have also told the Congress and
the American people: Oh, by the way, we misrepresented the
facts to the court dealing with this issue. But you send the
advisory the same day--the same day that we pass the bill? Be
nice if we'd have had that information before the date we
actually voted on this and went on record.
Secretary Johnson. There are so many things wrong with that
question. I do not have 37 seconds to answer it.
Mr. Jordan. Well, let me ask--let me just--Mr. Chairman, if
I could real quick.
Secretary Johnson. There are so many things wrong in the
question.
Mr. Jordan. March 3 you filed the advisory, right? March 3
you filed the advisory. March 3, the DHS bill passes. Those are
two facts. That just a coincidence?
Mr. Gowdy. Gentleman's out of time, but I'm going to allow
the Secretary to answer the question.
Secretary Johnson. First of all, my recollection is that I
was on the Sunday shows earlier in the month of February. So
that doesn't work, okay? Second----
Mr. Jordan. That's why I'd like to know when you found out.
Secretary Johnson. I don't recall when exactly in the
course of the day, sir, the funding bill was passed. And I
really don't think one has anything to do with the other. I
knew this was an issue. I found out about it in early March.
And I wanted the court to be----
Mr. Jordan. It was important enough to advise the court. It
might have been important enough to let Congress know in the
heat of that debate when this is the central issue of that
debate that, oh, by the way, our counsel didn't represent the
facts to the court like they should have. That's an important
element for this body, the Congress of the United States, and
the American people to know in the course of that fundamental
debate we were having, and you don't think it's important to
know that?
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman really is out of time this time,
and I'm going to allow you to respond, and then I need to go to
Ms. Chu from California.
Secretary Johnson. I do not believe one has anything to do
with the other. I do not recall whether Congress voted for our
funding on March 3 or March 4. I tend to think, but I don't
have the calendar in front of me, that it was on March 4.
So that is my recollection. I was intensely interested,
obviously, in the debate going on in this Congress about
funding our Department so that I wasn't going to have to
furlough a whole lot of people. So my recollection is that it
passed the Congress on March 4, but I could be wrong. But I
don't have a calendar in front of me.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Ohio yields back.
The Chair would now recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Chu.
Ms. Chu. Yes, Secretary Johnson, I was one of the eight
Congress Members that visited the Dilley and Karnes Family
Detention Center, and I was horrified by the situation. And I
thank you for reevaluating DHS' family detention policy and
your announcement yesterday that ICE will generally not detain
families if they've received a positive finding for credible or
reasonable fear. It's a huge step forward and I hope it'll
bring our policies in line with our international obligation to
protect those that are fleeing persecution.
The families that I spoke with when I was there were not
criminals. They were victims escaping extreme violence. I heard
from a mother from Honduras whose son and daughter were forced
into the drug cartels. She was raped, as well as her 15-year-
old daughter. She and her daughter escaped but ended up in the
detention facilities for months.
The mother had a credible fear determination, but then she
was given a $10,000 bond obligation, which made her desperate
because she couldn't afford it, and it might as well have been
$1 million because it was unattainable. And then her daughter,
in reaction to the desperation, had to be taken to the medical
unit for wanting to commit suicide.
It's my hope that DHS' new policy means that families like
these will no longer be detained and no longer subject to such
unreasonable bonds. So, Secretary Johnson, could you describe
how the agency will implement this new policy, and how long do
you expect the review to take?
Secretary Johnson. Well, much of the reforms that we
announced and that I directed are underway already. In terms of
the review of the cases, the older cases, that review has
already been undertaken, and it has produced results.
In terms of the new bond policy, I believe also that that
policy has in fact been implemented and is underway. The review
that Director Saldana directed of the facilities themselves,
the advisory committee, I would have to get back to you in
terms of the exact status of that.
Thank you also for visiting the facility, and thank you for
meeting with me after you did so.
Ms. Chu. Thank you. In fact, I wanted to get more clarity
on the bonds for the families. Will ICE continue using bonds
for these families? And how will you work to ensure that these
bonds remain reasonable for them?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I've directed that they be
realistic and be reasonable. And I have asked that I receive
regular reports on what the bond levels are. And I know that
ICE is developing, if they haven't already developed criteria
for setting bonds at a consistent and affordable rate.
When I was at one of these facilities, I was struck by the
number of people who were there who had a bond set, but they
were not able to produce the cash. And so this is one of the
things that I want to be sure we set at a realistic rate.
Ms. Chu. I also wanted to ask about a different detention
center, that's Adelanto Detention Center in California. There
have been numerous reports documenting inadequate care for the
detainees.
This facility is run by a private company, GEO Group. And
we know that GEO's failure to provide adequate medical care
resulted in the death of at least one detainee, Mr. Fernando
Dominguez, who was detained for 5 years and died of intestinal
cancer several days after he was rushed to the hospital with
unusual bleeding.
Now, this facility has recently been expanded by 640 beds,
and it's of concern, considering the history of medical
neglect. So, Mr. Secretary, what is ICE doing to ensure that
the private companies that it contracts with provides adequate
medical care and abides by the ICE Performance-Based National
Detention Standards?
Secretary Johnson. This is a priority of mine. It's a focus
of mine. And I believe it is a priority and a focus of Director
Saldana. I've heard concerns raised about private contractors
running detention facilities, and I want to be sure that we get
this right both with respect to the conditions and with respect
to clarity about lines of authority and responsibility.
So when you have a private contractor in the mix, whose
responsibility is it day-to-day to ensure the conditions of
confinement? And so it's something that we're looking into and
it's something I'm very interested in.
Ms. Chu. Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. Gentlelady yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, former U.S. Attorney, Mr. Marino.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon.
Secretary Johnson. Good afternoon.
Mr. Marino. Mr. Secretary, I first, as a former U.S.
Attorney, realize the complications involved with dealing all
kinds of local law enforcement entities. It can be quite
chaotic. However, I am disappointed with the Administration in
the way it is not, I think, directly handling sanctuary cities.
I think the Administration can have a much more direct impact
by being aggressive, as it has in other areas, to force
sanctuary cities to be in contact with ICE.
I've worked with ICE for a great deal of time. I think they
are some of the best agents that we have in the Federal system.
And I do agree with your position on the pay. But I put most of
the blame on sanctuary cities at this point, however, I put
part of the blame on Homeland because of the void between the
detainer and a warrant. Now, I know in some situations a
warrant may not be applicable.
But give me some insight on how you see or what directive
you can give to sanctuary cities in particular of letting ICE
know when an illegal individual, an illegal person that is in
this country is being released from any facility. Do you have
anything on mind at this point?
Secretary Johnson. Well, if it's somebody that we want for
detention purposes, for removal purposes, my hope is that they
not be released, period. I honestly believe the most effective
way to go about getting at undocumented criminals in local
jails is through a cooperative, constructive effort without----
Mr. Marino. I'm sorry to interrupt. I only have a little
bit. But that isn't working. So I think you have the authority,
I think that you need to take the tough position to say--hand
out a directive: You will respond to us. And if you need
something done legislatively, come back to us. With all due
respect, sir, I think that the Administration is avoiding this
because of its propensity to want amnesty the way that it does.
But that's a matter for another day. But if you want to respond
to that, please.
Secretary Johnson. The problem, if I may, is for a long
time we did take the position that detainers were mandatory,
and that was leading to a lot of litigation in the courts----
Mr. Marino. Right. I'm aware of that, sir.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. We were losing. We were
losing for reasons of the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution.
Mr. Marino. So maybe you need us to help out a little bit.
Secretary Johnson. Frankly, we were losing with a lot of
these jurisdictions who were passing all these laws saying:
Thou shalt not cooperate with ICE.
Mr. Marino. I understand that.
Secretary Johnson. And that led to a real public safety
problem, in my view, which I think we are correcting now.
Mr. Marino. Well, if any time you think that you need the
legislation to help you in that direction, please contact us.
I want to switch to another situation here, particularly in
my district, but it's happening across the U.S. Last year the
U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgated an amendment to the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, Amendment 782, which reduced the
base offense level for all drug trafficking by two levels. The
amendment was also made retroactive, and as a result, more than
10,000 drug trafficking offenders will be released early from
prison beginning on November 1 of this year.
And I have in front of me--this pertains to the Middle
District--there'll be 68 people released between November 1,
2015, and December 31, 2016, and many more after 2016. And as a
State gets closer to the border, those numbers increase,
because on my list of 68 people there are about 20 percent, 19
of them, are from outside the country. Now, this list doesn't
tell me whether they're illegals or not.
But I would ask if you could take a look at this, pay
attention to particularly the list of people that are from
outside the country to see if they are violent illegals. And
that's probably another way that we could stop a great deal of
what has been taking place, particularly what has happened over
the last 2 weeks, and my condolences do go out to that family.
Would you please respond?
Secretary Johnson. Yes. I'm aware of this issue. I'm aware
of the adjustment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I'm
aware that a number of individuals will be released as a
result. I'm aware that a number of them are probably
undocumented, and we've been working with DOJ to do the most
effective thing for public safety in that regard, and we will
continue to do so, sir.
Mr. Marino. I appreciate that, and I yield back the 1
second of my time.
Mr. Gowdy. Gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the former attorney general
from Puerto Rico, Mr. Pierluisi.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, welcome back to the Committee.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
Mr. Pierluisi. When you testified here last May, we spoke
about drug-related violence in Puerto Rico, the same subject I
raise with virtually every senior DHS and DOJ official that
comes before this Committee. Like I did then, I want to outline
a narrative for you and ask you to comment. I will be brief so
you have sufficient time to respond.
In 2011, there were 1,136 homicides in Puerto Rico, an
average of over 3 a day, the most violent year in the
territory's history. That was nearly the same number of murders
as were committed that year in Texas, which has over 25 million
residents compared to 3.5 million in Puerto Rico. Most murders
in Puerto Rico are linked to the drug trade since Puerto Rico
is within the U.S. Custom Zone and is used by organizations
transporting narcotics from South America to the U.S. mainland.
When I examined the level of resources that DHS and DOJ
were dedicating to combat drug-related violence in Puerto Rico,
it was clear that the Federal law enforcement footprint on the
island was woefully inadequate. Accordingly, I did everything
within my power to change that dynamic. Starting in 2012, under
your predecessor, Secretary Napolitano, the message finally
began to sink in. DHS component agencies like the Coast Guard,
ICE, CBP, started to step up their games. The Coast Guard has
massively increased the number of hours that its ships and
planes spend conducting counter-drug patrols around Puerto
Rico. ICE surged its agents to Puerto Rico where they arrested
hundreds of violent criminals and seized vast quantities of
illegal drugs and firearms. CBP assumed control of the aerostat
program from the Air Force and moved quickly to repair the
radar in southern Puerto Rico that had been inoperative since
2011.
The actions taken by DHS, in conjunction with its Federal
and local partners, have made a major difference in a very
short period of time. Each year the murder rate has declined.
In 2014, there were 681 homicides in Puerto Rico. That is 40
percent lower than 2011. In 2015 to date, there have been 287
homicides. If current trends continue, there will be half as
many murders this year as there were in 2011. I am not sure if
there's any other jurisdiction in the world that has
experienced such a steep and rapid crime drop.
It is critical that we keep our eye on the ball and that we
sustain and strengthen these efforts, especially since,
notwithstanding the improvements, Puerto Rico's homicide rate
is still four times the national average. Rest assured that I
will continue to do my part. As you know, the Coast Guard is
modernizing its fleet of vessels in Puerto Rico, replacing our
six older vessels with six modern vessels. Last week, I met
with Peter Edge, The Executive Associate Director of ICE HSI,
which is doing great work in Puerto Rico, to discuss the
agency's current posture and future plans on the island.
On the legislative front, I secured language in the DHS
appropriations bill that will enable CBP to use both revenues
from the Puerto Rico Trust Fund and general appropriations from
Congress to support its air and marine operations in the
territory.
I would welcome any comments you might have and hope you
can assure me that Puerto Rico will continue to be a top
priority for DHS. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson. The answer is yes. And since we'd last
met last year, we have created and operationalized my southern
border campaign strategy, which brings to bear all the
resources of my Department in different regions in a
coordinated fashion. We are doing away with the stovepipes.
So we have a Joint Task Force East, for example, which is
for the southeast part of the country and the maritime
approaches, where we now have, in a combined and coordinated
way, all of the border security law enforcement assets of my
Department devoted toward the southeast. And, so, we now have
the Coast Guard, CBP, ICE, CIS, working together in a
coordinated fashion for----
Mr. Pierluisi. Great.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Public safety and border
security. And I think that's a very positive step, and I think
it will be a positive step for Puerto Rico as well.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you so much.
Mr. Gowdy [presiding]. The gentleman from Puerto Rico
yields back. The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from
Texas, former Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, I'd like to go to the 30,000 convicted
criminal aliens the Administration released last year. It was
36,000 the year before. It's been over 30,000 for the last
several years. Arguably, about 2,000 of the 30,000 had to be
released because of the Zadvydas Supreme Court case, but that
left 28,000 that I don't believe needed to be released.
A partial breakdown of the 28,000 convicted criminal aliens
the Administration released and didn't have to, include 5,000
convicted or dangerous thugs, 500 convicted of stolen vehicle,
200 convicted of sexual assault, 60 convicted of homicide, over
300 convicted of commercialized sexual offenses, and over 100
convicted of kidnapping.
Why did the Administration release them? And is the
Administration going to continue to release these types of
individuals?
Secretary Johnson. Congressman, as you and I have discussed
previously, I would like to see that number greatly reduced to
the extent legally possible. And so, last year, ICE, at my
encouragement and direction, issued new policies to tighten up
on the situation where somebody who has been convicted of a
crime and who has served their sentence and transferred to
immigration is then released.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Secretary Johnson. And so we have a higher level of
approval for doing so. We should not release people for lack of
space or budgetary concerns.
Mr. Smith. Right. Do you expect this number to come down
dramatically in the next year?
Secretary Johnson. I would very much hope and like to see
it come down in fiscal year 2015.
Mr. Smith. That's pretty much up to the Administration
whether it continues to release individuals back into our
communities, and as you know, many of them are convicted of
additional crimes, which I think could have been avoided.
Doesn't sound like you disagree with me.
Secretary Johnson. Well, like I say, I want to see that
number come down dramatically. As you point out, there is the
Supreme Court decision which constrains our discretion
somewhat.
Mr. Smith. Right. That only applies to about 8 percent.
Secretary Johnson. But like I said, and also a lot of it is
up to the immigration judges, but I want to see this number
come down, sir.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I hope that you can succeed. That number
has been at 30,000 or over for the last several years, and I
haven't seen any improvement.
A 1996 bill that I happen to have introduced became law,
and a part of that law mandated that local officials cooperate
with Federal immigration officials. Do you feel that San
Francisco and other sanctuary cities are violating current
Federal law?
Secretary Johnson. I don't have a judgment with regard to
that, sir. I do believe that the most effective approach is a
cooperative one. I don't have----
Mr. Smith. I know--I heard you say that a while ago. You
have no opinion as to whether you think sanctuary cities are
violating current Federal law, which I'm assuming you're
familiar with?
Secretary Johnson. I do not have a legal judgment on that
question, sir.
Mr. Smith. Okay. I'm appalled that you don't. One fact is
that under this Administration, the number of sanctuary cities
has been increasing dramatically.
Has the Administration done anything to discourage a city
from becoming a sanctuary city?
Secretary Johnson. Absolutely, every day. We are with the
new----
Mr. Smith. No, all these new sanctuary cities where you had
city councils who had voted to become sanctuary cities, has the
Administration----
Secretary Johnson. I personally----
Mr. Smith [continuing]. To discourage any of them?
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. Along with other senior
officials of this Department, engaging mayors, governors,
county supervisors, city council members, about cooperating
with us pursuant to the new program.
Mr. Smith. No, not cooperating. I'm asking you if you
discouraged any city from becoming a sanctuary city?
Secretary Johnson. I am encouraging people to cooperate.
Mr. Smith. So the answer is no, you have not tried to
discourage any city?
Secretary Johnson. I have answered yes.
Mr. Smith. No, no, you said you're encouraging cooperation.
That's after they become a sanctuary city. I'm asking you, did
you discourage any city from trying to become a sanctuary city?
Secretary Johnson. Well, look, there are 300
jurisdictions----
Mr. Smith. That's pretty critical if you're not doing
anything to discourage cities from becoming these sanctuaries.
Secretary Johnson. Irrespective of what label you put on
it, there are now 300 jurisdictions that have, to one degree or
another, erected limitations on their ability to cooperate with
us. I am trying to----
Mr. Smith. And did you do anything to prevent any of
those----
Secretary Johnson.--I am flying back----
Mr. Smith. Did you do anything to prevent any of those 300
cities----
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. For the sake of public
safety.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Secretary, did you do anything to prevent
any of those cities from becoming a sanctuary city?
Secretary Johnson. A lot of jurisdictions I meet with
probably regard themselves as sanctuary cities. I don't know
that there is a magic----
Mr. Smith. I think it's clear you--you don't want to admit
it, but I think it's clear you did not try to discourage any
city from becoming a sanctuary city.
One more question. The President said in regard to the
surge last summer of illegal immigrants, particularly those
coming from Central America, that they were going to be sent
home. It's my understanding that roughly 92 percent are still
in the United States. Why hasn't the President kept his promise
to return those individuals home?
Secretary Johnson. When you're talking about children, and
I think that's what you're asking about.
Mr. Smith. Not entirely, but regardless of how you want to
label them, the President has said that they would be returned
home.
Secretary Johnson. Inevitably, removal and repatriation of
a family or a child from Central America becomes a time-
consuming process, because as I'm sure you know, they very
often assert an asylum claim.
Mr. Smith. Do you agree with my statistic that 92 percent,
roughly, are still in the United States of the individuals the
President said we could return?
Secretary Johnson. I haven't heard it put that way before,
so I don't know. I do know that an awful lot of them are still
here in deportation proceedings right now.
Mr. Smith. I think it's 92 percent contrary to the
President's pledge to the American people.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Texas yields back. The Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez.
Mr. Gutierrez. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I'm happy to have
you back here before this Committee.
First of all, I think the gentlemen just misspoke on the
issue. Not all jurisdictions call themselves sanctuary cities.
It's a political term, political term of art some people
appropriate and others don't.
But it is clear that a Federal district court in Oregon
ruled that a county violated a person's Fourth Amendment right
to be free from unreasonable seizure by keeping the person in
custody, based on nothing more than an ICE detainer. Now,
that's a Federal court that made that determination, not the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
A Federal circuit court, the Third Circuit ruled that
because ICE detainers are not mandatory but voluntary, with all
due respect to the gentleman from Texas and the law that he
passed in 1996, that's what a Federal court said in the Third
Circuit, voluntary, law enforcement agencies are free to
disregard them, and that is exactly what we're doing.
So instead of having the Secretary of Homeland Security
here asking him, well, how many people have you tried to
dissuade, the Federal courts have said that the detainers are a
violation and are not enforceable, regardless of what we here
believe they are.
And so why don't you just haul in the mayor of San
Francisco and then haul in the mayor of Chicago and haul in the
mayor of New York and just 300 jurisdictions and bring them
before him. What are you going to do, lock them up, too?
Because they don't abide by the way you look at the world and
how things should be enforced? These are local jurisdictions
that have made a decision that as they carry out local police
enforcement, which is a local issue, this is the way they want
to do it, and that they are not going to cooperate.
Now, what they can do, instead of having this hearing here,
which will lead to absolutely nothing, unfortunately, Mr.
Chairman, this will lead to nothing. This will not lead to a
solution. Everybody will feel better. They'll get a few
headlines. They'll put something on their Facebook and they'll
say, well, we put in a day's work, but it will lead to nothing.
Why don't we get to the business of making sure.
Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask you a question. Of the 11
million or so undocumented immigrants, did all of them cross
the border between Mexico and the United States?
Secretary Johnson. No. As you know, sir, a lot of the
undocumented didn't come here by crossing the southern border.
I mean, there are a variety of different ways.
Mr. Gutierrez. Did millions of them come here legally to
the United States with a tourist visa, a student visa, a
worker's visa, and overstay those visas eventually?
Secretary Johnson. Some are visa overstays, yes, sir.
Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. So that if you shut down the border,
there would still be millions of undocumented workers in the
United States of America?
Secretary Johnson. Well, I think we have done a lot for
border security. We could always do a lot more, but we have,
over the last number of years, done a lot, but the reality is
that there are millions of people here undocumented. I am
struck by the fact that something like more than half of them
have been here more than 10 years. They are not going away. We
don't have the resources to deport 11 million people.
So in my judgment, we have to reckon with this population
one way or another to make them accountable and to account for
them. And so, a lot of us want to see us address this
population of people in a way that promotes law enforcement,
and it's simply the right thing to do.
Mr. Gutierrez. So 11 million people, if not one of them
crossed the border ever again, there would still be hundreds of
thousands, indeed millions of visa overstays because the only
border into the United States of America, isn't to the surprise
of many probably, not the border between Mexico and United
States, if not LAX and JFK and Chicago O'Hare where people
enter into the country legally every day, and have overstayed
their visas.
And that we need to also do something--as we look at the
broken immigration system, we should not just focus on that
border, because I think focusing on the border really doesn't
give us the true nature of the problem that we confront.
I'd like to just end because you were asked earlier about
whether or not when people apply for deferred action, if
they're asked if they're a gang member. Now, of course, if
Members of Congress actually filled out the forms or helped
people fill out the forms, they'd know that they're asked, so I
understand that if you've never filled out one of these forms,
or your staff has never filled one out, you wouldn't know, but
I just wanted to make sure that you gave the right answer, Mr.
Secretary. It is asked. They ask them----
Secretary Johnson. That's my----
Mr. Gutierrez. Have you every--that was your answer.
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. We direct them.
Mr. Gutierrez. But it says have you ever been arrested for,
charged with, convicted of a crime in any country other than
the United States? So not only do you ask them about here, but
you ask them about the country of origin, and you ask them
particularly if they have ever been a gang member, and they
must--and I'll just add this, just so that we can--if you
answered yes, that you've ever been arrested, charged with,
convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, including incidents when
you were in juvenile court, which usually are sealed, but not
in this case. You want to be a DREAMer, you got to tell
everybody about everything.
If you answered yes, you must include a certified court
disposition, arrest record, charging document, sentencing
record, except--for each arrest, unless disclosure is
prohibited under State law.
So I just wanted to make sure that the Committee understood
that when people apply for deferred action, they not only have
to--if they answer yes to all those questions, all of those
documents must be presented, and they do ask. And lastly, they
have to be fingerprinted, and those fingerprints are checked,
Mr. Secretary, by? I just want to make sure. Who checks the
fingerprints that are--that the--DACA recipients?
Secretary Johnson. I believe it's a combination of
agencies. I believe that's an interagency process.
Mr. Gutierrez. Interagency process. That's what I thought.
So it's an interagency process. Thank you so much, Mr.
Secretary, for coming before us today.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
I think Mr. Forbes' broader point, Mr. Secretary, and I
think he meant to ask you about transcript as opposed to
record. The transcript of a guilty plea or a trial is--you can
very well be a member of a gang and never be charged or
prosecuted with that. I think that was his broader point, but
with that, I would go to the judge from Texas, Judge Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Secretary for
being here. It was hearing my friend from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen,
talk about all these threats that are apparently, in his mind,
conservatives, but I don't know where his numbers were coming
from. They are nothing like what I've been seeing.
As I understand, the Underwear Bomber was certainly not an
evangelical Christian, not a conservative. Do you know for
sure, was he a member of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula? I
know that was floated at one time, the Underwear Bomber?
Secretary Johnson. I would regard him as part of AQAP, yes,
sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. And I know that was before your watch,
obviously. The Boston bomber----
Secretary Johnson. That actually happened when I was at the
Department of Defense.
Mr. Gohmert. Right.
Secretary Johnson. So I'm very familiar with the case.
Mr. Gohmert. Yeah. But you aren't going to take credit for
letting it happen, though.
Secretary Johnson. I was at DOD, part of the national
security apparatus of our group at the time.
Mr. Gohmert. You were not in charge of TSA when he got
through wearing a bomb in his underwear.
Secretary Johnson. I was not in charge of TSA on December
25, 2009, no, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Thank you. And then Fort Hood, I
know some of my colleagues prefer to call that workplace
violence, but when someone is yelling--indicating that he's
doing it in the name of Allah, that doesn't seem to be exactly
a right wing, radical, evangelical Christian.
But I know there has been a lot of discussion about
Francisco Sanchez in San Francisco, and I know as a former
judge, we had an ongoing problem. One guy in particular, I
sentenced him--I think he had nine DWIs before he got to my
felony court, and I thought, well, if he's going to be a
threat, I'll send him to prison, and 6 months later, he's back
in my court.
He said that he was deported 30 days or so after I sent him
to prison, and I come back, and that's what keeps bringing me
back to Francisco Sanchez. He was deported five times.
Secretary, have you analyzed each of those deportations, where
they occurred, and where Sanchez may have reentered the
country?
Secretary Johnson. I have looked at a very detailed
timeline of each of the five removals. I don't, sitting here,
recall exactly where he was removed, from what point, from what
station, and we don't know, for obvious reasons, how and when
he reentered the United States, or, at least, I don't know.
Maybe in a guilty plea or something he acknowledged how and
when he did it, but sitting here, I don't know where he
reentered or crossed the border each of those five times, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Wouldn't that seem to be important to know
where somebody reenters five times?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Gohmert. I would encourage you, and I would like to
find out from somebody in your Department where those five
reentries were. I mean, were they all down in South Texas or
were some in the Arizona area, were they California? It doesn't
seem like we'll ever be able to get a grip on dealing with
reentries by people that come in illegally if we don't know
where they're reentering.
The fella I mentioned that I had dealt with when he was
back in my court, I asked how he came back in, and he said,
well, they took him to the border and watched him walk across,
and then after the officials, they took him to the border,
drove off, then he came back across and ended up back in our
county. And so it just seems like that ought to be where the
focus is.
Is there any indication that if Mr. Sanchez had been given
amnesty somewhere between the first illegal entry and the
fifth, that he would not have shot Kathryn Steinle? Are there
any indications that amnesty would have prevented this?
Secretary Johnson. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Gohmert. I think it's a pretty basic question. The
White House is saying that the fault for the shooting of this
beautiful young lady in San Francisco was because Republicans
have not passed comprehensive immigration reform, and we know
we've passed laws, we've appropriated money to build a fence,
to build a virtual fence, things that have not been done, and
I'm just wondering if we can figure out what the White House is
thinking, because, obviously, an amnesty was going to be part
of a comprehensive immigration reform, and I'm just wondering
if we, all of a sudden, declare Mr. Sanchez as being legally
here, if that would have kept him from pulling a gun and
killing Ms. Steinle.
I can't find any correlation to that, and I'm just trying
to figure out what in the heck the White House thinks would
have occurred differently if this man had been granted amnesty.
I can't see that it would have prevented her shooting.
Secretary Johnson. Well, I don't--to be honest, sir, I
don't know what to say.
Mr. Gohmert. And I do prefer you to be honest. Thank you.
Secretary Johnson. I am interested in promoting cooperation
with local law enforcement for reasons of public safety so that
we can, more effectively, get at people like this individual.
Mr. Gohmert. So if there were an amnesty, I don't see how
that particularly helps. You just declare everybody legal, then
I don't see that it makes a difference, but--and I realize time
is running out.
Is DHS still shipping people to different parts of the
country after they enter illegally, depending on where they
have family or where they asked to be shipped?
Secretary Johnson. I don't know that that's our policy,
sir.
Mr. Gohmert. Are you saying DHS has not done that?
Secretary Johnson. I don't know that that's our policy, as
you stated. Some people----
Mr. Gohmert. I didn't state it was a policy. I'm just
saying you've done it.
Secretary Johnson. Some people are able to make bond, some
people are put in our alternatives to detention programs, sir.
Mr. Gohmert. So the question was, are you still sending
people to different parts of the country after they enter
illegally?
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman's time is expired. The Secretary
may answer if he wants to.
Secretary Johnson. I don't know, logistically, where we
send people or how they are placed. I do know that a large
number of people are making bond and a large number of people
are being placed in our alternatives to detention program.
Mr. Gohmert. So that would be a yes, you're shipping around
the country. I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair would now recognize the gentleman from
Idaho, Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here today. Ever since
Kate Steinle's murder, DHS in San Francisco have been pointing
fingers of the blame at each other. In fact, I heard several
people on the other side say that it wasn't the fault of ICE
that Lopez-Sanchez was released.
But we had a telephone conference last week with a DHS
official, and my congressional staff asked last Tuesday that
even if BOP had released Mr. Sanchez to ICE, ICE's answer said
ICE likely would have released him to San Francisco because of
the outstanding criminal warrant, despite San Francisco being a
known sanctuary city that does not comply with detainers and
routinely releases hardened criminal aliens.
Does it make sense to release a hardened criminal alien who
was already deportable to a jurisdiction that will never return
him to you for deportation purposes?
Secretary Johnson. No.
Mr. Labrador. How often does ICE release such criminal
aliens to sanctuary cities?
Secretary Johnson. I don't know, but no, to your first
question.
Mr. Labrador. So if it doesn't make sense, why is ICE
saying that they would have released him to----
Secretary Johnson. I was not part of the conversation with
your congressional staff, sir, but I'll stand by my answer.
Mr. Labrador. You're standing by your answer, but that's
not your policy. I mean, it's great to come here to Congress
and give us an answer when the policy of the Administration is
to release these people to these sanctuary cities.
Secretary Johnson. Like I said, it does not make sense to,
in response to your question, release somebody.
Mr. Labrador. So what are you going to do about it?
Secretary Johnson. As I said earlier, I think we need to
evaluate whether greater discretion needs to be built into a
situation where there is a choice, or there is a jurisdiction
that wants the individual on an arrest warrant and an
immigration detainer. I think that there should be some
discretion built into what is the best course for purposes of
public safety.
Mr. Labrador. But it took this young lady's death to
actually get to that determination when this is not the first
time this has happened? In fact, you keep telling the American
people that they are safe, that we are stopping illegal aliens,
but the only reason we knew that Lopez-Sanchez was here is
because he killed somebody, because we keep releasing him. He's
been detained five times. He's crossed the border. We are not
stopping him from entering the United States. We just keep
catching him committing crimes once he's here in the United
States.
I don't know that we can say that America is safe when
people like this continue to come into the United States.
I'm going to give the rest of my time to the Chairman.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. I thank the gentleman from Idaho. I
think Mr. Labrador's point, Mr. Secretary, and I'm sure given
your background as a law enforcement officer and as a
prosecutor, I'm sure you can feel and understand the
frustration. We kick him out five times, he comes back. He
reoffends when he does come back. We put him in Federal prison,
he violates supervised release. We put him back in Federal
prison, and he is released to a city where we knew ahead of
time this was going to happen.
And it would be one thing to release someone to a
jurisdiction for a murder charge, sexual assault, serious,
serious drug offense, it would be one thing to do that so they
can prosecute him and--particularly if there's a victim
involved, that's exactly what you would want to do.
But this is an old drug case. If they were going to dismiss
it, why didn't they dismiss it while he was in the Bureau of
Prisons? Why did it require his presence in San Francisco to
decide to dismiss a case? He wasn't going to be a witness
anyway. I mean, you get the frustration, and--I think it's
being directed to you because we perceive that you are in a
position to change that.
And I know you say ``cooperation,'' that you are trying to
pursue cooperation, but I think maybe this week or last week
when you were talking to some folks on Judiciary, and if I'm
wrong, correct me, there are five municipalities that have flat
out told you they're not going to cooperate with you. So what
do we do with them?
I mean, if they really are refusing to cooperate, surely we
have to have something more than just going back to them and
talking to them again. I mean, you work for the United States
of America. How in the hell can a city tell you no?
Secretary Johnson. First of all, I intend to reattack on
the five. That was prior to San Francisco. I am not giving up
on the five. The overwhelming majority have said, yes, they are
interested. So we are going to continue to push at this.
And sir, I agree totally with the spirit of your question,
and I want to evaluate whether some discretion can be built
into the process so that when we're faced with a choice like
that, we are able to make the best choice for reasons of public
safety. I won't argue with you there, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. And I'm not going to pick on somebody who used
to be a prosecutor, because I know you spent a lot of your
career standing up for victims, but I swear, when I hear the
term ``sanctuary city,'' the only sanctuary it ought to be is
for law-abiding citizens. If we're going to have a sanctuary,
it ought to be for them. When a young woman is shot walking
with her father, with somebody with this resume, either you got
to do something or we got to do something or maybe we can do it
together.
With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I share the Chairman's frustration and other
frustrations that have been here, because at a certain point in
time, you say, again, that they just don't want to cooperate.
We've got five cities say we're just not going to cooperate. I
was just looking on your Web site, DHS Web site, which you've
got a vast array that you deal with.
I want to get ahead of the game. Let's decide--because I
was in the State legislature, and I know cities and States are
struggling financially right now. They have, as you've used the
term, which I do not agree with, that this is simply a
prosecutorial discretion issue, resources issue.
One of the things is cybersecurity that you deal with, and
you enforce cybersecurity laws, you work with law enforcement
on the local and State level to do that. What if now they just
don't have the resources to do that, and they said, you know,
we're just not going to enforce that, we're not going to
cooperate with you, Mr. Secretary. Would you have an opinion on
that?
Secretary Johnson. Absolutely. We would engage--we would
encourage them to do otherwise presumably, yes, sir.
Mr. Collins. Okay. But we would--interesting thing. Because
you said to Mr. Smith earlier, and there's other things, you
know, from economic security and everything. You said you had
no opinion on sanctuary cities, but yet to the Chairman just
now, you said you agree with the spirit of his question.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Collins. So what is it? Do you have an opinion, do you
have a spirit, do you have a sudden moving internally, what do
you feel about this issue? Why can we not have the United
States Government pass law, and then you have an opinion? You
either have an opinion, you don't have an opinion, you agree
with the spirit, you don't agree with the spirit. For the
American people, it's just hard to understand here.
Secretary Johnson. Well, let me make this clear. I believe
that the most effective way to address and enhance public
safety is to work cooperatively with State and local law
enforcement. As a result of our prior----
Mr. Collins. So I'm going to stop right there, though. So
the supremacy clause is optional?
Secretary Johnson. May I finish?
Mr. Collins. Is the supremacy clause optional? I'll let you
answer.
Secretary Johnson. May I finish my sentence?
Mr. Collins. Go ahead.
Secretary Johnson. I believe that as a result of the prior
policy, we were inhibited in our ability to promote public
safety. With the new policy, I believe we'll be in a much
better position to work effectively and cooperatively with law
enforcement. I do not believe that Federal legislation
mandating the behavior of a lot of sheriffs and police chiefs
is the way to go. I believe it will lead to more litigation,
more controversy, and it will be counterproductive.
Mr. Collins. One, the supremacy clause questions you never
answered, but the question you just said there, so you don't
believe that mandating what law enforcement in the country does
from a congressional perspective, because we're the only ones
that Congress does the law writing.
Secretary Johnson. I do not believe----
Mr. Collins. So they can pick and choose what they want to,
just overwhelmingly?
Secretary Johnson. I do not believe that the Federal
Government and the U.S. Congress should mandate the behavior of
State and local law enforcement.
Mr. Collins. So civil rights could be optional?
Secretary Johnson. The most effective way to do this is
cooperatively with the new program, and I believe it is going
to yield very positive results, sir.
Mr. Collins. In the spirit of this, your request. So civil
rights are optional for States and locals to enforce?
Secretary Johnson. I don't think that mandating an approach
by this Congress is the way to go. I think it will be hugely
counterproductive, and it will set back----
Mr. Collins. So the Civil Rights Act was counterproductive?
Secretary Johnson [continuing]. My public safety efforts in
this regard.
Mr. Collins. No, it's not. I want to go back to what you're
saying because it goes at the heart of what we're saying. So
you're saying the Civil Rights Act was overreach. You're saying
that they shouldn't be enforcing this? I think we're getting at
the issue of it here, because at a certain point in time, when
does it become just wholesale abandonment of prosecutorial
discretion when you just say we're not going do this?
I agree with prosecutorial discretion, but what you're
saying, if you just take a whole class off the table in the
best sentiments that you want, because it leads to other issues
like the earned income tax credit, are they folks who are
eligible? The decisions you have affect other issues than
simply saying we're going to hold somebody or not. We're going
to address the earned income tax credit issue with legislation
I'm going to draw, but it has more to do with what do we pick
and choose to enforce?
I'm not sure still what your opinion is because you've,
again, not answered it. You just said we'll work with them. My
question is, before you come back next year, whenever it is, if
we have this hearing again, is what if some of these agencies
decided they didn't want to enforce something you thought they
should? Where is the screaming? Where is the outrage? Where is
the intent? When should Congress pass anything if there is no
supremacy clause, if there is no worth to what we do to protect
civil rights, to protect other things? When does each
department get to decide that they're not going to enforce
their Federal jurisdiction on States and localities who simply
say, you know, we're not going to do it right now?
Secretary Johnson. May I answer?
Mr. Collins. Well, I stop, and it's asked a question.
That's your response time.
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Collins. All right.
Secretary Johnson. I have 2 seconds.
Mr. Collins. The Chairman will give you all the time. If
you'll answer that, he'll give you all the time you need.
Secretary Johnson. I want to enforce the law.
May I, Chairman?
Mr. Gowdy. Yes, sir, you may answer the question.
Secretary Johnson. I want to enforce the law in a way that
maximizes public safety and border security. That means going
after the criminals. A big problem with doing that are the
number of jurisdictions, I don't know what label you want to
put on them, sanctuary cities or otherwise, that have erected
ordinances, laws, policies that inhibit cooperating with
immigration enforcement.
In my judgment, and in the judgment of a lot of other
border security immigration enforcement experts, the way to
most effectively work with these jurisdictions, again, is a
cooperative one, not by hitting them over the head with Federal
legislation that will engender a lot more litigation. And I
believe we're on the path to do that, sir.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Secretary, I respect that opinion. I think
what you have opened up, though, is a Pandora's box on other
things that they don't want to enforce because of other reasons
that they'll come up with, and just because this is a political
issue for this Administration, they're going to let that go,
but you do open a Pandora's box to what they will enforce and
what they won't enforce, and that's not what the average
American understands when they learn Black Letter law and they
understand what's right and what's wrong. With that, I yield
back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman's time is expired. The Chair will
now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Judge Poe.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary,
for being here. Once again, thank you for coming to Houston. I
appreciate your personal involvement and FEMA doing an
excellent job during the floods of May, as I refer to them.
I direct some questions about foreign fighters, not only
from the United States going to help ISIS, but foreign fighters
in other countries. We know that ISIS uses social media,
Twitter, others to recruit, to raise money and to spread their
propaganda. What is DHS doing to counteract that?
Secretary Johnson. A number of things, sir. Thank you for
that question. First of all, to deal with the foreign fighter
issue, one of the things we did last year was to add
information fields to the ESTA system, the Electronic System
for Travel Authorization, so that we know more about people who
want to travel to the United States from countries for which we
do not require a visa.
We have also developed and are developing an additional set
of security assurances that we can get from visa waiver
countries, because a large number of foreign fighters, as you
know, I'm sure, are coming from and returning to countries for
which we do not require a visa, and so I want to see us enhance
the security assurances we get from these countries with
respect to people who travel from those countries to this
country.
Additionally, on the international level, we've done a lot.
I sat in on and represented the U.S. and the U.N. Security
Council session in May on the issue of foreign fighters. And in
terms of our efforts here at home, one of the things that we're
spending a lot of time on, that I'm spending a lot of time on
are see what we refer to as CD engagements in communities in
the United States like Houston, for example.
I had a very good session in Houston on the same visit
where you and I were together at your middle school, and so in
my view, enhancing and refining our CD efforts in this country,
which DHS participates in, which the FBI participates in and
other law enforcement agencies, along with State and local law
enforcement, is a priority, given how the global terrorist
threat is evolving.
Mr. Poe. The other thing I want to discuss with you is
repatriation, and what the law is currently in the United
States and how it's being implemented, if it is.
We have this problem that a person comes to this country,
commits a crime, goes to Federal prison. While in prison, the
way the system works, he's ordered deported. The country
doesn't take him back. Six months later, he's released back
across America. What are we doing to those countries to
encourage them, you take your convicted criminals back?
Secretary Johnson. The State Department and I have been in
dialogue about this, and we have been in dialogue with
countries that are slow to repatriate people. I have personally
had this discussion with my Chinese counterparts when I was in
Beijing in April, and I believe we made some progress there
where they agreed to additional repatriation flights, and so
China is one of the big ones. So we made good progress there,
but I think, and I agree that there is more work to do in that
regard.
Mr. Poe. If I understand, China, number 1, the other top
five, Vietnam, Cuba, India, Jamaica, refused to take back their
lawfully deported citizens. Doesn't the law already allow the
State Department, under some circumstances similar to that
scenario, to revoke visas from that country?
Secretary Johnson. I believe it does, but I'm not sure.
Mr. Poe. Do you encourage the State Department to do that,
when appropriate?
Secretary Johnson. I would not, at this time, encourage
that, sir, no, sir.
Mr. Poe. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will yield
back.
Mr. Gowdy. The judge yields back. The Chair will now
recognize my friend from Florida, Mr. Deutch.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, thanks for being with us today and I
want to applaud your recent decision to change detention
practices for families awaiting their appearance in immigration
court, and that's because many of those awaiting their day in
court are mothers with young children.
Why they fled their home countries is no mystery. Central
America has been gripped by transnational gang violence, and
these families are not, as Republican presidential candidate
Donald Trump has described, to be violent criminals, drug
dealers, and rapists. These families are fleeing violent
criminals, drug dealers, and rapists. And many of the mothers
currently in custody have suffered sexual abuse, witnessed
extreme violence, and received death threats against themselves
and their children.
How we treat them, Mr. Secretary, colors the reputation of
the United States on the international stage, and our practice
of welcoming these most vulnerable families by essentially
incarcerating them was wrong and called for change.
After all, the purpose of civil detention is to ensure that
individuals show up in immigration court. These families have
every reason to do so. They pose no flight risk and indeed, for
many of them, returning home would mean risking death.
Likewise, we have no national interest in subjecting children
of any nationality to the detrimental psychological impact of
detention, which has been documented in several recent studies.
Your written testimony includes plans to rapidly increase
the use of ATDs, or alternatives to detention, and it deserves
our praise. Expanding the use of ATDs from 23,000 in 2014 to
53,000 in 2016 is the morally respectable and the fiscally
responsible thing to do, and I am encouraged by this
development, and I want to encourage you to expand the use of
ATDs throughout our greater immigration enforcement system.
Our overreliance on immigrant detention has disturbing
implications. A recent report by Detention Watch Network
revealed that ICE often agrees to contracts with for-profit
detention corporations that include guaranteed minimum numbers
of detainees for specific facilities each day. These local
lockup quotas in detention contracts obligate ICE to pay for a
minimum number of immigration detention beds at specific
facilities referred to in contracts as guaranteed minimums. And
for the government to contractually guarantee specific
detention center prepaid numbers of detainees, each day is a
waste of taxpayer dollars, it's a violation of best practices
of law enforcement, and it is an affront to our basic concept
of justice in America.
The financial implications for taxpayers will also raise in
a November 2014 GAO report, and that's because such quotas
often pad the profits of private-person companies at taxpayer
expense, even when slots go unfilled.
Certainly, detention is invaluable to law enforcement. It's
invaluable when dealing with immigrants who officers determine
are flight risk or whose release could threaten public safety,
but detention is intended to be one of many tools available to
ICE to ensure individuals show up for immigration court, not
the only one.
But evidence of local lockup quotas may just be the latest
symptom of the real disease, which is the mandate imposed by
Congress in the annual Homeland Security appropriations that
requires ICE to maintain the detention of 34,000 individuals
each day. This detention-bed mandate cost taxpayers over $2
billion a year, $5.5 million per day to enforce, because
placing someone in detention for nearly $160 a day is far more
expensive than proven alternatives, like ankle bracelets and
supervised release, which are just as effective and far more
humane at a fraction of the cost.
We could save taxpayers nearly $15 billion over the next
decade through the greater use of alternatives to detention.
But as sensible and as fiscally sound as this policy may be,
I'm concerned that the incorporation of local quotas into ICE
contracts is only further entrenching the national detention
bed mandate into our communities, and I have just a series of
questions. I'd ask you can respond now or you can provide
responses after, Mr. Secretary.
I would like to know if you're aware of ICE's practice of
signing these contracts with private detention companies that
contain lockup quotas? We're interested to know whether, during
contract negotiations, private detention companies insist the
contract for specific facilities contain these provisions? Is
it the lockup quota for a specific facility, is that lockup
quota negotiable during negotiations?
And finally, the November 2014 GAO report that addressed
lockup quotas for specific facilities was critical of those,
and I'd like to know whether DHS made any policy changes in
response to that report addressing lockup quotas in contracts
with private detention companies?
You're moving in the right direction, Mr. Secretary, and I
hope you can respond to these questions so that we can save the
taxpayers money so we can have a policy that is more humane as
well. Please.
Secretary Johnson. I would refer you to the directive that
I issued on June 24th in the announcement concerning family
detention, which you alluded to in your statement, and I'd like
to take those questions for the record, sir.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman from Florida yields back. The
Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here today. I have
a number of questions I intended to ask about cybersecurity,
but as I sit here, we have now been through most of the Members
on the panel. I need to ask you a question, and I feel like I
need to ask you it as not a Member of Congress, neither
Republican or Democrat, but just as an American.
And you were a former prosecutor. I respect your insight on
this, and I hope that you can share your thoughts in a candid
way, and this is actually, you know, a follow-up question, in
particular, to Mr. Collins' and Mr. Gowdy's questions.
We're a Nation of laws, and as I sit here and listen to
this discussion, we are a Nation of laws. It's what
differentiates us. It's what distinguishes us as a civilized
society, and in this country we don't discriminate when it
comes to the application of the law. In fact, the Fifth
Amendment of our Constitution, equal protection doctrine, and
which extends to States as well, specifically says, it requires
us, people in similar circumstances are to be treated in the
same way, in similar ways.
And as I think about sanctuary cities and how they have
been applied and how we have discussed them in this context,
how has this continued on? How do we continue to accept
sanctuary cities and its selective application of law? And I
would say, historically, Americans would view the selective
enforcement of laws as a sign of tyrannical government.
It's inherently unjust. It's a blatant misuse and abuse of
power to allow for such an environment to exist. And I'm
wondering how we expect Americans to respect the rule of law if
the Administration's policy is to enforce them, based solely on
edicts from rulers rather than from actual rule of law?
Secretary Johnson. Is your question with regard to
sanctuary cities?
Mr. Bishop. It is with regard to sanctuary cities, and to
me, as a person who represents a good 700,000 people, and one
of the very issues that I hear about every day is the fact that
we have lost the ability to enforce the laws as they are
written, that we do it in such a way that applies in one way to
one group in such a way, and another way to another group. And
when that happens, we lose the rule of law, and folks just
simply do not want to comply with the law.
Secretary Johnson. Well, if I could answer it this way:
Last year, when I took a look at the number--the growing number
of jurisdictions, States, cities, counties that were refusing
to cooperate with my own Department in the enforcement of our
immigration laws, I said, this is something that we have to fix
because the number is growing, and it's affecting public
safety, in my judgment.
And so we took a hard look at the Secure Communities
Program. We saw how it was becoming an item of litigation in
court, and the defendant was losing in court in these cases,
and we look at the political controversy that had been built up
around Secure Communities. I concluded that we needed to make a
clean break with the past and develop a fresh program that I
believe is going to fix the situation and promote public
safety.
And so that's what we've been doing since the announcement
of the new program in November. Unfortunately, there is no one-
size-fits-all answer to this, because a lot of these
jurisdictions have erected different types of limitations on
their ability to cooperate with us.
Mr. Bishop. May I--sir.
Secretary Johnson. We have to do this one by one.
Mr. Bishop. And I gathered that from the testimony. I know
my question was a duplication of many other questions. I
apologize for the fact that I'm asking a question that's
already been answered, but the frustration is, how is it
possible that we live in a country of laws, a Nation of laws
that allows these local jurisdictions to set up these little
buffer areas where the law does not apply to them?
And I know that we've heard about the Fourth Amendment and
the concerns about the Fourth Amendment, and I respect the
Fourth Amendment, but we can't hide behind the Fourth Amendment
when the rest of the Constitution applies, when in fact, it's
endangering citizens, and when it really prevents us from
applying the rule of law in a way that's consistent with every
American.
And I just sit here in frustration as I listen to this
discussion. I'm wondering why isn't the Federal Government
insisting upon these local units of government following the
rule of law and not allowing this to happen, not allowing this
selective application to happen?
Secretary Johnson. Well, again, I believe that the best
approach is a constructive one, and I believe that it will lead
to much better results. It will raise the level of trust and
cooperation, because we have not been in a good place when it
comes to a lot of jurisdictions that are just very distrustful
of our immigration enforcement efforts, and I want to put us in
a better place as long as I'm Secretary.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. The Chair will now
recognize the gentleman from Texas, former United States
Attorney, Mr. Ratcliffe.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, earlier today, as you gave your
testimony and responded, I think, to the first question, you
said something, you said, and I'm quoting you here, ``It is a
fiction to say that we are not enforcing the law,'' when it
comes to deporting criminal aliens. Did I hear you correctly?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And in fairness, and the Department
clearly is deporting some folks, but I'd hope that you'd agree
with me that what's not a fiction is that this Administration
has been attempting to change the law when it comes to
deporting criminal aliens, a fact reflected by the President's
executive orders back in November?
Secretary Johnson. I disagree.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Why would you disagree with that?
Secretary Johnson. Because in my judgment, and in the
judgment of the Department of Justice, our executive actions
were within and are within our existing legal authority.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm not talking about within the authority.
I'm asking you about changing the law here.
Secretary Johnson. Well, if it's in your legal authority to
act, you're not, by definition, changing the law.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, let me ask you about that then. You do
agree with me that the President's executive orders in November
attempts to allow executive amnesty to 4- to 5 million illegal
aliens, you'd agree with that?
Secretary Johnson. Not the way you've characterized it, no.
Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. Then how would you characterize
it?
Secretary Johnson. One of the executive actions I signed
was to create a program by which we can offer deferred action
on a case-by-case basis to those who come forward and who meet
certain criteria and who, in the judgment of the agency, should
be given deferred action.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Which could result in amnesty to up to 4- to
5 million----
Secretary Johnson. No.
Mr. Ratcliffe [continuing]. Folks here?
Secretary Johnson. I don't agree with that. That's not my
definition of amnesty.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. Well, you've gone on record,
regardless, of saying that you think the President's actions in
that regard, that he acted constitutionally.
Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. And I've gone on record as saying
I don't think that he has acted constitutionally, and right now
a Federal judge in a court of appeals in the Fifth Circuit has
agreed with me that the President's request to lift that stay
and to proceed to take those actions shouldn't be allowed. But
you've been asked today and talked a lot today about the issue
of prosecutorial discretion, and we're both former prosecutors,
so I'd like to ask you about something that you said previously
in a hearing last year.
You said, and I'm quoting, ``There comes a point when
something amounts to a wholesale abandonment to enforce a duly
enacted constitutional law that is beyond simple prosecutorial
discretion,'' end quote. Does that sound like something you
said?
Secretary Johnson. That sounds like me, yes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. And do you believe that?
Secretary Johnson. I still do.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So I know the answer to this question,
but I'm going to ask you anyway. Do you think that DHS has
already crossed that line by suspending the law for almost 5
million folks that are here illegally?
Secretary Johnson. Well, again, I would not characterize
our executive actions that way, and I would refer you to the
opinion of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel issued in November
in terms of where that line exists. I thought it was a pretty
thoughtful discussion.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. But again, you don't think that
wherever you think that line is, you don't think DHS has
crossed it at this point?
Secretary Johnson. No, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So that begs the question----
Secretary Johnson. I know that there are people who
disagree with me, but no, sir.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Sure. That begs the question from me, what
would it take, in your opinion, for DHS to cross that line
because I think there's every possibility that this President
will attempt to move this line again, and so if this President
were to seek to grant deferred action to, say, all 11- or 12
million unlawful aliens in this country, I would like to hear
you on the record on whether or not you think that would cross
this line?
Secretary Johnson. Well, again, I'm no longer practicing
law. I'm just a Secretary. And so I think what you're asking me
for is a legal judgment, and again, I believe that the opinion
of DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel has a pretty good discussion
of this exact topic, and I recall when I read it, agreeing with
the analysis. I don't have it with me, but I recall then
agreeing with the analysis.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, let me ask you about that. So that
analysis extends--since you had a good discussion with them,
would it extend to possibly 11- or 12 million folks?
Secretary Johnson. Doubtful.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And if it did, would you have an opinion on
whether it should?
Secretary Johnson. Well, it depends on the circumstances,
but I would say I doubt it.
Mr. Ratcliffe. So when you say you doubt it, you doubt that
amnesty should be granted to 11- or 12 million people?
Secretary Johnson. Well, if you're referring to the
estimated population of undocumented in this country, a lot of
those people are and should be priorities for removal, so in my
judgment, someone who is a priority for removal should not
receive deferred action.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I see my time is expired.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Secretary, I thought we were kind of getting toward the
end, and then two Members came up. Would you want or desire a
short break, or you want to keep marching on in hopes that we--
--
Secretary Johnson. I'm happy to keep going for a little
while longer.
Mr. Gowdy. Okay.
Secretary Johnson. Thank you for asking.
Mr. Gowdy. Yes, sir. The gentleman from New York, my
friend, Mr. Hakeem Jeffries, is recognized.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, distinguished Chair from South
Carolina, my good friend, and I want to thank the Secretary for
your presence here today, your patience, as well as the
tremendous job that I believe you've done as the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and your prior service.
Secretary Johnson. Who's known you a lot longer than the
gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Jeffries. I want to begin by just asking that there are
11 million undocumented immigrants in this country
approximately; is that correct?
Secretary Johnson. That is a Pew estimate from a few years
ago, 11.3, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And has this Congress or any other
Congress ever given the Department of Homeland Security the
resources that will be required to deport all 11 million
undocumented immigrants?
Secretary Johnson. No.
Mr. Jeffries. And so, therefore, is it reasonable to have a
priority policy that focuses on those undocumented immigrants
who would potentially pose the most danger to the American
citizens?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Is that what DHS has done?
Secretary Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. In New York City, we've got a
technology innovation economy that has begun to develop in some
significant ways for our city and our State as has been the
case across the Nation, and I've been very supportive of that.
Many within the technology sector have indicated that there's
approximately a 20 percent vacancy rate, if not more, of jobs
that they cannot fill here in America, that's been part of the
impetus for an increase in H-1B visas, which I've supported.
I was disturbed, however, by the revelations as to what
appears to have taken place down in Florida at the Disney
Company. I just wanted to ask a few questions about that.
Before I did, I'd just asked unanimous consent that an article
from the New York Times dated June 3, 2015, titled ``Pink Slips
at Disney, But First Training Foreign Replacements'' be entered
into the record.
Mr. Gowdy. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Mr. Jeffries. And so, as I understand it, approximately 250
Disney workers were laid off at some point in 2014, and then
many were replaced by immigrants hired by an outsourcing
company based in India; is that correct?
Secretary Johnson. That's basically my understanding, yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And is it also your understanding----
Secretary Johnson. That's my understanding of the public
reporting of it. The matter is under investigation.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. So, as I understand it, those
individuals were allegedly laid off and then asked, prior to
their departure, to train individuals connected to this company
to replace them who were given H-1B visas. Is that the current
allegation, as you understand it?
Secretary Johnson. Yes, I believe so, but the matter is
under investigation.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And so I understand what the law is in
this area, am I correct that the H-1B visa program, which
provides a limited number of temporary visas. I believe it's
somewhere in the neighborhood of 85,000 a year for foreigners
with computer science, engineering, or other advanced skills,
to fill jobs in American companies when American workers are
not otherwise available. Is that a correct description of the
program?
Secretary Johnson. That sounds basically correct to me,
sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jeffries. And if your investigation determines that
this particular company or any other company violated the
actual law related to the issuance of H-1B visas and the
employment constraints, what are the potential consequences
related to a violation of the policy?
Secretary Johnson. Well, that's actually something where I
think Congress may be able to help us.
It's my understanding that we don't have enough tools
legally to deal with that kind of situation, assuming it
occurs. And so what people have told me is that we could use
some help from Congress to bolster our enforcement capabilities
in a situation such as that one. And I can get you a more
informed opinion on that answer, but that's what I'm advised
of.
Mr. Jeffries. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I'd be
interested in your further thoughts in that area.
And I yield back.
Mr. Gowdy. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Farenthold.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johnson, thank you for being here. We appreciate
your service to the country.
First of all, just can you give me a quick response with
the percentage, how secure do you think our southern border is?
Secretary Johnson. How secure----
Mr. Farenthold. How secure is the southern border,
percentage?
Secretary Johnson. It's tough to quantify by percentage. As
I mentioned earlier, I think that over the last 15 years we've
come a long way in our border security----
Mr. Farenthold. So are we 50, 75? I mean, what do you
think? You can't put a number on it? I mean, how can you
measure results if you can't quantify it?
Secretary Johnson. The percentage of the border that is
secure?
Mr. Farenthold. How secure is it? What percentage of folks
are getting away that are crossing? Do you have any idea?
Secretary Johnson. Apprehensions, which are an indicator of
total attempts to cross the border illegally, have gone down
considerably in the last year.
Mr. Farenthold. So you can't give me a number. That's fine.
I spent some time on our southern border talking to the men
and women actually in the field. I represent south Texas. Used
to represent the border down at Brownsville. So it's kind of
right in the backyard of the district that I represent. And I
have to tell you, I'm hearing a lot of frustration from the
rank and file of the Border Patrol. I'm hearing restrictions on
overtime are causing smaller teams of Border Patrol agents to
be sent in pursuit of crossers and that prosecutorial
discretion means that aliens and drug smugglers that our agents
risk their lives to apprehend are just getting released. I've
also recently heard the Administration is planning to cut
proposed fleet purchases to replace the vehicles that our
Border Patrol agents desperately need to secure our borders.
These men and women are brave in danger in a very rough
environment. I actually did a ride-along out in the brush, and
I understand that it's tough to protect this country,
especially in some of the terrain in south Texas. But the
Administration's policies seem to completely ignore the fact
that they need the equipment and the manpower to do what they
need to do, and it seems like they're almost intentionally
reducing the morale of Border Patrol agents.
Tell me, if you had to be on the border working shifts with
the men and women in uniform, and you know that in all
likelihood that you're putting your life in danger to catch
illegal aliens and dangerous drug smugglers that most likely
end up getting released from custody and walking away in the
end, how would you feel about it?
Secretary Johnson. Well, again--well, let me answer it this
way, if I may. Under our new policy, those apprehended at the
border are priorities for removal, and those apprehended who
arrived in this country after January 1, 2014, are priorities
for removal.
Mr. Farenthold. But what I'm hearing from the Border Patrol
agents is they're catching somebody, and then just a few days
later they're catching the same person again. So you deport
them, they're taken basically back across the bridge, and my
understanding of the contracts with the coyotes is you get
three tries to get across.
Secretary Johnson. That person should be a priority for
removal. And I believe that in our current budget request to
Congress we are asking for more surveillance technology, more
border security to do a better job. We've come a long way in
the last 15 years. I'm very pleased about that. But I know that
there's a lot more to do, sir.
Mr. Farenthold. And I know Mr. Gowdy's bill helps with some
of that, and we look forward to getting that through Congress.
Let me take it from the other side. If you were an alien or
a drug smuggler with the knowledge that as long as you don't
bring more than a handful of people across or a certain amount
of drugs, under the prosecutorial discretion limits that
everybody knows, you'd get way scot-free. Wouldn't that just be
an incentive to keep going? I mean, it doesn't seem like that
would be a deterrent.
Secretary Johnson. I disagree. Those apprehended at the
border, irrespective of whether they have narcotics with them,
irrespective of whether they're smuggling, our priority is
removal.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. But what about the drug
smugglers with small amounts of drugs or the coyotes that are
only bringing over three folks? My understanding from the
Border Patrol agents is that if you have less than four, you
basically walk as the coyote.
Secretary Johnson. We've also, beginning last year, cracked
down on the smuggling organizations. That's something that the
Department of Justice and I instituted last summer.
Mr. Farenthold. But are you telling me that it's not a fact
that if you have a small number of aliens or a small amount of
drugs with you, you're certainly not going to face any jail
time, at worst you're going to be taken back across the border?
Secretary Johnson. Well, that's a matter of law enforcement
and prosecutorial discretion by the Department of Justice. I do
know that since last year, since about a year ago, we have
prioritized going after the coyote organizations.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, thank you very much.
I see I've only got 5 seconds left, so I'll yield back the
remainder of my time.
Mr. Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Secretary, you've been here a good long while. I know
you have other commitments. I wanted to recognize Mr. Gutierrez
for any closing reflections that he may have, and then I
wanted, at the Chairman's request, to mention a couple matters,
and then we'll have you out of there.
Mr. Gutierrez
Mr. Gutierrez. First, thank you, Mr. Gowdy, for your
excellent presiding over these hearings.
One of the reasons, Mr. Secretary, one of us always stays
behind as part of the minority, to protect the interests of the
minority, and in the case yours. I was totally unnecessary. As
you can see, the Chairman is very well balanced and evenhanded
in everything.
I just want to just for the record, because I think it's
very important, I want to say to you, Mr. Gowdy, I share with
you the same anguish and pain, as I know the Secretary does and
every American, at the death of that woman, and that nobody has
come here to look for excuses or anything else. That woman
should be alive. That woman should be enjoying life in the
United States of America. Mr. Lopez should never have been
allowed on the streets of our Nation again.
But I think it is important that we have the facts
straight, that our system does work, and sometimes it fails us.
He was sentenced 63 months, 51 months, 21 months, 46 months.
Four consecutive times he was sentenced to over 10 years--and
he served them--over 10 years in jail because he illegally
entered the United States of America time and time again,
violating. I mean, this is a career criminal that we had on our
hands.
So I think we should just try to figure out a way, because
I really believe this, and I want to put this on the record
even though it might cause you great damage back in South
Carolina, I really believe that if you and I and the Secretary
and men and women who wanted to solve the problem, we could
solve this problem and we could save future people from harm.
This man is not an immigrant. Immigrants come here to work
hard, sweat, and toil. We should be warm and receiving. This
man's a foreigner who came here to cause damage. And let's fix
our broken immigration system so we can get rid of the
foreigners that come here to cause damage and harm and welcome
the immigrants.
Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, for a long day here with
us.
Mr. Gowdy. I thank the gentleman from Illinois and for what
he said and for being always very consistent. In the entire
time I've been on this Committee you have zero tolerance for
those who come here to do harm to anyone, and that has been
your position as long as I've known you.
Mr. Secretary, the Chairman wanted me to mention really
quickly to you that he had written in March about alleged fraud
in the Special Immigrant Justice Visa Program, and he pledged
again his willingness to work with you to cooperate to identify
any of the sources of the fraud so that it can be eliminated.
I can tell by the look on your face you may--I'm sure you
get a lot of letters--you may not specifically recall that one,
but I know the folks behind you will bring it up. I think it
was in March of this year. But if not, if we need to get you
another copy of that, we will.
Secondarily, it sounds like you are well aware of the
Sentencing Commission's change and that you and the Department
of Justice are working on that.
I'm not going to ask you about the Fifth Circuit. You
couldn't comment on it. I can ask about it anyway.
The only thing I would add to what my friend from Illinois
said, there are parts of immigration that you and I and Mr.
Gutierrez are probably not ever going to agree on, and that's
good, that's fine, that's the beauty of a democracy.
I think what we can all agree on is to return someone with
his criminal history to a jurisdiction that had no intention
whatsoever of ever prosecuting him, and in the process he is
released, should be an affront to everyone, irrespective of
political ideation. San Francisco had no intention of
prosecuting him. They dismissed the case. You can dismiss it
when he's halfway through his Federal prison sentence just as
easily as you can when he's in your custody.
So I will tell you, I am happy to work within, and I get
the commandeering clause, I get the due process considerations.
I know that those are legitimate. You got court cases out
there. If there's a way to get around that--you know, what I
find instructive--I don't doubt your power of persuasion, and I
know that you're going to go back and talk to those five
municipalities that told you no. But even after this young
woman was murdered San Francisco is already on the record
saying they're not going to change their policy.
So when you have a city like that, I don't know that
cooperation and persuasion's going to work. So we may need to
consider something else. I mean, when I look at you, I see the
Secretary of Homeland Security for the United States of
America. He shouldn't have to ask San Francisco. You shouldn't
have to get their cooperation. You, to me, outrank the city
supervisors in San Francisco.
So with that, thank you for your patience. You have a
really hard job. And we appreciate your current service and
your previous service.
With that, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Response to Questions for the Record from
the Honorable Jeh Charles Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]