    [Senate Hearing 114-873]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 114-873

                          OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT
                              OF HOMELAND SECURITY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 28, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-114-14

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    47-429                       WASHINGTON : 2023

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
    ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah                 PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Ranking
    JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama                   Member
    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DAVID VITTER, Louisiana              AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    DAVID PERDUE, Georgia                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut

                Kolan L. Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
          Kristine Lucius, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           APRIL 28, 2015, 10:03 A.M.

                        STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                       Page

    Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa.     1
    Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
      York...........................................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Witness List.....................................................    51
    Johnson, Jeh, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security....     5
        prepared statement...........................................    52

                                   QUESTIONS

    Questions submitted to Secretary Johnson by:
        Senator Grassley.............................................   100
        Senator Lee..................................................   114
        Senator Cruz.................................................    61
        Senator Flake................................................    94
        Senator Vitter...............................................   122
        Senator Perdue...............................................   116
        Senator Tillis...............................................   121
        Senator Leahy................................................   113
        Senator Feinstein............................................    90
        Senator Schumer..............................................   120
        Senator Franken..............................................    98

                                    ANSWERS

    Responses of Secretary Johnson:
        Answer to Question 21........................................   126
    Exams Spending:..................................................   139
    Fraud Account Spending, Question 22 from Senator Cruz:...........   143
    H-1B Spending:...................................................   144
    USCIS Obligations Fiscal Year 2009-2015:.........................   145
    USCIS Filing trends to QFR 23 compiled August, 20, 2015:.........   146
    USCIS Filing trends to QFR 23 compiled August, 20, 2015:.........   152
    H2B Approvals and Denials Fiscal Year 2013-Fiscal Year 2015:.....   158
    Sacramento, California FFRMS Listening Session Attendees:........   162

                    MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Benny Martinex Statement                                             77
    EPIC Intelligence Assessment                                         80

                          OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT
                              OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                         Washington, DC
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., Room
    226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
    Chairman, presiding.
        Present: Senators Sessions, Cornyn, Cruz, Flake, Perdue,
    Tillis, Schumer, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Coons,
    and Blumenthal.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR
                         FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for coming.
        Oversight is a critical function and a constitutional
    responsibility of our branch. Every year, this Committee tries
    to invite the Secretary of Homeland Security to brief us on the
    State of affairs at that Department. It is an opportunity to
    question the administration's policies, as well as an
    opportunity for the Department to take responsibility for its
    actions.
        It is a pleasure to have Secretary Johnson here. This is
    the first opportunity for our Committee to question him
    publicly since the President's executive action on immigration
    announced in November.
        Even though there is an injunction against the executive's
    actions, we can still get a good idea of what to expect from
    the enjoined programs based on the way the Department has
    implemented the DACA program. It appears, for example, that
    applications for deferred action are being rubber stamped,
    evidenced by the fact that criminals and gang members are
    receiving special benefit despite supposed policies against it.
        Take, for example, the case of a DACA recipient in North
    Carolina, Emmanuel Rangel-Hernandez, who is accused of
    murdering four people. Last week, the Department admitted
    Rangel-Hernandez had received DACA, despite his gang membership
    which was known to adjudicators and despite being in
    deportation proceedings.
        The Agency response indicated a lap--lapse in the
    processing of Rangel-Hernandez's application, however, it is
    not yet clear who ultimately made the decision to approve the
    application but we need to get to the bottom of it. We know
    that the Agency has terminated 282 DACA requests because of
    gang and/or criminal issues, so this appears to be a bigger
    problem.
        This tragedy compels the question, what background checks
    are in place and are they adequate to ensure benefits are not
    being provided to those who pose a threat to homeland and
    public safety, and does this administration truly have a zero
    tolerance policy for granting immigration benefits to criminals
    and gang members, as suggested by the President?
        The Committee will also want to hear from the Secretary
    about the proposed expansion of DACA and why the Department
    provided over 100,000 DACA work authorization extensions,
    despite assurances that lawyers gave the Federal court that it
    would not implement any aspect of the President's executive
    action until February 18, 2015.
        Whether discussing the 2012 DACA program or the 2014
    executive actions, there remain questions about the legality of
    the President's actions. There are also questions about how the
    Department will fund the program and whether legal immigrants
    will suffer due to the prioritization for benefits of people in
    the country illegally.
        The Secretary must also answer as to why this
    administration is allowing people here illegally to be put on a
    path to citizenship, which is clearly a constitutional
    responsibility of Congress. This path to citizenship is
    afforded through the administration's use of advanced pro
    considering--encouraging DACA applicants to take advantage of.
        This loophole will set a dangerous precedent that will
    allow lawbreakers to obtain the benefits of lawful, permanent
    residence and citizenship after showing a total disregard for
    American law. One thing seem to be very clear: there is little
    will or desire by the administration to enforce the laws on the
    books and back up agents in the field who swear to uphold the
    law.
        The administration needs to answer for the release of
    criminal aliens into the community. In Fiscal Year 2013, the
    Department released from detention over 36,000 convicted
    criminal aliens in removal proceedings or after they had been
    ordered removed, and in 2014 it released 30,558 convicted
    criminal aliens. They had convictions ranging from homicide,
    sexual assault, kidnapping, to aggravated assault, to drunk
    driving.
        According to ICE statistics, 56.8 percent of the 30,558
    releases in 2014 were purely discretionary. The remainder were
    due to court mandates and the ability to obtain travel
    documents. Why did the administration release almost 60 percent
    of the criminals in their custody and what are they going to do
    about it? I expect the Secretary to address that today.
        I expect the Secretary to also address the problems of the
    EB-5 immigrant investor program. Not only are these--there
    gaping holes that risk our national security, there are serious
    management problems that were highlighted by the Inspector
    General. The IG laid out how preferential treatment was granted
    to those well-connected.
        It is very clear that the Secretary does not plan to hold
    the former Director, who now sits in the number-two post,
    accountable for his actions. Instead, it appears that the
    violations of ethical conduct will go unpunished, all while
    agents and adjudicators in the field are being reprimanded and
    threatened if they do not get to yes and follow the President's
    policies.
        I would also like to hear Secretary Johnson's thoughts on
    combatting an array of national security issues that the
    country faces. The rise of ISIS, of course, presents a
    significant threat to the homeland. This past weekend it was
    reported that the Federal Government is actively investigating
    an ISIS plot to commit a terrorist attack inside the United
    States, perhaps by targeting uniformed personnel in California.
        The Transportation Secretary and TSA alerted local law
    enforcement to be on the lookout and to increase security.
    Earlier this month, there were a number of arrests of American
    citizens for their involvement with ISIS. The Justice
    Department has also alleged that ISIS helped to train a man
    from Ohio. The man had traveled to Syria and was directed to
    return to the United States and commit a terrorist attack here.
        Other individuals, including a Kansas man and two people in
    New York, were allegedly inspired by ISIS propaganda. Numerous
    other Americans have been arrested on the way to the airport as
    allegedly attempting to travel to ISIS.
        The President has downplayed the threat posed by ISIS, but
    it reportedly has billions of dollars and controls significant
    territory and is executing innocent men, women and children
    across the Middle East, including Americans. This is obviously
    a threat that requires a serious and sustained response to keep
    our homeland safe.
        Another threat I expect the Secretary to address is ever-
    increasing risk of cyber attacks. News reports are filled with
    shocking examples of the Federal Government's lack of
    preparedness against the threat. It was reported this past
    weekend that the President's unclassified email was hacked in
    late 2014.
        Defense Secretary Kerr recently disclosed that earlier this
    year that Russian hackers accessed an unclassified Pentagon
    computer network. Moreover, a recent Government Accountability
    Office report found that DHS lacked a strategy for protecting
    government buildings and access control systems from intrusion
    by hackers.
        Cyber security cannot be on the periphery of our national
    security strategy any longer. It has to be at the center. There
    are many issues to discussion today, and I thank the Secretary
    for being here.
        I am told that Senator Leahy cannot come, and I am willing
    to call on anybody on that side of the aisle. Go ahead, Senator
    Schumer.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR
                       FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Senator Schumer. Thank you for choosing me, among all the
    other choices, first. I appreciate that very much. [Laughter.]
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Secretary Johnson.
    Secretary, it is always a pleasure to see you and speak with
    you about the critical issues confronting our Nation. As a
    fellow New Yorker, I am proud of the work you have done since
    being confirmed. I think most Americans join me. You have done
    a great job.
        I think I can speak for our friends on both sides of the
    aisle, you are always available, you are always candid, you ask
    the right questions, you give answers when we answer questions,
    so you are a credit to your Department and to the country. Your
    depth and breadth in counter-terrorism and defense issues has
    served the Department very well.
        I want to tell you, you have a great staff. They hear from
    me constantly. New York is a center, a terrorist target. New
    York, we have all of the Sandy issues and defense issues, and
    your staff is fabulous. I thank you for that.
        We all know that DHS is tasked with an enormous range of
    responsibilities, from guarding our borders and coastline to
    administering immigration, responding when disaster strikes,
    shielding the President, protecting our airports, securing the
    homeland. It is a huge job.
        In my State, from New York to Buff--New York City to
    Buffalo and all along the northern border, the Department's
    work directly impacts our economy as well as our security.
    Whether it's the Peace Bridge in Buffalo, the JFK International
    Airport, Hurricane Sandy relief efforts, DHS's work is vital to
    New Yorkers and your dedicated civil servants who fill these
    responsibilities are essential.
        Unfortunately, we had an appropriations battle where we
    fought from the beginning of the year and we emphasized time
    and time again that 90 percent of DHS personnel would be
    declared essential in the event of a Department-wide shut-down.
    That meant they would have to work without pay unless Congress
    got its act together.
        It befuddled me how so many people could want to hold up
    DHS funding when you have so many vital issues at stake
    unrelated to immigration because the President would not do
    what it wanted. It was hostage-taking at its worst, and I am
    glad the Department did not shut down. I am relieved, too, that
    you were able to keep your hands on the helm during those
    difficult times.
        I want to close by addressing two issues that my dear
    colleague Senator Grassley has addressed. First, is ISIS and
    terrorism. There are new terrorist threats. Believe me, as a
    New Yorker who lived through 9/11, knew people who died, I know
    that.
        I would say this to my colleagues. With the new threats and
    the changing threats, we ought to be taking our hat off to the
    Secretary, his people, and all the people in the CIA, DoD, NSA
    who do an amazing job. It is not an accident that, praise God,
    we have not had a 9/11-like incident in America.
        In fact, just about every--with the exception of Boston,
    which was unique. Just about every major terrorist incident has
    been thwarted ahead of time, as Senator Grassley talked about.
    That is not an accident. That is not an accident.
        I think that the men and women who work for you, CIA, DOD,
    NSA and all the other agencies, FBI, deserve a tremendous
    amount of credit. They are wonderful. They are like our
    soldiers. They are wonderful civil servants. I have talked to
    so many of them who are truly dedicated to preventing, God
    forbid, another terrorist attack on our homeland. So I salute
    them, and certainly questions should be asked, but let us not
    forget to give a little praise where praise is due.
        Second, on immigration. You know, I find it truly
    befuddling about my colleagues from the other side of the
    aisle. They cry out against a broken border. The bipartisan
    immigration bill passed. Senator McCain and myself, the Gang of
    8, does more to tighten up the border than any proposal made by
    the other side. More than any.
        We talk about a broken system but our colleagues are just
    happy to let the status quo go on, where employers are allowed
    to hire new illegals. Our bill stopped that with things taken
    from Jeff Session's book, E-Verify and things like that. We get
    a lot of complaints that the President is moving forward on
    immigration but we have no activity, no solutions from the
    other side of the aisle, only complaints. That is not
    governing.
        They are in the Majority, they have a responsibility to
    start governing on this issue instead of just complaining when
    the administration, because of the paralysis in Congress on
    this issue, not caused by Democrats, blocks us from moving
    forward.
        I would just say you will hear a lot of those complaints,
    but let us all bear in mind that this Senate, bipartisan, came
    together on a solution that dealt with border, dealt with
    illegals crossing the border, dealt with all of the issues we
    faced. It had overwhelming support in the country. A majority
    of Republicans supported the bill. But because of a hard right
    few, we have been unable to pass a bill. That should be
    constantly borne in mind as you will hear the criticisms that
    you will hear today.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield the floor.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        Senator Schumer. I mean, the microphone. We are not on the
    floor.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I have you go ahead, stay seated,
    but I would like to have you affirm that the testimony you are
    about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole
    truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
        Secretary Johnson. I do, sir.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Proceed.

     STATEMENT OF HON. JEH JOHNSON, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

        Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
    the members of the Committee for hearing me today. You have my
    prepared statement. Let me just say a few things in the 5-
    minutes that I have.
        In my view, counter-terrorism needs to remain the
    cornerstone of the Department of Homeland Security's mission.
    It is the reason we were formed and it's the reason why I
    accepted service as the Secretary for this Department.
        In my view, the global terrorist threat has evolved to a
    new phase. It is more complex, it is more decentralized. In
    many respects, it is harder to detect. There are more groups
    and we therefore need a whole-of-government approach to our
    counter-terrorism efforts that includes very much so the
    Department of Homeland Security. We have the phenomenon now of
    foreign fighters who leave their home countries, go to places
    like Iraq and Syria and return.
        We need to track foreign fighters. We need to track foreign
    fighters from countries for which we do not require a visa. My
    staff is developing, as a follow-on to what we did last summer,
    greater security measures that can be taken with regard to
    travelers from those countries.
        We continue to focus on aviation security. I want to build
    pre-clearance capability on the front end of a flight into the
    United States. We are working daily to do that. A lot of our
    efforts continue to center around airport security. We directed
    a number of things last week concerning airport security.
        We are engaging State and local law enforcement, which in
    my view, given the nature of the homeland threat which involves
    the threat of the lone wolf, the independent actor--it's much
    more important that we work with city police departments,
    commissions--commissioners, State law enforcement as well.
        We have our engagements in the community to counter violent
    extremism. I personally traveled to places like Minneapolis,
    Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Columbus, Ohio, to engage
    community leaders about countering violent extremism. I am
    pleased that the Congress is active in evaluating and voting on
    cyber security legislation. It is one of my top priorities and
    I'm happy to discuss that further.
        We are doing a lot to enhance border security. We have
    added resources, stemming from last summer. We have prioritized
    those apprehended at the border. We have developed what I
    briefed to some of you, the Southern Border Campaign Strategy,
    which is a DHS-wide combined effort at border security on the
    southern border.
        As I reported last week, our numbers of apprehensions on
    the Southern border midway through the Fiscal Year are down
    considerably from where they were this time last year, and even
    the year before that. Apprehensions are an indication of total
    attempts to cross the border illegally and they are down
    considerably, though I believe that there is more we can, and
    should, do.
        As all of you know, the President and I are interested in
    reforming our immigration system. We announced a number of
    executive actions that include deferred action for parents,
    which is the subject of the litigation in Texas, but it
    includes a number of other things as well: added border
    security, the Southern Border Campaign Strategy, pay reform for
    immigration enforcement personnel, and so forth.
        We are ending the controversial Secure Communities program,
    which led to a lot of resistance from State and local law
    enforcement in an effort to get at the criminals who should be
    removed from our country.
        I am interested in enhancing public safety, I'm interested
    in getting at the criminals, and so we are working with mayors,
    Governors, county commissioners, sheriff's chiefs, to introduce
    them to our new Priority Enforcement Program so that they will
    work with us again in an effort to get at the criminals who
    should be removed from this country.
        I am sure we will have an opportunity to discuss the EB-5
    program. There are a number of security enhancements I would
    like to see for the EB-5 program. I wrote a letter to the
    Chairman and the Ranking on that yesterday. We are doing a
    number of things to reform the way we manage the Department to
    make it a more effective and efficient place.
        Last but not least, I want to thank the members of the
    Senate for helping us fill the vacancies in our Department.
    Over the last 16 months, we have had 12 Senate-confirmed
    Presidential appointments to the Department, including myself.
        Our nominee for Under Secretary for Management Russ Deyo,
    was confirmed 2 weeks ago. I am very appreciative of the Senate
    for that. Our nominee to be the new TSA administrator should be
    announced shortly, perhaps even today.
        I thank the Committee in advance for your time and
    attention, and I am interested in building a more effective and
    efficient Department of Homeland Security, and I appreciate the
    support in doing that.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Johnson appears as a
    submission for the record]
        Chairman Grassley. I'm going to start with a statement on
    Mr. Mayorkas that I don't expect you to respond to, but I want
    you to know exactly how I feel about it.
        In the Inspector General report on Mr. Mayorkas and the EB-
    5 program, the Inspector General clearly laid out the evidence
    against Mayorkas. The report explains how he intervened on
    three particular cases, each of which had high-profile
    political connections. Despite the outrage, it seems to me that
    you have no intention of doing anything and plan to stick by
    Mr. Mayorkas, even though he provided preferential treatment
    and violated the very rules he wrote about ethical conduct.
        It is no wonder that there is a morale problem at the
    Department. Employees see leadership getting away with
    violating the rules. Employees are given clear rules on
    preferential treatment and how to adjudicate EB-5, yet when the
    Director himself breaks those rules there's no recourse, and
    then what are employees to think about that?
        The only defense that I have seen so far on the
    preferential treatment is the Agency gets pressure from Members
    of Congress and from both sides of the aisle. I think that that
    is comparing apples and oranges and it is no excuse. Members of
    Congress aren't in a position to effect final decisions like a
    Director.
        Secretary Johnson, I think that it causes a loss of
    credibility with many people that work within the Department.
    It's a shame that there has been--it's been tolerated by you
    and others in the administration. That's that statement.
        I'll go to my first question. I want to ask you about Mr.
    Rangel-Hernandez, a gang member that committed those murders I
    referred to. According to your April 17th response to me and
    Senator Tillis, Mr. Rangel-Hernandez's application should have
    gone through several layers of review, including by U.S.
    Citizenship and Immigration Services's Background Check Unit.
        Because of his gang affiliation, the Department's
    headquarters should also have reviewed the case. Thus, the
    adjudicator would only be able to approve such an application
    after a sign-off from Washington leadership. There was
    obviously a lapse, but it's unclear who dropped the ball.
        First question: why was Mr. Rangel-Hernandez approved for
    deferred action, despite his known gang ties? In other words,
    which office is responsible for approving the DACA applicant,
    and was it the adjudicator, the Background Check Unit, or U.S.
    CIS headquarters?
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, the answer to the broader
    question is----
        Chairman Grassley. Microphone.
        Secretary Johnson. The answer to the why question is
    simply, he should not have received DACA. I believe, on
    balance, DACA is a good program. I also believe that this case
    is a tragic case and this individual should not have received
    DACA. I cannot state that in stronger terms.
        In reaction to that case, as I think you know, we have gone
    back and we have retrained the entire workforce that deals with
    these cases to make sure that they identify trouble signs, such
    as suspected membership in criminal gangs. If you're a member
    of a criminal gang, a known member of a criminal gang, you
    should not be receiving DACA, you should be considered a
    priority for removal.
        We retrained the force and we've done a retrospective
    review of every DACA case, every DACA participant, to see
    whether there are any similar to this case. We've identified
    some and we continue to evaluate this to make sure that we have
    reduced situations like this to zero in the DACA program.
        I'm interested in--I'm interested in deporting criminals,
    sir, and that's one of the reasons why we have engaged in
    things like Operation Cross-Check, which is interior
    enforcement. This was an operation conducted several weeks ago
    where we rounded up some 2,000 priorities for removal. So I am
    interested in getting at the criminals, sir.
        Chairman Grassley. Yes.
        Secretary Johnson. This--this case is a tragic case and he
    should not have received DACA.
        Chairman Grassley. Do you know whether it was the
    adjudicator or the Background Check Unit or the U.S. CIS
    headquarters that made the mistake on Hernandez?
        Secretary Johnson. I believe that the error occurred--and I
    don't have the facts in detail, but I believe the error
    occurred once he was referred to those who normally conduct the
    background checks. I do not know the name of that unit, but I
    believe the error occurred at that point.
        Chairman Grassley. OK. Then you just talked about a zero
    tolerance policy. I guess it would appear to me that you don't
    have a zero tolerance policy, and you just told me you do have.
    I guess in the future then we would expect things like this not
    to happen?
        Secretary Johnson. In the future I am interested in
    deporting criminals, including those who've committed crimes
    who are in the DACA program. They are priorities for removal.
        Chairman Grassley. On April the 9th--and all this question
    is, is can I have a response by May the 1st. On April the 9th,
    I wrote you about another individual, I think it's pronounced
    Jose Buroquez, in the country illegally, an alleged DACA
    recipient that has been charged with suspicion of second-degree
    murder in Tempe, Arizona. I have yet to receive a response.
    Could you see that I get a response to that?
        Secretary Johnson. I will. I will undertake to provide you
    a prompt response, sir.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        It is clear to me that the Department no longer seems to
    have a will to enforce immigration laws. I start with the
    statistics of interior removals, plummeting from 237,000 Fiscal
    Year 2009 to 102,000 Fiscal Year 2014. Saying that officers
    were reassigned from the interior to the border, I don't
    think--well, I guess I'd say a red herring. It doesn't explain
    why interior removals had already declined by 44 percent
    between 2009 and fiscal 2013, well above the surge.
        What can the Committee expect with regard to removals in
    the interior? Will they continue to decline, showing a
    continued disregard for enforcement of the law?
        Secretary Johnson. With the resources we have, sir, I'm
    interested in focusing on criminals and recent illegal arrivals
    at the border. We have prioritized criminals, we've prioritized
    those who came into this country after January 1, 2014, and
    we've prioritized those who were apprehended at the border.
        That is one of the reasons why we have a new Priority
    Enforcement Program where we want to work with law enforcement
    to get at those who are behind bars. It's one of the reasons
    why we have developed Operation Cross-Check, greater interior
    enforcement against criminals. I'm interested in going after
    the criminals.
        One of the reasons I believe that the removal numbers are
    down this year, and we are in the middle of the fiscal year, is
    because lower apprehensions, so there's lower intake--lower
    apprehensions, as I referred to in my opening remarks. There
    are fewer people attempting to cross the Southern border and
    there are fewer people apprehended.
        The other reason, frankly, is because of all of the
    resistance that we were receiving in State and local law
    enforcement to the Security Communities Program. Something like
    239 jurisdiction were resisting cooperating with us in our
    enforcement activities, so we've developed a new program that I
    believe removes the political and legal controversy with the
    old program.
        I am now personally engaging in conversations with mayors,
    Governors, about the new program so that we can work together
    again at interior enforcement against criminals, those who
    represent public safety.
        I also believe, sir, that one of the reasons the numbers
    are not as high as they used to be when it comes to removals is
    because of the changing character of the migrants. They are
    increasingly from non-contiguous countries and the process of a
    removal of someone from a non-contiguous country is more time-
    consuming. You see greater claims for humanitarian relief, for
    asylum, so it's not as simple as just sending somebody back
    across the border.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much, Senator
    Grassley. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary. I think we've
    talked about this in the last week and you are very aware of
    what's happened in Minnesota, where six men from the Twin
    Cities area were arrested for plotting to travel to the Middle
    East to fight for ISIS.
        Our U.S. Attorney there, as you know, is doing a good job,
    as are our law enforcement officers on the Federal level, your
    people. I think you also know that one of the reasons we're
    able to make these cases is because of the relationship that
    law enforcement has built over the years with the Somali
    community, of which we are very proud, and been able to get
    information and been able to bring these cases. I think that
    gets forgotten sometimes.
        Part of this is the effort that the--you mentioned you were
    coming to Minnesota--I was with you then--the idea of fighting
    extremism and the pilot program that is going on in Minnesota.
    I would hope that this is a long-term priority of the
    Department of Homeland Security.
        One of the concerns that we have about the current state of
    the program is that the grant programs that support the
    extremism initiatives are not sufficiently focused on helping
    the programs in the pilot cities. You mentioned the pilot
    cities.
        I was wondering if we can get some more funding, to be so
    blunt, given that we have shown we are actually having these
    problems? This pilot has been recognized. We did just get
    $100,000 from the Justice Department, but it's kind of hard to
    add to everything else we're doing with the prosecutions, and
    that's what we're trying to pursue in the Twin Cities right
    now.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, I agree wholeheartedly that our
    so-called CVE engagements are fundamental to our overall
    Homeland Security counter-terrorism efforts, which is why I am
    spending a lot of my personal time doing it myself. As you
    know, I came to Minneapolis some months ago.
        I think it is important that we engage communities,
    community leaders, the Islamic community in this country, and I
    believe that through the good works of people like U.S.
    Attorney Andy Luger there's been a lot of progress made in
    building trust between community leaders, family members, and
    law enforcement, even Federal law enforcement.
        When I go to these communities myself, I recognize it's an
    exercise in building trust. They want to talk to me about
    profiling at the airports or some of their issues with how we
    enforce our immigration laws, and I want to listen, I want to
    learn from those experiences, but then I always have an ask, as
    you know, which is that it's everybody's homeland security,
    it's your public safety, it's your homeland security. Help us
    with public safety.
        Senator Klobuchar. OK. I'll--we can--I want to move on to
    something else, but I do, again, want to put that pitch in. In
    the past when I was in law enforcement and pilot programs were
    set up, it usually came with some kind of funding that would
    support the kinds of goals of the program.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Klobuchar. I think that's very important if we want
    to show that this works.
        The second thing on U.S. Customs and Border Protection. As
    you know, one of their key responsibilities is enforcing our
    trade laws, including the antidumping and countervailing duty
    orders. Particularly important in the Iron Range in Minnesota,
    we have had 1,100 workers laid off. This is true to my heart,
    this is where my grandpa worked, where my dad grew up. My
    grandpa worked 1,500 feet underground in the mines his whole
    life.
        It appears that we could be doing more, just based on
    talking to the White House, talking to people with various
    Departments, with U.S. Customs to be checking these shipments
    when they come on our shore. If they're filled with illegal
    steel products, why can't we see it and call it as it is?
        I think that sends just as strong a message as changing
    statutes, which is very important, to make it easier to bring
    these cases. I'd like to stop these things from getting on our
    land to begin with if they're not supposed to be there. Could
    you talk about the efforts that are going on with that right
    now?
        Secretary Johnson. Part of--part of what our mission is, is
    promoting lawful trade and travel and combatting Customs fraud,
    illegal dumping, as you referred to it, and so our CBP
    personnel, as well as ICE Homeland Security Investigations, are
    spending a lot of time dealing with fraud in connection with
    our imports, exports, false statements, counterfeit items.
        I think HSI in particular does a pretty good job when it
    comes to tracking inappropriate, illegal shipments of things,
    and we're also focused, frankly, on promoting lawful trade and
    travel and we've had record numbers of imports, inspections
    last year in that regard but our efforts need to be focused
    on--on the items you referred to as well.
        Senator Klobuchar. Right. We're going to be pursuing this
    as we move along in the next month or so. But to me this could
    get a lot of bang for the buck if we did a better job enforcing
    the laws right when the shipments come in, and it just seems to
    me it's pretty easy to find a bunch of steel rebar when we're
    able to find drugs and smaller containers of things. If you've
    got a whole shipment of steel, there's got to be a way to see
    it and track it and figure it out. I think it would be a very
    smart way of enforcing these laws.
        The last thing I wanted to ask about was the U visas for
    victims of domestic violence and trafficking. I know you're
    supporting of comprehensive immigration reform, and we worked
    on this as part of the bill that passed the Senate.
        On the first day of the fiscal year, U.S. CIS filled its
    limit of 10,000 visas. The Vermont Service Center, as an
    example, is now processing U visa applications filed in March
    2014 that will not leave the waiting list until Fiscal Year
    2018. What are the ramifications of running out of these victim
    visas so early?
        Secretary Johnson. The ramifications, if demand exceeds
    supply, obviously, is that a lot of people worthy of U visas
    don't get them. I appreciate the efforts that were undertaken
    in the comprehensive Senate bill to address this issue and I
    hope we can re-address it at some point.
        Senator Klobuchar. Yes. Again, I know this isn't your issue
    from a policy standpoint because you're supportive, but I think
    it's important for my colleagues to know that, in my experience
    as a prosecutor, was that people would deliberately prey on
    people and then tell them to shut up after they raped them
    because they were going to report them, and that's why this U
    visa program has been so successful to get people to come
    forward who are victims who have documentation issues.
        I'm hoping that we will be able to resolve this going
    forward when we do pass some kind of comprehensive immigration
    reform bill. I think people have to know the nationwide numbers
    and what's happening, so thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your
    work.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for your leadership. Secretary, good to have you with us.
        First of all, on the comprehensive immigration bill, it was
    not supported by the people and over a 10-year period the
    number of green cards would increase from, lawfully then, 10
    million people getting permanent residence, to 30 million
    people getting permanent residence.
        As to the enforcement situation, Senator Grassley offered a
    bill that said, well, we want to see the border secure for 6
    months before the amnesty occurs. That was rejected by the
    Democrat Majority in the Senate.
        Senator Cornyn had a bill that called for a commission to
    certify and improve the border situation using Governors and
    others. That was rejected and so that's part of the reason we
    had such a difficult time.
        Secretary Johnson, I believe Senator Grassley is correct to
    say that we see a lack of will in your Department before you
    took the office and from the President, frankly, on down.
        He mentioned interior enforcement, 40 percent of the people
    here unlawfully today came lawfully and refused to leave on
    time. We have no real ability to deal with that and have not
    taken steps required by law to deal with that.
        The first day the President took office, he stopped work
    site inspections and basically threatened agents never again to
    do that. He canceled and effectively ended the 287-G program
    that welcomes State officers to be trained by the Federal
    officers to help them improve their situations and their
    ability to help.
        Sanctuary cities continue unabated. They don't even honor
    your detainers. Won't even honor your detainers, and we need
    to--why we would not push back against that utilizing financial
    incentives, I don't know. Operation Streamline, that worked in
    a number of border-sick sectors, has been cut back
    dramatically, if not ended. True interior removals are much
    lower than they have been.
        The President's push for amnesty, his continual discussion
    of it, is promise of amnesty and he's actually carrying out
    executive amnesty after Congress refused, has increased
    immigration unlawfully into the country. We have continued to
    allow foreign countries to refuse to accept back people that we
    are trying to deport. If they don't accept that, then they
    should have other members, other citizens admitted here.
        Morale in your Department is the lowest in the government.
    Indeed, they even filed a lawsuit against your predecessor
    because the Department was blocking them from carrying out
    plain law. Deportations are down 41 percent over 3 years, 25
    percent over last year; 160,000 criminal aliens are on the
    streets.
        You've announced a program to fly people from Central
    American countries who apply for refugee and parole status in
    those countries to the United States of America at the expense
    of the U.S. taxpayers. All this has led, I believe, millions to
    conclude if they come here illegally they'll be successful.
        We've got to change that fundamentally. If you do that, I
    believe we can make progress. In fact, I would note that you've
    gotten a good bit more resources, although Border Patrol
    numbers are beginning to slip again.
        In Fiscal Year 2006, before the first big battle over
    amnesty occurred, there were 12,000 agents, now there are 2,100
    agents, although they've declined for the last 3 years, Border
    Patrol agents. I don't--just can't say, Mr. Secretary, that you
    have led, and the President and your predecessors, have led
    effectively, demonstrating a will to do what the American
    people want, which is a lawful system of immigration that
    serves the national interest, one that we can be proud of.
        We are not there yet and you need to do more, and you can
    do more with the resources you have. If you need more resources
    and legal changes, please let us know and I think Congress will
    respond.
        Let me ask you this, just some fundamental questions. How
    many aliens with final orders of removal are currently in the
    United States and have not been removed?
        Secretary Johnson. I don't have the number sitting here
    right now. I'm sure it is a large number, by your measure and
    mine. It's an unacceptable number, but I know that there is a
    huge backlog in our immigration enforcement efforts.
        We need to prioritize those, in my judgment, who are public
    safety threats in this tremendous backlog and those who have
    come to this country illegal recently, which is why, in the new
    priorities, we have put an emphasis on those who arrived here
    after January 1, 2014. So going forward--priority.
        Senator Sessions. Going forward, with regard to your
    priority, I understand you need to prioritize. I can understand
    that. A priority can become, in itself, an amnesty. A priority
    can say huge numbers of people are not going to be deported.
    What I hear you saying, and I think others could hear you say,
    that if you don't commit a serious crime you're OK, you're not
    going to be deported.
        Let me ask you this. According to the Border Patrol
    statistics in Fiscal Year 2014, 479,00 individuals were
    apprehended at the Southwest border.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Sessions. How many of those remain currently in the
    United States?
        Secretary Johnson. A lot have been removed, a lot were sent
    back on an expedited basis last year. But as I said a moment
    ago, a number of those are from non-contiguous countries and
    they've asserted claims and been granted relief.
        Senator Sessions. That isn't a problem. I think we need to
    help you pass laws that would make that easier. How many of
    those--easier to remove. How many of those are actually here,
    having been released on bail, have not been deported, and have
    gone someplace throughout the country? Do you not have the
    numbers?
        Secretary Johnson. Let me say two things. One, when we had
    the spike last summer in the Rio Grande Valley, we expedited
    the return flights to Central America, we reduced the turn-
    around time from something like 30 days down to 4 days, and we
    surge--surge resources. We turned them around quicker and we've
    kept the resources on the Southern border so that----
        Senator Sessions. I'm going to submit a written question.
    My time is up.
        Secretary Johnson [continuing]. The numbers remain low.
        Senator Sessions. I'll submit a written question, but I
    think you need to be able to tell us how many of those have
    actually not been deported but have successfully entered the
    country through that illegal process.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, that's a knowable number and
    I'm happy to provide it to you, I just don't have it sitting
    here.
        Senator Sessions. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Secretary Johnson, thanks for your
    leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. You have a
    tough job. Unfortunately, Congress has not made it any easier
    for you. My friend and colleague from Alabama said what America
    wants is a lawful system of immigration. Couldn't agree with
    him more. Lawful. That suggests that Congress should pass a
    law. Well, wouldn't that be novel?
        We did pass a law in the Senate, 68:32, the Comprehensive
    Immigration Reform Act. The House of Representatives refused to
    call it up, or anything since. If we're going to have a lawful
    system of immigration, perhaps we should have a law from
    Congress, which has been opposed by most of the critics that
    you're hearing today.
        What the President has tried to do is to step in with a
    broken immigration system and make it better. I don't know how
    anyone can argue that we are a more secure homeland if we don't
    know who's living here. What the President has said is that if
    you are a young person brought here through no fault of your
    own and have grown up in this country, through DACA, we'll give
    you a chance on a temporary, renewable basis to submit yourself
    to a criminal background check and to live in America without
    fear of deportation. Temporary, renewable process, criminal
    background check. Seems to me that's not only fair, but makes
    our country more secure.
        When Congress failed to pass a comprehensive immigration
    law, the President said, of the 10 or 11 million undocumented
    in this country, we are better off as a Nation to know who they
    are, where they live, that they've submitted themselves to a
    criminal background check, and that they're going to pay their
    taxes while we're here.
        I think most Americans would agree that makes us a more
    secure Nation, but there are people who just loathe this notion
    that the President would use his power as an executive, as
    other Presidents before him, to try to make this a more secure
    Nation.
        I have a special interest in DACA, introduced the Dream Act
    14 years ago, hearings in this Committee, called before
    Congress as part of comprehensive immigration, passed, but
    sadly the House of Representatives refused to even consider the
    issue.
        I'm concerned of reports that say that more than 11,000
    Dreamers who applied to renew DACA in a timely manner have lost
    their status because of delays in processing at your Agency,
    through no fault of their own.
        Can you tell me what the status is on applications for
    renewal on DACA, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir. We, as I'm sure you know,
    encourage DACA participants, if they're renewing, to do that
    months in advance of when their current authorization expires.
    You're correct that a number were not issued their work
    authorizations in time. I think you're right that the number's
    about 11,000. Most who renewed, renewed timely and were able to
    get their work authorizations on time.
        I also know from the Director of CIS that we've set up a
    hot-line, so to speak, for expedited treatment if somebody is
    facing the lapse of their work authorization and they haven't
    got a new one in time.
        If that process is utilized, we will do our best to try to
    turn that around in a timely manner, making sure that we've
    appropriately assessed the renewal application. I do know there
    is an expedited route to get a work authorization for lapses if
    people know about it and they take advantage of it.
        Senator Durbin. I thank you for that. As you might imagine,
    I joined a number of Senators encouraging the President to
    create the DACA program. My understanding is, some 600,000 have
    successfully applied for that protective status on a temporary,
    renewable basis and submitted themselves to criminal background
    checks. I've met many of them and they're getting on with their
    lives and on the path to making a great contribution to this
    country.
        It would certainly be helpful, with our broken immigration
    system, if Congress stepped up to its responsibility too and
    that we did something to enact the law, which would make us a
    more secure Nation.
        When it comes to our border, we not only have invested more
    resources in protecting the border of the United States with
    Mexico than ever in our history, it's one of the largest
    Federal law enforcement agencies that we have in this country.
    The comprehensive immigration reform, which many on the other
    wide voted against, would have dramatically increased that
    technology and manpower to protect the border.
        In your opening statement you talked about a decline in
    apprehensions at the border. Could you repeat that for the
    record and suggest what that says about what we're doing at our
    border?
        Secretary Johnson. I think we have invest--well, I believe
    that our investment in border security over the last 10, 15
    years is showing results. We have more people, more technology
    on the Southern border in particular now than in the history of
    this Nation and I think that it is showing results.
        In the year 2000, there were 1.6 million apprehensions on
    the Southern border. That number in recent years has ranged
    somewhere between 350,000 to, as Senator Sessions noted,
    479,000 last year. That increase last year was due, almost
    majority, to the spike in the Rio Grande Valley sector.
        I expect that the number will be down considerably from
    479,000. Longer term, our investment in border security is
    showing good results. I believe that the downturn in the
    numbers is due to that. I believe it's due to the fact that we
    got the word out in Central America that there are no promisos,
    like the Coyotes were spinning last summer.
        You can see our public awareness campaigns posted at bus
    stops in Guatemala City, for example. I believe that our law
    enforcement efforts against the smugglers are showing good
    results. All of this is in the face of an improving economy in
    this country.
        Normally, illegal migration is tied to the economic
    conditions in this country. We have an improving economy, so
    the pull factors are there. We are seeing a pretty marked
    decreased in apprehensions this fiscal year. I looked at the
    April numbers this morning and the April numbers are pretty
    much consistent with the March numbers.
        Senator Durbin. I just have a few seconds.
        Secretary Johnson. Sure.
        Senator Durbin. I want to close by saying that I believe
    that when we are judged in the course of history on an
    international basis the world will point to the humanitarian
    crisis in Syria and ask every civilized nation on earth, what
    did you do? Some nations have made an extraordinary sacrifice.
    Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan have accepted huge numbers of
    refugees and we've helped pay for their care.
        The United States, in the last 4 years, has accepted 700
    refugees from Syria. We can do more. We should do more. I hope
    that there is an effort afoot in your Agency to find ways to
    safely, safely bring in those refugees who are no threat to the
    United States, but represent a true humanitarian challenge to
    our country.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
        Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank
    you for joining us today. Thank you for your service.
        I'd like to address two different topics. I want to start
    with an issue you raised, which is ISIS and foreign fighters.
    To the best of DHS's knowledge, about how many Americans have
    traveled abroad to join up with ISIS?
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, the way I--the way we calculate
    that is, there are approximately--and this is the last time I
    looked. It could be a little higher now--180 individuals who
    have left to join the conflict in Syria and Iraq, or attempted
    to leave. That number, as I said, is probably a little higher
    by now but that's the number we've said publicly and I think
    that that's a fairly accurate number. There's an unknown
    factor, clearly, sir.
        Senator Cruz. On the order of magnitude, 180 is a good
    approximation?
        Secretary Johnson. The last time I--the last time I saw a
    number it was about that, but it's probably higher by now.
        Senator Cruz. Chairman Grassley and I have joined together
    in introducing legislation, the Expatriot Terrorist Act, that
    provides that an American citizen who travels abroad and joins
    ISIS and joins up with a foreign terrorist organization has in
    so doing constructively forfeited his or her American
    citizenship.
        There is existing legislation on the book that provides for
    other grounds for forfeiting your citizenship, [Video had
    stopped] but right now joining a foreign terrorist organization
    is not one of those.
        In your judgment, would it be beneficial to have additional
    tools to prevent U.S. citizens from using American passports to
    come back to this country and potentially wage jihad and
    attempt to murder American citizens here at home?
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, I don't know that stripping
    somebody of their American citizenship is--is the most
    effective tool. I do believe that we need to enhance our
    efforts to interdict those who are attempting [Video started up
    again] to leave the country and prosecute them for material
    support or deny them boarding, or deny them boarding on the
    return flight or in some way investigate and apprehend them
    before they can get on the flight or once they return.
        We have spent a lot of time with our counter-terrorism
    partners overseas and within the Department of Homeland
    Security at better efforts to detect those who are engaging in
    travel to Iraq and Syria, including broken travel. We spend a
    lot of time in DHS and with law enforcement doing exactly that.
        Senator Cruz. Although I guess the track record of
    apprehending people when they're coming back is not what it
    should be, if I recall correctly. The elder Tsarnaev brother
    who carried out the Boston bombing, when he came back to
    America, his return and his travel was not flagged, although it
    was supposed to be. Is that correct?
        Secretary Johnson. Very clearly, there were some lessons
    learned from that case and we have done, I believe, a better
    job at connecting the dots in reaction to that case.
        Senator Cruz. Let's shift to a different topic, which is
    the enforcement of the border. I am very concerned by the lack
    of enforcement at the border, the lack of enforcement of our
    immigration laws, and I'm very concerned on multiple levels:
    No. 1, from the perspective of national security and dangerous
    illegal immigrants being allowed to come into this country, and
    No. 2, from the perspective of this administration not
    enforcing the law.
        Last week the Washington Times ran an article, the headline
    of which was, ``Illegal Immigrant Deportations Plummet As
    Amnesty Hampers Removal Efforts'', and it described that this
    year, deportations have fallen by another 25 percent this year,
    and indeed overall, deportations of those who are here
    illegally are down 41 percent from 3 years ago.
        Indeed, the article goes on to say, ``And the drop began
    almost exactly at the beginning of President Obama's illegal
    amnesty''. Mr. Secretary, how do you explain a 41 percent drop
    in removals of aliens here illegally?
        Secretary Johnson. A couple of things, sir. One, the
    apprehensions are, in fact, lower on the southern border so the
    intake is lower, this Fiscal Year in particular. Two, Secure
    Communities. Secure Communities was a controversial program
    that led to the enactment of restrictions, prohibitions, on
    cooperating with our immigration enforcement personnel in a
    number of different State and local municipalities, so forth.
    Secure Communities was becoming so controversial that mayors,
    governors were passing laws, ordinances that prevented
    cooperating with us in our enforcement efforts.
        We have ended the Secure Communities program, as I
    mentioned, and put in its place a new program that I believe
    will promote enforcement so that we can get at the criminals.
    Secure Communities, in my judgment, is one of the reasons why
    we are seeing those lower numbers, along with a few other
    things, sir.
        Senator Cruz. Mr. Secretary, you stated your interest just
    a moment ago at getting at the criminals.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Cruz. Which I guess is very much the same as the
    President's purported justification for his illegal amnesty
    program, that it would allow the focus of prosecutorial
    resources on violent criminals. It strikes me there's a fairly
    serious problem with that argument, which is namely that the
    Department is not focusing its resources on violent criminals.
        Indeed, the number of criminal aliens deported from the
    interior has declined 23 percent since last year, and declined
    39 percent since the peak in 2011. When it comes to violent
    criminals, the Department is not stepping up its efforts.
        Indeed, if you look to 2013, in 2013 the Department
    released 36,007 criminal aliens with serious convictions. That
    included 116 with convictions for homicide, 43 with convictions
    for negligent manslaughter, 14 with convictions for voluntary
    manslaughter, one with a conviction for something I classified
    as ``homicide--willful kill public official gun'' and that
    individual was released.
        In addition to that, we had 15,635 criminal aliens who had
    been convicted of drunk driving that were released back into
    the population; 2,691 who had convictions for assault that were
    released into the population.
        Why is the Department releasing so many criminal aliens?
    Second, can you tell this Committee, in the six and a half
    years of the Obama administration's tenure, just how many
    criminal aliens have been released, how many murderers, how
    many rapists, how many people who have been convicted of
    violent assault have been released into the population?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes. As you pointed out, Senator, in
    FY13 there were about 36,000 individuals convicted of a crime
    who, once in our immigration system, were bonded out. That
    number declined to about 30,000 in FY14, but in my judgment
    that number is still too high.
        In reaction to this situation I directed that we do a
    number of things differently, including elevating the approval
    for a circumstance where somebody who has been convicted of a
    crime is released from immigration detention. It is the case
    that some of these cases are due to releases by immigration
    judges or by the Supreme Court jurisprudence in Zavado v.
    Davis.
        I do think we could do a better job, which is why I've
    directed we elevate the approval level for that and that we no
    longer release people for lack of space. That was an issue in
    FY13, especially when we were dealing with sequestration.
        We had a situation where we released a lot of people
    because we were concerned we didn't have the space, and I've
    directed that should not be an excuse for releasing somebody.
    We should find the space. This is a problem I recognize exists,
    and I'm interested in promoting public safety and that's why
    I've directed these changes, sir.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I'll follow-up with
    a written request for the information I asked for.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin
    this morning, I think it's important to acknowledge the events
    taking place in Baltimore right now. My heart goes out to the
    family of Freddie Gray and to the city of Baltimore.
        I understand that the events surrounding the death of Mr.
    Gray are now the subject of an independent investigation and I
    believe that a full and thorough accounting of the facts is a
    necessary first step in helping to restore trust between police
    officers and the community.
        As we wait for the results of that investigation, as we all
    work together to secure justice for Mr. Gray and his family, I
    join Mr. Gray's family in urging all the protestors, or those
    who do protest, to do so peacefully.
        Secretary Johnson, cooperation between law enforcement
    officers and the communities they serve remains the focus of
    national attention. It seems that everyone agrees that racial
    and ethnic profiling undermines trust in the authorities. That
    causes resentment among the targeted groups.
        I was pleased to see former Attorney General Holder's--I've
    got to start saying that now--revisit DOJ's policies on
    profiling and extend the ban on profiling to cover gender,
    religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
        I think this is a step in the right direction, but these
    new guidelines do not apply to the TSA, Customs and Border
    Protection, which are DHS agencies. These agencies are still
    permitted to use profiling when screening airline passengers
    and individuals crossing borders.
        I understand that it is challenging to ensure public safety
    while simultaneously building trust with communities who have
    experienced profiling. Minnesota, as you know, ia a--has a
    large community of Somalia Minnesotans, Somali-Americans, for
    example, and I want to thank you for traveling to Minneapolis
    last year and meeting with members of the Cedar Riverside
    community to hear their concerns.
        I continue to hear from members of the community who report
    that they experience profiling, who are singled out for
    additional screening and questioning at the Minneapolis-St.
    Paul Airport so routinely that they prefer to drive to Chicago,
    over 400 miles away, rather than fly out of their hometown.
    Instead of fostering respect and cooperation, I worry that our
    current practices are nurturing fear and resentment.
        I'd like to know what steps, in your view, DHS can take to
    ensure that we do a better job of protecting our security while
    simultaneously respecting the dignities of those that are new
    to our communities.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you for that question, Senator.
    First of all, we looked pretty hard at whether we could sign on
    to the DOJ non-profiling policy last year, or earlier this
    year. We found that, given our different missions, that policy,
    which was intended for law enforcement, didn't quite fit as we
    have, as you pointed out, aviation security, border security.
        Senator Franken. I understand.
        Secretary Johnson. Administration of our immigration laws.
    There is a general rule that we should not engage in racial
    profiling. That is still the case. That was the case before,
    that's the case now. Nationality, given the nature of our
    mission, is taken into account, for example.
        I've heard, just as you have heard from the Somali
    community in Minneapolis, that because of the profiling that
    they perceive occurs at the Minneapolis Airport, they prefer to
    go to Chicago. I've heard the exact same thing. I asked TSA to
    undertake an evaluation and a study of that. They have come
    back to those in the community to address the concerns. I think
    it, frankly, continues to be a work in progress. TSA knows my
    view, that we should not profile at airports and we should not
    make it the case that somebody would prefer to go to Chicago
    versus Minneapolis, their own airport.
        We've had, I think, some productive conversations with the
    community along these lines, but I think it also probably
    continues to be a work in progress and it's something that's on
    my radar personally.
        Senator Franken. Thank you for that response.
        I understand that last night a court issued a decision that
    needs to be evaluated regarding families in immigration
    detention facilities, but I'd like to talk about that issue,
    nonetheless.
        In the past few years, the Department of Homeland Security
    has significantly increased its use of family detention
    centers, at an annual cost of nearly $2 billion. Family
    detention centers often separate parents from their children.
    Their recent expansion has led to complaints of poor
    conditions, inadequate services, and physical dangers for those
    detained.
        Such allegations would suggest that family detention
    centers pose long-term developmental challenges for immigrant
    children and families. What is your view of the current family
    detention system? Should the use of family detention facilities
    be expanded or reduced in the future?
        Secretary Johnson. Before we encountered the situation we
    had in the Rio Grande Valley last summer, we had, among the
    34,000 beds for immigration detention, only 95 for family
    units, for members of families. In the face of what we were
    dealing with last summer, which included a lot of families, we
    expanded our detention space beyond 95 and we've opened several
    new facilities which I believe are important to maintain.
        I have personally visited several of them to ensure myself
    that the conditions of confinement are appropriate. I know that
    the very purpose of family unit space is to keep families
    together so that you're not sending the parent in one direction
    and a child in another. The very purpose of it is to keep the
    families together. As you point out, there's a case or two
    involving family detention, one in California and one in
    Washington, DC.
        As recently as yesterday and Friday, I have--and I continue
    to evaluate whether our current policy is the appropriate one
    for family units. I'm hearing a fair amount about issues with
    family detention, and so I'm currently evaluating whether the
    current policy is the best one. I'm pleased that the numbers of
    family units crossing our border illegally is down considerably
    from last year, and I want to continue to evaluate it and make
    sure we're getting it right because I hear the issues being
    raised by a number of people.
        Senator Franken. Thank you. I'll ask further questions for
    the record, or I'll submit them, rather.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Good morning, Secretary Johnson. The
    Chairman said you have a very difficult job, and I think that's
    an understatement. Notwithstanding the difficulties of the job
    either that you have or that we have, all of us must be held
    accountable for the way we discharge our responsibilities.
    That's what this hearing is about.
        It's particularly difficult to be effective when the
    administration continues to sabotage its own efforts by
    embracing unconstitutional policies like the President's
    executive action. Twenty-two times, the President of the United
    States said he didn't have the authority to do what he did, and
    now we have, of course, as you know, an injunction, a
    preliminary injunction in place, issued by a Federal District
    judge in Brownsville. Obviously the stay is on appeal to the
    Fifth Circuit.
        I'd like to just refresh your memory, and ours, what the
    court said when it issued the preliminary injunction. It said,
    ``This court finds that DAPA''--that's the name given to the
    program, the executive action. ``The court finds that DAPA does
    not simply constitute inadequate enforcement, it is an
    announced program of non-enforcement of the laws that
    contradicts Congress's statutory goals. DAPA does not represent
    mere inadequacy, it is complete abdication.
        The Department of Homeland Security has discretion in the
    manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of
    Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not
    only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actually acts to
    thwart them.''
        The court went on further and said, ``The Department of
    Homeland Security Secretary is not rewriting the laws, he is
    creating them from scratch.''
        Finally, Judge Hanen said, ``The Department of Homeland
    Security does not seek compliance with Federal law in any form,
    but instead establishes a pathway for non-compliance and
    completely abandons entire sections of this country's
    immigration law.'' Close quote.
        I know you disagree with Judge Hanen, and the courts will
    finally decide the propriety of his judgment. And of course,
    this is going to take some time, I would imagine, given the
    fact that he's only issued a preliminary injunction and the
    trial on the merits still remains. This could go back and forth
    to the U.S. Supreme Court a couple of times before it's over
    with.
        But to me, beyond the unconstitutional act by the
    administration in issuing this executive action, I agree with
    Judge Hanen's characterization, that won't surprise you. I
    think perhaps the larger tragedy is that the President has
    poisoned the well in Congress and destroyed any trust
    whatsoever between the executive branch and the Congress when
    it comes to fixing our broken immigration system.
        I know our friends who were on the Gang of 8, Senator
    Schumer, Senator Durbin, said they have an answer. If the House
    would simply just swallow whole hog the Gang of 8 bill, all the
    problems would go away. The Constitution gives the House
    authority to agree or not agree.
        One thing I think we should have learned from this whole
    exercise is that comprehensive immigration reform does not
    work. That's what I've learned in the last 10 years, working to
    try to fix our broken immigration system. We need to do what we
    can where we can, and I still have not given up hope that we
    can do that.
        I will say the President's executive action poisoned the
    well and made the congressional branch, the legislative branch,
    so distrustful of the President's actions that it's going to be
    very, very hard--much harder--than if the President had not
    undertaken this action.
        I'd like to ask you, do you regret the actions that you and
    the administration have taken that have gotten us to this
    point?
        Secretary Johnson. No, I do not, Senator. I believe that
    the undocumented population in this country, which at least
    half of which has been here more than 10 years, has to be
    reckoned with. We know they're here and they are not priorities
    for removal.
        I would note that in two places, Judge Hanen's opinion
    refers to the fact that the Secretary has--he acknowledges--has
    the authority and the discretion to engage in prosecutorial
    discretion, prioritize who we should remove and who we should
    not.
        There are millions of people in this country who are not
    priorities for removal. There are dozens of States that allow
    them to have driver's licenses. There's one State that says
    that an undocumented immigrant has the right to practice law.
    In my judgment we have to deal with this population. You refer
    to the fact that the President supposedly poisoned the well. We
    took the action we took after waiting literally for years for
    Congress to act. So----
        Senator Cornyn. Do you think it's an excuse for the
    President to act unconstitutional because the Congress doesn't
    act quickly enough to suit him?
        Secretary Johnson. I have what is in my judgment as a
    lawyer a very, very thoughtful opinion from the Office of Legal
    Counsel that we have the legal discretion to do what we did.
    Unfortunately, Judge Hanen disagrees, but the case is on appeal
    now.
        Senator Cornyn. My guess is that it's going to take
    literally long past the time that President Obama leaves office
    before this matter is finally resolved by the courts, which
    means that not only has the President poisoned the well for any
    meaningful reform of our broken immigration laws during the
    duration of his presidency, but it also will endure beyond his
    presidency.
        I'd like to ask you, in the short time remaining, you have
    said on numerous occasions that we have good results in terms
    of the number of people being detained at the border, last
    year, 479,000. Don't you think it's a little premature to be
    declaring victory when it comes to border security?
        Let me ask you as well, I've always found it strange that
    we count success when the number of people actually detained
    goes down because it strikes me that it's an equal inference
    that you may be doing a better job. The truth is, you may not
    be doing as good a job and fewer people are being detained, yet
    you believe that that represents a victory and the problem's
    taken care of.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator--Senator, I'm very definitely
    not declaring victory when it comes to border security. In
    virtually every statement I issue, like the one last week, I
    say, here are the numbers, but we are not declaring mission
    accomplished. I refer to what more I believe we can do to
    strengthen border security, and that is reflected in our FY16
    budget submission.
        Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, if I could just close on
    this. We didn't have the time yet, but 57 percent of the
    children who were--came across in the wave--the humanitarian
    crisis last year were issued orders of removal in absentia,
    which means they did not show up for their court hearings,
    which to me means that they basically successfully navigated
    our broken immigration system and they're going to stay here.
    That's a problem we still haven't fixed and we still need to
    address. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for having this hearing. Thank you for your service to our
    Nation, Mr. Secretary.
        I am very pleased to learn that the Department is
    reevaluating its family detention policy. As you well know,
    Judge Boseburg's opinion, in my view at least, requires it.
    Also, many have objected to family detention policies,
    including myself.
        I'd like to work with you in devising and implementing
    better policies. I think that these policies cannot only
    provide for more humane and productive treatment of young
    people when they come here, but also continue to have the
    effect of perhaps providing for fewer people actually crossing
    the borders and that's been the result, I think, of some of the
    conscious decisionmaking and policymaking that the policy--that
    the Department has adopted.
        I'd like to ask you, what specific measures and steps you
    contemplate in revising the family detention policies?
        Secretary Johnson. The family detention issue is under
    review in litigation in Washington, DC. There was an injunction
    issued there with respect to a class of people who have made
    credible fear claims. The issue in the case is whether somebody
    can be held as a deterrent to mass migration. We're looking at
    that case. We have a pending Motion for Reconsideration in the
    case, but I'm continually evaluating whether such a policy is
    necessary in the current climate.
        There is another case in California right now where the
    judge has given us 30 days to try to find an appropriate
    settlement, and so I'm working with the lawyers beginning this
    week on responding to the judge's request.
        Overall, I think it's important for people to know that I'm
    sensitive to family detention. I have personally visited
    Artesia and Dilley, to satisfy myself that what we're doing is
    the appropriate course. I believe that our expanded detention
    capability, in the face of last year's situation, was the right
    thing to do and I believe that it had an influence on our
    overall efforts.
        I think that overall we need to maintain this capability,
    but I want--I want to continually evaluate and reevaluate the
    policy because I hear the concerns raised by you and others,
    sir.
        Senator Blumenthal. Maintaining the capability is
    expensive, isn't it?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, it is.
        Senator Blumenthal. Detaining whole families can be a lot
    less humane and productive than adopting other policies. Am I
    right?
        Secretary Johnson. Detaining whole families is indeed
    expensive. It is a notable item in our FY16 budget request and
    it can be a challenge. I believe that the capability is
    important to our overall border security efforts, but I want to
    make sure we have the policy right.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you about access to legal
    services. Is it the policy of the Department to permit and
    enable lawyers to visit those facilities where folks are
    detained?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. In terms of providing counsel where
    private attorneys can't do so, has the Department provided that
    kind of resource?
        Secretary Johnson. We do not, in immigration cases of this
    nature, provide--provide counsel if one cannot be provided. We
    do not guarantee counsel. We do promote access to counsel and
    we do a number of things to put people in touch with lawyers
    locally or those who are interested in representing
    individuals, and I know we have made improvements in those
    efforts since we began opening our family unit detention
    capability last summer.
        Senator Blumenthal. I know that it may not be the sole
    responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, but the
    processing of visas in Central American countries, the
    screening of people who want to come here, has begun. Is there
    anything that can be done to expedite that effort? Because I
    think it represents a real hope for stopping the flow of
    unaccompanied minors and others who may come to this country
    and then have to be sent back.
        Secretary Johnson. A piece of advice that I received last
    summer from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is in-
    country screening. In other words, you can't lock the door and
    not provide a legal safe pathway at the same time. That's what
    we've done in the three Central American countries.
        I'm disappointed that not more people are utilizing this,
    and I believe that we need to promote the new program better. I
    think this is a joint effort by us and the State Department and
    the governments in the Central American countries. I've been
    disappointed that not more parents in the U.S. are utilizing
    this program to petition to get their kids here. So----
        Senator Blumenthal. I would agree very wholeheartedly. I
    was surprised at a hearing that was held here just last
    Thursday, literally, to learn that only a small number of
    parents so far are taking advantage of this program. In effect,
    to use the rules that are available to them, they're the same
    rules that would apply if their children came here but they can
    use them in the country of origin.
        Secretary Johnson. Right.
        Senator Blumenthal. I hope that the Department will make
    efforts, and the State Department obviously also has a role, to
    spread awareness about this program.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. Thank you,
    Mr. Secretary, for your service and for the service of the many
    men and women who serve in the Department of Homeland Security
    in this very diverse and difficult task that you have. Thank
    you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Secretary
    Johnson. Thank you for being here and for your service.
        I know that Senator Grassley, Chair Grassley, asked
    questions about the Rangel-Hernandez case, so I will go back to
    the record to see some of the specifics. I think that in your
    answer you did mention that there have been some retraining,
    revising the protocol--reviewing the protocol, revising it and
    retraining so that we can avoid future instances of this, what
    on its surface looks like negligent decisionmaking.
        The question I had for you--or I have two questions. One, I
    believe that Mr. Rangel-Hernandez's deferred status has been
    rescinded a month or so ago. My question is, how many other
    instances that have been identified in the audit or the review
    that were similar to Mr. Rangel-Hernandez's, and what is the
    current status of that review and the potential that others'
    deferred status will also be rescinded in their disposition
    after that?
        Secretary Johnson. I know that there have been a handful of
    others who have been identified in the same category. I do not
    know the status of whether they have been rescinded or not, but
    we can get that information to you, sir.
        Senator Tillis. Yes. I would like to get that, and if
    possible, and to the extent that the information is available
    geographically, what we're talking about. If I have any other
    instances in North Carolina, I'd like to know about it, but I'm
    sure the other members would like to, would be interested as
    well in each of their States.
        I would like that, and particularly as we go through this
    process, for those who were granted deferred status, if there
    is a decision either because they've come up in the audit to
    continue to allow them to have the deferred status or that it's
    been rescinded, I'd like to get the information on both of
    those.
        Secretary Johnson. OK. We will look at that.
        Chairman Grassley. Let me interrupt a second. Is there any
    reason why you can't say, as I said in my opening statement,
    that there's been 282 rescinded?
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you for refreshing my
    recollection. I believe that that is the correct number, yes.
        Chairman Grassley. OK.
        Secretary Johnson. I think that that is the correct number.
        Chairman Grassley. I don't want to take time.
        Secretary Johnson. I apologize for not being very good with
    numbers.
        Senator Tillis. Chairman, I'm glad you brought that up. The
    question I'd have, does that mean it's an exhaustive list and,
    in the opinion of the Department, there is no longer any need
    for further review or are there other cases that are being
    reviewed that may add to that 280 or so rescinded?
        In other words, are there more or we've gone back and
    identified potentially 280 that looked similar or had--had
    characteristics similar to Mr. Hernandez's that warranted
    rescinding their deferred status? Is that done? Are we done, or
    are there more to look at?
        Secretary Johnson. I believe that the review has been
    completed. I could be wrong about that, but I believe the
    review has been completed.
        Senator Tillis. That would just lead to my next question
    before I want to get on to the H2-B visa, a couple of questions
    that I have. I asked the same question of representatives that
    came to us from U.S. CIS and the State Department last week,
    and that's why I think going back and confirming that these 280
    are it. I'm looking to--I'm going to ask the same question of
    you that I asked of the other two panelists last week.
        Can you confidently and unequivocally say that in the
    future the Agency will not make the same errors that were made
    with Rangel-Hernandez, and that there were not any that should
    be subject to rescinding, that the queue has been drained and
    that the mistake that was made that allowed these folks to get
    deferred action will not be repeated?
        Secretary Johnson. I am confident that we have improved our
    process so that if somebody with suspected criminal gang
    membership is identified in the process, it's going to be
    flagged and it's going to be given a lot of attention as a
    result of this case.
        Senator Tillis. It may or may not, affiliation with gang
    membership, necessarily constitute a definitive reason for
    rescinding their deferred status?
        Secretary Johnson. Known membership in a criminal gang
    should constitute a disqualifier.
        Senator Tillis. OK. OK.
        I'm going to move on to the H2-B program. Mr. Secretary, I
    think that the Perez v. Perez case caused a little bit of a
    problem, kind of a 2-week blip that for some reason adversely
    affected my State, it may have affected others, particularly in
    the seafood processing industry.
        I guess the question I have for you really relates to
    just--I want to go on the record--I have some things that are
    North Carolina specific, so I don't necessarily want to tie up
    the Committee time--with a couple of things. One would be, are
    there any potentially unused visas that could potentially solve
    some of the problem, the negative impact that's occurred in
    North Carolina?
        If the Department has any ideas on anything else that we
    may be able to do to relieve them, it looks like this was
    largely just the result of that 2-week period where visa
    applications were not submitted. If you're prepared to speak on
    it, I would appreciate to be enlightened.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, Senator. I have received a lot of
    inquiries from Congress on H2-B visas from both sides of the
    aisle. After the court's injunction we issued, on a temporary
    basis, H2-B visas. The court and the litigants agreed to a stay
    of the injunction so that we could do that.
        My understanding is that when we did that we--we quickly
    exhausted the number. Going forward, we have just issued a new
    rule jointly by DHS and the Department of Labor that I believe
    addresses this issue and addresses the lawsuit so that we can
    continue going forward to issue H2-B visas.
        Senator Tillis. Now, Mr. Secretary, that would apply going
    into next year because it's my understanding we've already hit
    the cap on H2-B visas for this year. So my other----
        Secretary Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Tillis. My other question: are there any other
    things that we could do, given the unique circumstances of the
    blip with Perez v. Perez? Are there any things that we may be
    able to do to provide temporary relief until we move into next
    year? I mean, some have talked about the potential for
    temporarily increasing the cap or something else that may
    still--for some of these seasonal industries, still provide
    some relief. Has there been any discussion or anything you'd be
    open to?
        Secretary Johnson. I'd be open to a discussion about what
    we can do temporarily to deal with this issue. I am interested
    in having a more comprehensive discussion with Congress about
    lifting a number of caps on green cards and addressing in a
    more comprehensive way a number of things in which I think our
    immigration system needs to be fixed through legislation, and
    this very well could be one of them. I think that going forward
    we have addressed the H2-B problem in a pretty aggressive,
    vigorous way.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you. My time has expired. I would
    just like to state for the record, we're going to be calling
    you all again because there--I'm going to be meeting with some
    of the seafood processors this week. They're going to be coming
    up from North Carolina.
        I think it's the industry that's primarily been hit by the
    H2-B program, in North Carolina, anyway, and I'd like to speak
    with you all about anything that we can do to provide temporary
    relief and hopefully avoid it going into the out years for the
    program. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schumer, then Senator Flake.
        Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Secretary.
        Secretary, I was shocked and appalled--we've talked about
    it on the phone--by the gun smuggling ring that operated out of
    Atlanta, Georgia, in which criminals routinely abused loopholes
    in the TSA system to bring loaded weapons right onto airplanes.
        I know you shared my outrage when it was unveiled by our DA
    in Brooklyn, Ken Thompson, and I applaud you for quickly acting
    following the incident and ordering a top-to-bottom review.
        Can you provide an update on security at our Nation's
    airports, particularly the recent recommendations regarding TSA
    activities? What changes can we expect, how long will it take?
    Question one. I have a bunch of questions so I'm trying to move
    through these quickly. How will you ensure that the new, as-
    yet-unannounced TSA administrator is held accountable for
    security at the Nation's airports?
        Secretary Johnson. Good question. Senator, you said you
    appreciated my candor at these hearings, so I have made a
    public fact of the record number of firearms seized by TSA last
    year. At screening points in carry-on luggage, you can imagine
    my reaction when I found out that somebody's bringing loaded
    weapons into the overhead compartments of commercial airplanes.
        I was, to use your words, shocked and appalled, upset, and
    I directed our TSA to work with the airline industry and to
    work with airport security authorities to tighten up our
    system. Our advisory committee came back with some
    recommendations. I have endorsed them.
        They include random, continuous, unpredictable screening of
    airline and airport security airport employees at the sterile
    checkpoints. If an airline or airport employee is going to fly,
    they have to go through the TSA checkpoint. Continuous back--
    criminal history background checks, and reducing the number of
    access points. There were a number of recommendations made that
    I have embraced.
        Those are, in my judgment, the big four. I believe that our
    nominee for TSA administrator is an excellent choice and I
    believe that he will be very focused on aviation airport
    security. I also believe his name will be announced sometime
    this afternoon.
        Senator Schumer. Oh. You don't want to let us in on the
    secret? OK.
        Just one question in regard to that quick answer. Wouldn't
    it make sense that, wherever it's feasible--in some airports it
    may not be--that whenever possible these employees go through a
    screening the way the pilots do and the flight attendants do?
        Secretary Johnson. You know, I asked myself that question
    and I think that a one-size-fits-all approach to every airport
    in this country is not----
        Senator Schumer. I said wherever feasible, I didn't say
    all.
        Secretary Johnson. Atlanta is not Martha's Vineyard.
        Senator Schumer. Right.
        Secretary Johnson. There are 63,000 employees at the
    Maynard-Jackson Airport in Atlanta. That's a small city. I
    think that the appropriate, balanced way to go is random,
    unpredictable, continuous screening of employees when they show
    up.
        The way it works in Atlanta, is there's a guardhouse at the
    parking lot and you show an ID and then you drive on through. I
    think that some form of continuous, random screening of those
    people is the appropriate way to go.
        Senator Schumer. Right. OK.
        I have two questions on the northern border, separate, but
    I'll ask you both so I can get them in before my time runs out.
    One, is the Peace Bridge, another issue we've talked about
    regularly. At my urging, Customs and Border Protection
    instituted pilot projects. Your predecessor was very active in
    helping that happen, as were you. We were thrilled to hear the
    results last week. The pilot projects passed CBP's test with
    flying colors.
        They said that pre-inspection on the Canadian side will
    reduce times and waits for commercial vehicles by as much as 75
    percent. Will you commit to implementing the recommendations of
    this report and starting talks with Canada to establish
    permanent pre-inspection at the Peace Bridge? That's on that
    one.
        Then on the other end of our northern border up by
    Plattsburgh, today I'm asking Customs and Border Patrol to
    start a French-speaking program for officers at the Quebec
    border. These officers are tasked with processing millions of
    French-speaking visitors. They come to New York, they spend
    their money, we love having them here.
        Because we're hampered in French speaking, it slows the
    border down and we get fewer visitors. Will you commit to
    carefully considering my request for a task-based French-
    language program for northern border agents, similar to the
    Spanish program we have over on the southern border that Jeff
    Flake is very familiar with? Those two questions.
        Secretary Johnson. Last question first.
        Senator Schumer. Yep. Sure.
        Secretary Johnson. Last question first. I--I am not very
    familiar with the Plattsburgh situation and I will look into
    that, Senator, and I'm sure we will have a follow-up discussion
    on it. I--I fully support Commissioner Kerlikowske's efforts to
    restore and maintain pre-inspection on the Canadian side of the
    Peace Bridge.
        As you know, infrastructure--building the right
    infrastructure for this is probably the biggest issue, and I
    understand that we may have a resolution to that issue which I
    think is very good.
        Senator Schumer. Yes. The Peace Bridge is willing to put in
    the $44 million to do it.
        Secretary Johnson. Money talks, yes. I also believe that
    privileges and immunities, as you and I have discussed, is
    crucial. That is something that is important for the agreement
    we signed for pre-clearance with the Canadians, but I also
    believe legislation to implement that can be useful in the pre-
    inspection context as well.
        Senator Schumer. We just need you to get an MOU moving on
    pre-inspection. Can you commit to getting that done as quickly
    as possible?
        Secretary Johnson. I will----
        Senator Schumer. I know you need the Canadians to dance
    with you, but they seem to be all right given how well you did
    on pre-clearance.
        Secretary Johnson. Whatever--whatever Commissioner
    Kerlikowski and you have discussed and agreed to, I fully
    support, sir.
        Senator Schumer. Excellent. OK. Well, merci beaucoup.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Sessions. Tres bien.
        Senator Schumer. I actually had another question, but I was
    so eager to say merci beaucoup I cut myself off. [Laughter.]
    I'll add that question to the record, if there's no objection,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Sessions. You can be sure there's no objection on
    this side.
        Senator Sessions. Senators Flake, Whitehouse, and Perdue.
        Senator Flake. Thank you. Tough act to follow, let me tell
    you.
        I have made my concerns regarding Operation Streamline
    known to the Department and to the Department of Justice. As
    you're aware, Operation Streamline has been a very successful
    zero tolerance policy that we have had on the border,
    particularly in the Yuma sector. It's most in that sector a
    tribute to the success at bringing that portion of the border
    under control to Operation Streamline.
        Yet, the U.S. Attorney's Office for Arizona has ordered
    kind of a pull-back on that policy. I just toured the border,
    toured Yuma and all along the border a couple of weeks ago and
    there is a lot of concern there that, as word filters back,
    that we don't have a zero tolerance policy anymore, that we're
    going to start to see movement again.
        There's a lot of concern in those communities along the
    border that we're going to see an uptick. It won't take much.
    As you know, word travels fast, as we learned in spades with
    the unaccompanied minor issue that we had.
        What can you tell me--let me just ask you, do you believe
    that the program like Operation Streamline is an effective
    deterrent to border crossing?
        Secretary Johnson. I certainly believe that law enforcement
    in general is an effective deterrent to illegal border
    crossings. I've heard the same thing in Arizona about Operation
    Streamline. As you know, Senator, I've visited with a number of
    your constituents on the border.
        In my judgment, what matters when it comes to illegal
    migration on the southern border is that we cracked down on the
    smugglers. With the Department of Justice, we ratcheted up our
    efforts when it comes to prosecuting the coyotes last summer
    because of the misinformation that they were putting out, and
    with the Department of Justice we've made considerable headway
    in the prosecution of the smuggling organizations.
        I believe that has contributed to our overall efforts on
    the southern border. I do note that the numbers overall of
    apprehensions are down considerably on the southern border,
    including in each of the--the Arizona sectors. That continues
    to be a good thing, but I also believe that we need to continue
    our efforts. I think that law enforcement in general is an
    important part of that.
        Whether that should include prosecuting the illegal
    migrants, I think, should be made on a case-by-case basis. You
    can't federally prosecute every single illegal migrant for a
    felony prosecution. I think that those judgments have to be
    made carefully and they ought to be made wisely because it's a
    use of DOJ's resources.
        Senator Flake. When you talk about going after the
    smugglers, this--the effectiveness of that program, I would
    submit, and those who are on the border would submit, is that
    it does go after the smugglers because if smugglers lose those
    who are in their charge for a week of detention, that's a big
    deal and it makes them re-think and makes them direct their
    focus elsewhere. That's been the history and that's why there's
    such concern, that as word filters down that these prosecutions
    aren't going to happen, then we're going to lose control again.
    We can't afford to do that.
        Are you aware of specifics of the Operation Streamline
    changes? Is that what it is, just case-by-case basis, no
    overriding policy of zero tolerance?
        Secretary Johnson. I do know, from people in Arizona, that
    they think very highly of Operation Streamline and they believe
    that it contributed to overall border security in Arizona.
    That's what they have told me.
        I have to assume that the U.S. Attorney in Arizona is
    continuing to prosecute, in certain cases, cases of illegal
    entry or illegal reentry, but I don't know firsthand what the
    U.S. Attorney's current policy is there.
        Senator Flake. I would just note that Operation Streamline
    was included in the 2012 to 2016 Border Patrol strategic plan,
    so it's part of your Department's plan. I would hope that we're
    working closely with Department of Justice to make sure that
    their actions are in line with that plan, because like I said,
    in certain sectors it's had great effect and we don't want to
    lose that.
        Let me turn, quickly, to an issue that Senator Grassley
    raised, the so-called Quick Trip Murder detention of Mr.
    Alamarano. This is a man who was charged with murder. We've not
    yet received a response on this. As you know, he was charged--
    I'm sorry, he was released, ICE failed to remove him. ICE said
    that he was eligible for bond at $10,000, which he posted.
        While out on bond, he reportedly had two injunctions issued
    against him for complaints of harassment. One woman feared for
    her life because he threatened to kill her ``plenty of times''
    and pointed a gun at her boyfriend. Two years after his
    release, 3 days after the second injunction was issued, he was
    alleged to have committed this murder. Was ICE aware of these
    civil injunctions against this man?
        Secretary Johnson. I don't know whether officials at ICE
    were aware of the civil injunctions, but as I said earlier,
    Senator, that case is definitely a tragedy and that individual
    should not have received DACA. He should not have been in the
    DACA program. As a result of this case, we have retrained the
    force, we've conducted a retroactive review. I don't know the
    answer to your specific question.
        Senator Flake. Excuse me. He wasn't in DACA. This wasn't
    part of DACA, he was just slated for removal and then posted
    bond.
        Secretary Johnson. Sorry. OK.
        Senator Flake. Is that correct?
        Secretary Johnson. I'm sorry, Senator. I have my cases
    confused.
        Senator Flake. Right.
        Secretary Johnson. I thought you were referring to another
    individual.
        Senator Flake. Yes.
        Secretary Johnson. I don't know the answer to your specific
    question.
        Senator Flake. Is there--Do you have a policy where you
    work with local law enforcement to find out if there are any
    civil injunctions against individuals like this that post bond
    that are out?
        Secretary Johnson. I do know that those in removal
    proceedings, when they're being evaluated for release, there
    ought to be a background check conducted. There ought to be,
    and there should be--and I believe there is--an evaluation of
    risk of danger to the community, just like in the criminal
    justice system.
        Senator Flake. If there is some kind of procedure like
    that, it failed miserably this time and I would just ask if ICE
    had been aware that there were two injunctions against an
    individual like this, would ICE have taken against him to
    remove that?
        Secretary Johnson. I don't know the answer to your specific
    question, sir, but we will get you that.
        Senator Flake. I'd like to find out if there is a policy
    where there's some communication between local law enforcement
    and ICE here with regard to civil injunctions against
    individuals like this. Can you make me aware of that, and if
    not, advise some kind of remedy for that?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes. Yes.
        Senator Flake. Thank you. I see my time is expired. I'd
    just mention one thing, quickly: ports of entry staffing.
    That's when we've committed to 2,000 new agents at the border,
    Customs and Border Protection, CBP, the blue uniforms. CBP
    officers. We've got to make sure that they're hiring.
        I hear that that's going more slowly than we thought that
    it should. Is there any plan to speed that up to make sure that
    we have the staffing? We've got better infrastructure there
    now. We've just got to make sure the staffing levels are there.
        Secretary Johnson. The answer to your question is yes,
    there is a plan to speed it up.
        Senator Flake. Thank you. Thank you.
        Chairman Sessions. [Presiding] Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        Welcome, Secretary Johnson. Good to see you. First of all,
    let me thank you for your work on immigration enforcement and
    express my regret that we could not pass the bipartisan
    immigration reform bill through Congress entirely that would
    have, I think, made your job a lot clearer and simpler and
    significant responsibility for the immigration mess that we're
    in now lies with Congress, not with you, and with Congress for
    failing to pass the Senate's bipartisan bill, which I was a
    strong supporter of.
        I would like to talk with you about cyber security. The
    Majority Leader has announced that he's going to try to have
    cyber week here on the Senate floor at some point. There's a
    lot of activity in the House. We have bipartisan bills that are
    pending on information sharing between Federal agencies and the
    big communications providers, on agency public reporting of the
    cyber threat, to increase public awareness, of coordinating
    national notification when companies have data breaches, and on
    updating some of the criminal penalties.
        When we first were working on comprehensive cyber security
    legislation, another main piece of this effort was on the
    critical infrastructure piece. What I hear quite widely is that
    the DHS-led framework process that has pulled together a great
    number of critical infrastructure industry sectors is going
    very well and that as a result of that there is no immediate
    pressure for legislation in that area.
        There may not be an immediate need for legislation in that
    area, but of all the different areas that I mentioned where
    there will be legislation, protecting our privately owned
    critical infrastructure is probably the most significant
    national security element.
        I'm interested in getting your assessment of how that
    framework process is going and when you think it might be
    appropriate for Congress to begin looking at legislating in
    that area. I expect that the executive process will yield
    recommendations as to what should be done next, and I don't
    know what timeframe you feel you are on toward that goal.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, as I'm sure you know, the
    framework process was in lieu of any effort to legislate. I
    share your assessment on what you're hearing, that the
    framework process has been going well. It's been well received
    in the private sector and it seems to be working pretty well. I
    also want to applaud those in Congress who were active in cyber
    security legislation.
        I am largely very supportive of the bill that passed the
    House last week, sponsored by Chairman McCaul and others. I
    think that, frankly, some legislation is better than no
    legislation and I think that information sharing between the
    private sector and the government is crucial. Any efforts by
    the Congress to promote and endorse that is crucial.
        I also believe that a form of immunity limitations from
    civil and criminal liability for those who share cyber threat
    indicators with the Department is crucial, and I believe that a
    national data breach notification requirement is also very
    important. I'm pleased that we are active legislatively in
    those areas. In terms of the----
        Senator Whitehouse. That leaves us with critical
    infrastructure.
        Secretary Johnson. In terms of your precise question, I
    haven't thought about it the way you've asked it. I'd want to--
    I think it's a thoughtful question worth--worth--worthy of a
    thoughtful answer. Let me consult. I'd like to consult my--my
    NPPD community and get to a thoughtful answer to that.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. I do think that there is a
    bipartisan sense that the framework process run by DHS has been
    effective, has achieved significant national security goals,
    and has enjoyed the support and cooperation of the private
    sector. All of that is the good news part.
        The question is, is it enough and is there a time when
    really implementing on it will require action from Congress,
    and how far out you see that coming, because obviously when
    it's as important as a protection of critical infrastructure,
    we want to be able to act pretty rapidly.
        Being prepared if it's going to be next year, there's a lot
    of conversation that has to take place on this issue. Again,
    very strong bipartisan support, but it's not an easy one. A
    preview of coming attractions would be very good.
        My second question is in the same area. I'd like to ask
    you, and maybe even urge you, to consider what the structure in
    the executive branch for addressing our cyber security concerns
    looks like. There's an awful lot of division and sequestration
    in the old sense, not the budget sense, of effort within the
    Department of Justice. It's divided into two separate sections,
    criminal and national security. On the investigative side, it's
    divided between FBI and Secret Service, with other agencies
    having even smaller pieces.
        If you look at the data, you have the NCCK, which is a very
    well-regarded facility. The FBI has the NCIJTF. The
    administration has just announced its, what are they calling
    it, Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center. From the--
    from our side of the legislative-executive divide, this looks a
    lot like multiplicity and confusion.
        When you consider the scope of the cyber threat, the fact
    that we have an agency like DEA that is dedicated exclusively
    to narcotics trafficking, and we have an agency like ATF that
    is dedicated exclusively to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and
    bombs, and no specific dedication of a single agency to this
    rapidly emerging and very persistent and dangerous cyber
    threat, I just think we have more work to do to set up the
    administrative structure that's going to allow us to be most
    effective at doing this.
        I'd urge you to consider that and to work with OMB and DOJ
    to try to think 5 years ahead. Every 6 months, Mr. Secretary,
    there's a new wrinkle in the administrative process for doing
    this and some new announcement is being made about some new
    agency or some new feature, and I think we need a long-term
    strategy and I don't think we have it.
        Chairman Sessions. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I would
    share that concern. I know, as you know, the Defense Department
    is conducting a major review of their cyber security
    vulnerabilities. We're going to have to spend a lot of money on
    that, but it goes throughout the entire government. The more we
    coordinate our effort to learn how to technologically protect
    our systems, I think we save money and make America a safer
    place. Thank you for raising that.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, to echo your point, I
    mean, on the military side they have Cyber Command and they
    really have set up, you know, with two four-stars on the top of
    it, a very coherent administrative structure for taking the
    cyber issue and making sure that it's addressed in a direct and
    comprehensive way.
        If you take that clarity of structure in the military side
    and you move it over and try to apply it to law enforcement,
    it's very scattered. I know there are lots of turf issues and
    all that kind of stuff, but it just doesn't look like we've got
    it right yet. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Sessions. Thank you.
        Secretary Johnson. Chairman, may I--may I comment, please?
        Chairman Sessions. Yes, briefly. Then we'll go to Senator
    Perdue.
        Secretary Johnson. I understand.
        Chairman Sessions. Yes.
        Secretary Johnson. I'm looking forward to the Senator's
    questions.
        Chairman Sessions. All right.
        Secretary Johnson. As the former lawyer for the United
    States military, I think that it's the first time I've ever
    heard anyone referred to the DOD structure as having clarity of
    structure. That's--that's pretty good news.
        Senator Whitehouse. On cyber, it does.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, I look at it this way. The
    Department of Homeland Security, and specifically our NCCK, is
    intended to be the interface--the primary interface of the
    Federal Government with the private sector.
        We have, as I think your question implies, a number of
    different law enforcement agencies involved in investigating
    cyber crime and a number of different agencies, including DOD,
    NSA, Cyber Command, dealing with cyber security generally,
    offensively and defensively.
        I came in the office and I looked at all of that much the
    same way you look at it and what I have committed to do with my
    cyber security counterparts is--and I know them well. I've
    known Jim Comey for 26 years. I know Mike Rogers because he
    used to be my client. I know Jack Lew. The Commerce Department
    wants a piece of this, too.
        I have committed to my workforce and to them that we're
    going to meet regularly, we're going to work together because
    we don't want turf wars. Turf wars are counterproductive and
    they don't serve anybody's interests, most of all the American
    public's.
        I believe that we can, and we should, and we are working
    more effectively, better, and without the turf battles. A lot
    of it, frankly, is due to personalities. If you have people at
    the top of these agencies who know each other and trust each
    other and work well together, we can minimize the confusion and
    the inconsistency. I do recognize that there are a lot of
    agencies involved in cyber security.
        Chairman Sessions. Thank you. Senator Perdue.
        Senator Perdue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Secretary, I just want to say for the record how much I
    appreciate your forbearance and courtesy earlier in our private
    meetings and for your public service. It is a very difficult
    mission you've been given.
        In the spirit of oversight, I'd just like to ask a couple
    of questions. Your predecessor, Secretary Napolitano, in 1913,
    talked about visa overstays. A big part of--or a large
    percentage of illegal immigrants in this country came in this
    country legally and just overstayed their visa.
        Can you give us an update on that report? I think you
    mentioned something about this about a year ago as well. Can
    you just give us an update on that report?
        Secretary Johnson. I saw a preliminary report a while ago,
    which in my judgment lacked fidelity, to be quite honest. I
    told my people I wanted them to go back and look hard at this
    issue and, even if it means consulting people on the outside,
    let's give our best estimate at visa overstays. The work I've
    seen so far has not been satisfactory, such that I am prepared
    to give it to the Congress or to give it to the American public
    as something I'm prepared to stand behind.
        Senator Perdue. OK.
        Secretary Johnson. Unfortunately, and I know this has taken
    some time, it continues to be a work in progress, but I do want
    to get to the right answer.
        Senator Perdue. I appreciate that. Do you have--can you
    give us a sense of when we might expect to see that?
        Secretary Johnson. I ask that exact same question of my
    people routinely and I'm told that we're getting closer.
        Senator Perdue. I'll take that to be months and not years.
    Is that reasonable?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Perdue. Thank you.
        Without getting into politics, and again, in the spirit of
    oversight, going back to this case in Texas on the immigration
    issue, the executive amnesty issue, there's a conflict between
    the injunction that the judge put on that and the actions of
    the DHS and mainly the comments of the President.
        Can you comment, given that the President seemed to
    indicate that he was interested in being prepared and that
    there were some 100,000 renewals done, I think, in the first 3
    weeks. That upset the judge, he made a comment. The President
    responded. Can you just give us some clarity about what exactly
    the DHS is doing now in relation to that case and being
    prepared for the outcome?
        Secretary Johnson. In reaction to the injunction, which has
    not been stayed, we have shut down our implementation of the
    DAPA program and the expanded DACA program. We did that very,
    very soon after the injunction became known to us, so we're in
    compliance with the court order.
        The things that we were trying to put in place, that we
    were putting in place, will either be discontinued or they will
    be diverted to some other use that we have, principally within
    CIS. We're complying with the court's injunction because we
    have to. There's no stay.
        Senator Perdue. There's no--there's no ongoing preparation
    for what you were doing originally or what were planning to do
    originally under the original guidance?
        Secretary Johnson. No. The--we--the implementation of the
    program, which had begun after November 20, we've had to
    suspend.
        Senator Perdue. I see.
        Let me go back to the gang member issue. I just want to ask
    about a recent decision of the Fourth Circuit that involved
    removing gang members under--under the INA. I'm sure that--
    well, in that case, individual gang membership may constitute a
    protected characteristic that can title--that can entitle the
    individual to relief from removal or entitle them to asylum.
        Basically, the rationale is like, if you're in MS-13, for
    example, you might be in danger in your home country if you
    claim that you renounce your gang membership, you turn State's
    evidence, and now you can't go back. I think it's pretty
    obvious that--that we could be set up for significant fraud
    there. How do you interpret, you know, that ruling by the
    Fourth Circuit and has it changed any of the procedures ongoing
    in DHS?
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, I have to confess, I'm not
    familiar with that Fourth Circuit decision.
        Senator Perdue. OK.
        Secretary Johnson. Let me--if you don't mind, let me take
    that question for the record for you.
        Senator Perdue. Sure. That'll be great. We'll submit it in
    writing. That would be great. I would appreciate that.
        Last, can you give us an idea of how you go about
    estimating the number of people that cross our southern
    border.? I mean, I know that's--there is no accurate number,
    and I know it was asked earlier today, but is there an
    attempt--I know we have this--this big number called illegal
    immigrants that we're monitoring, we've got this study you're
    working on visa overstays.
        In terms of the people that come in illegally, what are we
    doing in DHS to sort of quantify that so you know how to deploy
    resources? This is, again, just an oversight, not a political
    question.
        Secretary Johnson. We have apprehensions which, in the
    judgment of the professionals, is an indicator of total
    attempts to cross the border, and so the report I issued last
    week talked about apprehensions. There is an attempt also to
    measure what the Border Patrol calls turn-backs and get-aways.
    That number is one that I think we can do a better job of
    trying to quantify so that we get to total attempts to cross
    the border.
        I'm interested in getting to that number and so I've
    consulted with outside experts, I've consulted with my own
    people, about arriving at a way to measure total attempts.
    There are various ideas out there, some of which are published.
    The Council on Foreign Relations has done some good work in
    this area, which includes surveys of people south of the border
    and what their behavior might be.
        I'm interested in more transparency in this and more
    clarity when it comes to total attempts to cross the border. It
    is--it is not an easy exercise and there is a certain unknown
    factor when it comes to people who evade capture, who evade
    apprehension, and so I'm interested in getting to a better,
    clearer measurement of that. I agree with the sentiment of your
    question.
        Senator Perdue. When you get that information----
        Secretary Johnson. In the absence of that, total
    apprehensions I take as an indicator of total attempts to cross
    the border. So that's something----
        Senator Perdue. I appreciate your approach. I appreciate
    your quantitative approach. When you get that information would
    you share it with us at the appropriate time? We'll put that in
    a written record question as well.
        Senator Perdue. Again, thank you for your service.
        Mr. Chairman, that's all I have.
        Chairman Sessions. Thank you. Senator Perdue, here's an
    article on March from, I believe, the Washington Times. Maybe
    not. It said, talking about a House hearing on this question, a
    Border Patrol agent, while testifying before--actually it was a
    Homeland Security panel, Senator Johnson's committee--and
    indicated that nearly 6 out of every 10 aliens who attempt to
    infiltrate the United States through the U.S.---Mexico border
    are not apprehended. That's his estimate.
        He went on to say, ask any line agent in the field and he
    or she will tell you, at best, we apprehend 35 to 40 percent of
    the illegal immigrants coming, attempting to cross. This number
    is even lower for drug smugglers who are much more adept at
    eluding capture.
        He said, quote ``'Agents who repeatedly report groups
    larger than 20 face retribution. Management will either take
    them out of the field and assign them to processing detainees
    at the station or assign them to a fixed position in low-volume
    areas as punishment', Caverra told the lawmakers. Needless to
    say, agents got the message and now stay below this 20-person
    threshold no matter the actual size of the group.''
        Mr. Johnson, you're the head person of this entity. Have
    you investigated this charge about agents being told not to
    have more than 20, to report more than 20 if they see more than
    20?
        Secretary Johnson. I've heard of that allegation. I've
    heard of that charge. I've looked into it. I don't have a
    specific answer to that suggestion. I will say this, Senator. I
    think that 6 out of 10 is too high an estimate, and I base that
    on my own conversations with Border Patrol experts.
        I will also tell you this, sir. I spend a lot of time
    myself on the southern border with our men and women in uniform
    in the Border Patrol because I want to hear directly from them
    what they say is happening on the southern border. I'm not
    interested in intermediaries.
        Chairman Sessions. Have you met with Chris Crane, the head
    of the ICE association?
        Secretary Johnson. I've met with Mr. Crane, too.
        Chairman Sessions. How many times?
        Secretary Johnson. At least once in my headquarters office.
    I invited him to come in and I believe there was probably at
    least one other time as well.
        Chairman Sessions. What about Mr. Palinkas on the U.S. CIS,
    have you met with him?
        Secretary Johnson. I don't recall that name but it's
    entirely possible.
        Chairman Sessions. The association. These are the top
    people. You've got the lowest morale in the government in your
    agency and the reason is because they know you're not serious
    about supporting them in the mission that they've been given.
    They filed a lawsuit against Secretary Napolitano, asserting
    that they're being required not to follow the law.
        Look, we've got a problem. I know--I'd like to have a nice
    conversation here, but this administration has been
    systematically seeking not to see the laws enforced. They're
    focusing more and more on ameliorating the concerns of people
    who enter the country illegally than they people--are that come
    lawfully.
        He also said this, Mr. Caverra did in his testimony: ``I
    want to be crystal clear, the border is not secure. How can
    this enormous gap exist between what you, DHS, tells you here
    in Washington and what our agents know to the be the truth in
    the field? Frankly, it is how you manipulate statistics.''
    Close quote.
        I think statistics are manipulated. You're saying we have
    more removals, a big increase in removals, but you started
    counting, I believe, before you took office. Ms. Napolitano
    started counting the turn-arounds at the border as removals.
    They had never been considered that before. Without those, you
    haven't had an increase in removals.
        In fact, you have a significant decline. I think you've
    acknowledged, have you not, that those--that counting is a new
    system of accounting that counts the apprehensions at the
    border as removals. Answer--you admitted that or acknowledged
    that to Mr. Culverson, the House member, in a House committee
    meeting.
        Secretary Johnson. I'm not sure what you're referring to,
    sir, but I----
        Chairman Sessions. He asked you this: ``More than half of
    those removals''--I'm quoting Representative Culverson--``that
    are attributed to ICE are actually a result of Border Patrol
    arrests that wouldn't have been counted in prior
    administrations.' Mr. Johnson: 'Correct' ''.
        Secretary Johnson. Sir, I have learned from 30 years of
    cross-examining witnesses that if I am to answer such a
    question I think I'd want to see the Q&A before and after if
    you don't mind, sir. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Sessions. Look. Isn't it the truth? Haven't you
    all--isn't there a new thing under the--in recent years to
    start counting both, or you don't know?
        Secretary Johnson. Sir, I do know this.
        Chairman Sessions. You're the Secretary. You should know.
    Did you change the standards? I've got a chart here somewhere
    that show the actual numbers. Actual removals on the ICE chart
    show Border Patrol numbers along with ICE. That increases the
    numbers. It's about 300,000. Only 100,000 are what were
    classically called removals previously.
        Secretary Johnson. May I read you something?
        Chairman Sessions. Yes.
        Secretary Johnson. This is one of my--this is one of my
    directives from November 20th. If you'll just bear with me a
    second.
        Chairman Sessions. The chart I just looked at was an ICE
    chart in 2014, September 20, 2014, when you were in office.
        Secretary Johnson. I've heard the suggestion of double
    counting, and if there's double counting that obviously should
    not happen. One of my directives from November 20 is I am
    directing the Office of Immigration Statistics to create the
    capability to collect, maintain, and report to the Secretary
    data reflecting the numbers of those apprehended, removed,
    returned, or otherwise repatriated by any component of DHS and
    to report that data in accordance with the priorities set forth
    above. I want our components to cooperate with this effort. I
    intend for this data to be part of the package of data released
    by DHS to the public annually. So I'm interested in getting
    this----
        Chairman Sessions. OK. I appreciate that, but let me tell
    you what is happening. You can call this double counting or
    not. Border Patrol apprehends people at the border and they're
    sent back and they count those as their numbers. ICE used to
    only count what they did from the interior. They count that,
    plus the Border Patrol. That's the fact. Without those
    additional numbers, they don't show the improvement the
    Department has been declaring.
        With regard to Streamline that you were asking about, this
    is really important, Mr. Secretary. Secretary of Homeland
    Security Janet Napolitano said, ``Operation Streamline has
    proven effective''. It's a program where people, when they're
    caught at the border, are actually prosecuted for the offense
    of entering the country. They are convicted of misdemeanors.
        They aren't kept in jail a long time, but they have a
    conviction on their record. That was a belief that it might
    deter more people from coming and it was the right thing to do
    since it violates the law.
        In the Dell Rio sector, after this was done, overall
    apprehensions declined from 42,000 to 17,000. In 2008, Attorney
    General Michael Mukasey said, ``The program has an unbelievable
    return effect in the Yuma sector. From October through December
    2008, the Department of Justice prosecuted over 1,200 cases.
        As a consequence, apprehension rates dropped nearly 70
    percent. What we see both statistically and anecdotally is that
    when people who cross the border illegally are brought to face
    the reality that they are committing a crime, even if it's just
    a misdemeanor, that has a huge impact on their willingness to
    try again and on the willingness of others to break the law
    coming across the borders.
        In Fiscal Year 2007, former Homeland Security Secretary
    Chertoff noted that apprehension rates in Yuma dropped nearly
    70 percent after Operation Streamline. Recently, the president
    of the Border Patrol union for the Yuma sector, Brent
    Orsoncroft, said, quote ``Operation Streamline is one of the
    last strongholds we have as a deterrent.''
        Have you talked to the Department of Justice to attempt to
    restore this and actually expand it? If the number of people
    who are coming has reduced, it would be even more effective and
    more practical to initiate these kind of prosecutions. Now, you
    have to defend your agents. These are crimes. I think you
    should demand Department of Justice prosecute them.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, I speak to the Department of
    Justice all the time about how we are enforcing our immigration
    laws. I do know that our apprehension numbers are down this
    year in every sector, including Arizona, including Texas.
        In my view, that's a good thing and I think it's a good
    thing as a result of a number of different efforts, including
    our law enforcement efforts and our additional resources on the
    southern border, our efforts at public messaging, the good help
    we've received from the Central American governments, and from
    the Government of Mexico. In fact, our apprehension numbers are
    down.
        Chairman Sessions. Why don't you continue this program that
    everybody has bragged on so consistently as having a real
    impact, as much as 50 percent reduction in attempts, in the
    sectors where Streamline is utilized? Why don't you do that?
        Secretary Johnson. Because I don't----
        Chairman Sessions. Is there some reason you don't want to
    do that?
        Secretary Johnson. I don't know----
        Chairman Sessions. It used to be done.
        Secretary Johnson. I don't know that prosecuting every mom
    with a young woman--with a young child crossing the border for
    a Federal crime is the way to go. I do believe that the more
    effective way to go is to focus on the smugglers, focus on the
    coyotes who are bringing these people are across. Nobody
    freelances.
        Chairman Sessions. Right.
        Secretary Johnson. They're all brought at the hands of a
    criminal smuggling organization. I want to get at the source,
    and that's what we're doing.
        Chairman Sessions. Secretary Chertoff said it dropped
    nearly 70 percent, others have said high numbers. Even
    Secretary Napolitano has bragged on the program. Senator Flake,
    on the border, and his predecessor Senator Kyl thought this was
    one of the most effective things that's ever been done on the
    border, and you've allowed it to stop. I guess you could blame
    Attorney General Holder, but if you haven't complained about it
    I don't see how you can blame him.
        I'm sorry. Senator Coons, you've arrived. Thank you. I will
    yield to you. Maybe the Secretary could respond if he's like
    to. I don't mean to cut you off.
        Secretary Johnson. My point is this, Senator. We work with
    the Department of Justice all the time on the most effective
    and efficient way to enforce our immigration laws. What we
    determined to do last summer was to go after the smugglers.
    Everybody who crosses is paying these smugglers thousands of
    dollars per person to do this. They don't freelance. We've
    determined to go after the coyotes, go after the smugglers, and
    I think that that has made a difference, sir.
        Chairman Sessions. I have no doubt. I don't know why you
    waited so long. Secretary Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Sessions, and thank you,
    Secretary Johnson, for your service and for your testimony
    today, for the chance to continue our conversation on a number
    of issues.
        Let me first start with cyber security, as legislation is
    being considered. The administration, if I understand
    correctly, has issued a statement of policy supporting the
    goals of cyber information legislation, but warning that more
    needs to be done to protect the privacy of Americans so that
    the current cyber security bill does not become a foreign
    surveillance and intelligence bill.
        Can you expand on that and talk a little bit about how you
    view the Department of Homeland Security's proper role in
    preventing personal user information from being shared with the
    NSA or CIA?
        Secretary Johnson. Through the proper--this is a balance.
    Through the proper screening of PII, of cyber----
        Senator Coons. Personally identifying information?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes. Sorry. I don't normally use
    acronyms. The proper screening of them, but in as near real-
    time as possible because we also need speed. The inter-agency
    wants and needs speed and we're developing systems now that can
    screen out the personal identifiers, while getting the
    information our inter-agency partners need.
        I also know that cyber threat indicators, which is what
    we're most interested in, rarely have what we would--what you
    and I would consider personal identifiers in them, but if they
    do, they should be screened out.
        We're working on getting both the speed and limiting the
    dissemination of personal identifiers from the agencies that
    should--should not get them, and so that's a project that I'm
    focused on, irrespective of whether or not Congress acts on
    legislation, but I really hope that you do.
        Senator Coons. Does the Agency currently have the resources
    to do both of those, to screen out all the personally
    identifying information and share appropriately----
        Secretary Johnson. We're on a project right now at the
    NCCK----
        Senator Coons. Right.
        Secretary Johnson [continuing]. to promote exactly that and
    get us in a better place on exactly that.
        Senator Coons. That's encouraging, and I appreciate your
    ongoing focus. Privacy is a critical component of our security.
        When you were last before our Committee June of last year
    we discussed three topics specific to immigration and due
    process, where I would like an update on where we are so far.
        First, you recognized the legitimate law enforcement
    concerns around enforcement actions happening near courthouses.
    Immigration enforcement at or near a courthouse undermines
    public safety and impedes access to justice by sending the
    message that going to court is dangerous for those who might be
    here in an undocumented status because it can lead to
    deportation.
        Has the Department clarified its procedures on courthouse
    enforcement?
        Secretary Johnson. Yes, we have a policy. I confess, I
    haven't looked at it in a while but I know that ICE considers a
    courthouse to be--and I'm not going to get the words exactly
    right--protected space, or a special place. There are, and I
    believe there should be, exceptions for genuine public safety
    threats, but we do have a policy.
        Senator CoonsT1. We also discussed----
        Secretary Johnson. I can get you the exact policy, but we
    do have a policy.
        Senator Coons. I would appreciate----
        Secretary Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Coons [continuing]. some follow-up on that if we
    could, Mr. Secretary.
        We also discussed nighttime and lateral repatriation and
    you said you were working with the Mexican government on this,
    and acknowledged the DHS policy since 2004 has been against the
    needless separation of families. I wondered if DHS had ceased
    the practices of lateral and nighttime deportations and
    repatriation.
        Secretary Johnson. As a result of discussions that I had
    with the Mexican government last year, we now have a steering
    committee in place between the U.S. and the Mexican governments
    to better coordinate repatriations to designated places at
    designated hours. We do not have a policy of separating
    families. I don't think that's a good idea. I want to
    discourage that. We do not have--that is not part of our
    policy.
        Can I envision an exception or two for logistics reasons?
    Yes. Since last year we have moved away from night
    repatriations and we're working now with the Mexican government
    much more effectively at identifying for them when we return
    people, logistically working with them to do so in a more
    controlled way.
        Senator Coons. Thank you.
        A third area on this general topic, we discussed previously
    providing what are called the A files to immigrants facing
    deportation so they don't have to spend time going through the
    FOIA process.
        You said you would look into that and I didn't know whether
    DHS had begun to routinely provide A files to aliens in
    deportation proceedings, something that we had agreed in that
    previous exchange about it would be, frankly, in the interest
    of justice and reduce the time and cost of deportation
    proceedings.
        Secretary Johnson. I do know--I do know we now have a--I do
    know we now have a policy on that. We also have a policy
    concerning congressional requests for A files. Sitting here,
    I--maybe this is because it's--I've been here a while. But
    sitting here----
        Senator Coons. I recognize I am the last questioner, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Secretary Johnson [continuing]. I can't remember exactly
    what the policy is, so let me get you that for the record.
        Senator Coons. Please do. I'd appreciate both follow-up and
    some clarity about what the Department needs to get us to a
    place where you're following what I think is the appropriate
    process here.
        Secretary Johnson. OK.
        Senator Coons. Let me move to U.S. v. Texas and the
    executive actions. I'd like to get your response to some of the
    factual----
        Secretary Johnson. That one, I haven't forgotten about.
        Senator Coons. I suspect you haven't. You may have had some
    vigorous exchanges on that. I just wanted your response to the
    factual findings and legal conclusions the Texas judge made in
    blocking temporarily your efforts to use prosecutorial
    discretion to enforce our law more sensibly, efficiently, and
    justly.
        The court ruled your directives would have foreclosed DHS
    discretion to adjudicate each case on its merits. Did your
    directives actually foreclose your discretion, and what about
    that of DHS employees?
        Secretary Johnson. As I noted earlier, in at least two
    places Judge Hanen said in his opinion that the discretion of
    the Secretary to decide how to devote his resources, where to
    focus his resources, should be unquestioned. He did say that.
    As part of--and the district judge seems to feel that the--
    seems to believe that the policy is an across-the-board hands-
    off for a whole class of people.
        The way the new policy is set up and the way it's written--
    and I wrote it--it's to be a case-by-case assessment of whether
    somebody represents a threat to public safety, border security,
    national security, and in fact there is written into the policy
    something that did not exist in the old policy, the DACA
    policy.
        Among the criteria for consideration by an examining
    officer is, in addition to has this person been in the country
    5 years, do they have a child who's a citizen or lawful
    permanent resident, does the applicant present any other
    factors that, in the exercise of discretion, makes the grant of
    deferred action inappropriate? That's an additional factor.
        I want to encourage a case-by-case assessment of each
    applicant to see whether or not they are appropriate for
    prosecutorial discretion. I know that there's a lot of
    disagreement in Congress, on this Committee, about the
    appropriateness of deferred action.
        I think back to when I was a prosecutor. We used to enter
    into deferred prosecution agreements with individuals based on
    a case-by-case assessment, and so I think this is an extension
    of that. Is it a large extension? Yes. Is it a potentially
    large pool of people? Yes. It is intended to be a case-by-case
    judgment, and I think that that's part of the inherent
    authority of the Secretary, of the executive branch and the
    enforcement of our immigration laws.
        Senator Coons. The court also ruled that the government
    would not suffer any significant harm through delay, through
    the impact of a temporary delay in your efforts. I just, if I
    might, Mr. Chairman, would be interested in your answer to what
    impact this delay is having on the government, on individuals
    who would otherwise be qualified for deferred action, on our
    economy, any observations you'd care to make about the impact
    of delay.
        Secretary Johnson. I know that there is a tremendous level
    of disappointment in the community. There was a lot of
    enthusiasm for the new program in the community; I saw it
    myself personally in places like Chicago, Los Angeles.
        The injunction requires us to turn on a dime and shut down
    all of our implementation efforts which we have done, and I
    believe that this period while the program is enjoined could
    have a lasting impact on the overall success of the program
    because the community is confused, there's uncertainty, there's
    probably anxiety about going forward with something that's an
    item in litigation.
        I think it has created significant--a significant--
    significant set-back to the overall success of the program and
    it's, as long as the injunction's in place, a--a huge
    uncertainty overhanging CIS's operations and ability to
    function. The stay application is, I believe, last time I
    looked, still pending with the Fifth Circuit, and we'll see how
    they rule.
        Senator Coons. Would the Chairman suffer through one more
    quick question?
        Chairman Grassley. OK.
        Senator Coons. As we have discussed before, DHS assistance
    to State and local law enforcement is critical to our work
    together to combat terrorism and extremism to keep our
    communities safe.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Coons. I just wondered if you thought there were
    any areas where you believed DHS assistance and support to
    State and local law enforcement was deserving of our particular
    attention, and I want to thank the Chairman for his indulgence
    of my last question.
        Secretary Johnson. I think that cooperation, information
    sharing with State and local law enforcement, given how the
    global terrorist threat is evolving, is becoming more and more
    important. I mean, I think it's key that because of the threat
    of the independent actor, the so-called lone wolf who is not
    somebody that our intelligence community will necessarily
    detect overseas, it's crucial that cops on the ground and local
    law enforcement see what we see in terms of potential terrorist
    threats to our country. We issued--we issue, almost on a weekly
    basis now, joint intelligence bulletins to local law
    enforcement. We issued a pretty significant one last week. I
    was just with the Commissioner of Police of the city of Boston
    yesterday talking about this exact issue, and I think it's got
    to be the wave of the future in terms of working with--
    partnering with State and local police, law enforcement.
        Senator Coons. I appreciate your attention to that. I thank
    you for your answer, and I thank the Chairman's forbearance for
    that question. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Senator Coons, the 9/11 Commission issued
    a number of recommendations, after that terrible day, when they
    did their report. One of them was that we have a biometric
    entry/exit system. We've had that in law for--since 2002. It is
    not in effect today. We--you know if you do an i-Pad or i-
    Phone, you just put your fingerprint on it and it reads it.
        It's very practical for a person coming in an airport to
    put their finger on. They have a visa for a certain number of
    days, and when they exit they should go out and put their hand
    on it and clock out. The exit visa has never been done.
        Just last--and the 9/11 Commission says there's no way you
    can have control over visas if you don't do that, which is
    plainly true. So we've discussed it for years. It's a
    requirement of law and it can be done. When can we expect it to
    be done, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Johnson. I'm sure you know, Senator, we have
    biometric entrance--entry now for large classes of travelers.
    I'd like to see us have biometric exit because I agree with
    you, I think it promotes security. I think it is a good thing
    to have. I know it's a 9/11 Commission recommendation. It also
    involves a huge commitment in terms of resources to have this.
        Senator Sessions. Let me ask you, so the 9/11 follow-up--
    Commission follow-up report criticized the government. One of
    the most severe criticisms was not implementing what they
    recommended a decade ago.
        Have you asked the Congress for any money? Have you laid
    out a plan on what it would take to have an exit system and
    asked for the resources to get it done?
        Secretary Johnson. I believe that we have at some point,
    and it's something that I would like to see get done.
        Senator Sessions. I would hope you would send that. We'll
    review the record and I definitely think so, that we should do
    that, and I'm glad you would agree.
        With regard to the sanctuary city problem, we've got major
    cities--Los Angeles, Chicago--refusing to honor Federal
    detainers on people who are in the country unlawfully, just
    saying we don't apparently have any desire whatsoever to
    support the government in having an effective immigration
    system, and in fact we're going to sabotage it. Do you think
    that--would you support legislation that would clarify ICE
    detainers and make them mandatory?
        Secretary Johnson. I don't believe that a Federal
    requirement that the local sheriff or police chief respond
    affirmatively to a detainer from the Federal Government is the
    appropriate way to go. I do agree with the spirit of your
    question, and that is why we have undertaken a very aggressive
    effort to work with Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, New
    York, San Francisco where I was last week, the State of
    California where I was last week, on this exact issue because
    one of the reasons I think that we are having difficulty
    getting at the criminals is because of a lot of jurisdictions
    who are putting barriers on their ability to cooperate with us.
    I would agree with that.
        Senator Sessions. I agree. I think it's an unbelievable
    affront to law. It's an actual assertion that they are going to
    sabotage law enforcement in their cities, and not only do they
    have a different view about immigration, they're going to
    sabotage the enforcement of plain law.
        Your ICE director, a former prosecutor, Sarah Saldana, when
    asked about the same question I asked you, if they shouldn't be
    made mandatory on these cities, and she replied, thank you,
    amen, yes. I understand after that she was apparently counseled
    and she issued a retraction of that. Was that your discussion
    with her? Did you direct that she should back off that
    position?
        Secretary Johnson. No, I wouldn't characterize it that way.
    She did issue a written statement the next day correcting her
    statement, which I believe accurately and honestly reflects her
    own views. I do know Ms. Saldana well enough to know that I'm
    not going to be able to get her to say something she doesn't
    believe.
        Senator Sessions. She works for you.
        Secretary Johnson. Yes.
        Senator Sessions. Agents are saying what and doing what you
    tell them to do, even if it's in violation of the law.
        What about this problem of countries that won't accept
    repatriation or return of people who came illegally? Senator
    Specter had legislation on that. His basic view was, which I
    think you have the power to do now but would be mandatory, was
    if a country does not take back people who entered into the
    United States unlawfully, that they don't get to have any more
    admissions. That'll send them a message and that'll end it. We
    have been dealing with China, I think is our number-one
    problem, the biggest problem.
        Secretary Johnson. That was my exact conversation with the
    Chinese 3 weeks ago.
        Senator Sessions. I know that, and I know you perhaps made
    a little progress. The Memorandum of Understanding, even with
    China, seems to do little to actually fix this problem. It
    essentially only provides two individuals from the Chinese
    government to assist with repatriation efforts that involve
    tens of thousands of Chinese nationals.
        Congress has provided a mechanism already in law, Section
    243(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, that permits you
    to notify the Secretary of State of China or other countries--
    and there are others--and in turn requires that the Secretary
    of State of the United States to stop granting visas to
    citizens and nationals of such countries.
        Have you made any notification to any country that you
    intend to execute such a plan if they don't accept back the
    individuals who are to be deported?
        Secretary Johnson. I do believe that we and the State
    Department need to get with these countries and point out to
    them that they're slow in taking back the people we need to
    repatriate to them, and we have undertaken a campaign to do
    exactly that. I don't necessarily believe that we ought to
    suspend immigration travel from any of these countries because
    of this particular issue. I think that that is probably not the
    best way to go. I have had----
        Senator Sessions. Why won't they take them back, Mr.
    Secretary?
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, I have had some very blunt
    conversations with my Chinese counterparts about this exact
    issue in Beijing when I was there 3 weeks ago, for example.
        Senator Sessions. Forgive me if I don't think you're going
    to have a big progress with China. I hope I'm wrong. It's
    happening and it's been going on for a decade or more, and
    people sitting in your chair have failed to execute and use the
    powers they have.
        All you have to do is tell China, if you want further
    immigration to America you're going to have to take back these
    individuals because it costs us a lot of money either to keep
    them in detention, keep them taken care of, their medical
    needs, or we released them on bail and they disappear into the
    country and nobody's able to find them or deport them. It's
    just an unacceptable thing. It's just a part of international
    immigration policy that if an individual from a country comes
    to the United States unlawfully, they should be able to be
    deported.
        With regard to the 287G program, it trains local law
    enforcement to determine whether an individual they come up
    against, maybe within the prison system is what Alabama did, to
    find out if they're here unlawfully, to do it in a legal and
    constitutional way, to be cooperative with the Federal
    Government. It was a good program. It was expanded and
    executed.
        ICE touted it as a big success, but they're removed this
    language from their website. Since January 2006, the 287G
    program is credited with identifying more than 304,000
    potentially removable aliens, mostly at local jails. ICE has
    trained and certified more than 1,300 State and local law
    officers to help enforce immigration law.
        Last October, an ICE spokesman said this, that the 287G
    program expand ICE's ability to initiate immigration
    enforcement actions against criminal aliens and those who fall
    within the ICE, civil immigration enforcement priorities.
        As such, the program acts as a force multiplier for the
    agency, it enhances public safety in participating
    jurisdictions by identifying potentially dangerous criminal
    aliens and ensuring they are removed from the United States and
    not released back into their communities.
        By the way, there was just a news report from Madison
    County, Huntsville area, Prosecutor Bresard. An illegal alien
    had been convicted of murdering a police officer. He was on the
    ground, helpless, pleading for his life and he murdered him. He
    committed suicide in prison. I just would say we've got to be--
    if we really want to reduce those kind of incidents from
    happening then we've got to use the tools that we have.
        This administration, nevertheless, has systematically
    dismantled the 287G program, canceling agreements for law
    enforcement and slashing funding for the program, largely
    because the amnesty advocates oppose it. They don't like it.
        We have far too much action on behalf of this President and
    the Secretary of Homeland Security responding to advocates for
    illegal immigration than serving the lawful interests of the
    people of the United States. It just is. Today, only 35
    programs are existing. That's less than half of what it was. It
    should have been expanded.
        Tell me, do you believe it's a good program? Should it be
    expanded or do you want to continue to see it wither on the
    vine?
        Secretary Johnson. I believe the 280C--287G program is a
    good program in many respects. The biggest problem we have,
    Senator, in terms of our ability to work with local law
    enforcement in removing criminal immigrants was the Secure
    Communities program. Two hundred thirty-nine jurisdictions--I
    think I got that number right--were refusing to work with us or
    were imposing limitations on the ability to work with us.
    That's a big problem.
        We ended the Secure Communities program and we replaced it
    with a new program that I believe resolves the political and
    legal controversy and it takes two to dance, so I'm now out
    there, meeting with a lot of sheriffs, a lot of police chiefs,
    a lot of Governors, and a lot of mayors to introduce them to
    the new programs so that they will work with us again on
    immigration enforcement.
        Senator Sessions. I just talked to some sheriffs and
    they're very willing to help. They're very critical of Homeland
    Security and the Federal Government for not protecting their
    communities. Even though some cities may refuse, others no
    doubt would be willing to participate, and sheriff's
    departments would.
        Mr. Secretary, just the whole tenor of this, if anybody
    understands what's happening, indicates that you're not
    demonstrating a will to see the law be enforced.
        Secretary Johnson. I disagree.
        Senator Sessions. If you will do that effectively and if
    you'll send a clear message and utilize the tools that you have
    instead of undermining the tools that you have, I believe we
    could have a dramatic improvement in the amount of the number
    of people who attempt to enter unlawfully.
        We could reduce dramatically visa overstays at very little
    cost. Once the message gets out that you're not going to be
    able to come to the United States unlawfully, fewer and fewer
    people will attempt to come. I want----
        Secretary Johnson. That's in fact what's happening, sir.
        Senator Sessions. You are having a reduction, it appears,
    at the border. We don't know how much. This agent says that for
    every one apprehended, more than that gets by, particularly the
    drug smugglers. So be it. We're going to have another surge,
    according to your own agents, this summer from Central America,
    it appears.
        I would like to see--I don't think I'm being unfair about
    this. I've watched this for a long time and I don't think I'm
    being unfair. This President has been focused on reducing the
    activities and the lawful jurisdiction of your agents. Their
    morale is in the tank. They are not happy with what's going on
    and the American people shouldn't either.
        I think we should be stronger on Secure Communities. I
    believe, Mr. Secretary, you are right, that's a good program. I
    don't understand. It's almost, to me, like they don't
    understand it or just refuse to participate in it.
        To take a fingerprint from somebody who's in the country
    unlawfully and send it to Homeland Security, maybe you would
    identify someone who has a particularly violent history or
    maybe you'll identify where they are in the future, if they're
    arrested again at the border you'd have information and that
    data. We do it for normal criminals. I support you on that. I
    think you should not have backed down on it. I think it's a
    very reasonable thing.
        I'll let you wrap up in any way you would like, and the
    record will remain open for 1 week for additional questions.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you, Senator. I do want to say
    something in conclusion. I have discovered that as the leader
    of an organization of 225,000 people, one of the ways to ensure
    that we continue low morale is to continue to say publicly to
    my workforce, you have low morale.
        The other week there was a subcommittee on the House side
    that wanted to have another hearing on low morale within DHS,
    and they called one of my people as a witness and they got a
    visit from me. I said, please stop telling my workforce you
    have low morale. I don't believe that.
        I think that there are a lot of good people in DHS that are
    very dedicated to their mission at the airports, at the ports,
    at the border. I've seen it myself. They work overtime for
    public safety, for border security, for aviation security.
        I visited with a woman in New Orleans who was almost killed
    by a deranged man, who was shot in the arm and came to work the
    next day. That's the level of her dedication in our Department.
        We are on an aggressive campaign to improve the experience
    of people in my workforce, more transparency in hiring,
    promotions, mentoring experiences. I am thanking people for
    their work. We brought back our Secretary's Awards ceremony.
        Those who keep telling my workforce that you have low
    morale are not helping, frankly, and I want to improve things
    within the Department. I want to make it a better, more
    efficient, effective place. I know you share that view,
    Senator. I'm on an aggressive campaign to improve how our
    workforce thinks about their very, very important mission, and
    I'm hoping I get the support of Congress in that.
        Senator Sessions. I don't think it's----
        Secretary Johnson. One of the things we're doing, for
    example, is pay reform for immigration enforcement personnel.
    That's something I need Congress's help on, because one of the
    things I hear from them is we're capped at GS-9, we need a pay
    raise. I want to get them a pay raise. We've reformed pay for
    overtime for our Border Patrol agents, and we want to do more
    of that. So I'm looking for the support of Congress on that.
        Senator Sessions. Look, it was before your time. I raised
    the question with Secretary Napolitano over a series of years.
    I asked her, for example, had she even met with Chris Crane,
    the head of the Immigration/Customs Enforcement Officers
    Association. She'd never met with him. I asked her every time
    she came before the Committee and she refused to meet with him.
    Their problem has not been pay, although I'm sure they'd like
    to have more pay.
        Their fundamental problem has been they're not being
    supported. If they actually enforce the law and do what the law
    says, they are told by their supervisors not to do so. You've
    got this officer under oath before a committee recently in the
    Senate saying that they're told not to report groups of 20 or
    more people. That's the kind of--I've been hearing for years,
    before you came.
        I suggest that you need to be listening to the agents and
    get on their side and try to help them fulfill their legal
    obligation and your obligation. Instead, we're being led by a
    President who is unlawfully giving amnesty to people who
    entered the country by the millions, entered it illegally.
        That's where we are. Thank you for your testimony.
        Secretary Johnson. Senator, I met with----
        Senator Sessions. I'll let you reply again.
        Secretary Johnson. I've met with Chris Crane, but more
    importantly I've met with hundreds of people that he represents
    who are on the border, who work for me. I consider that to be a
    fundamental part of my job as the leader of this organization.
        Senator Sessions. I indicated to you when you came it was
    going to be a difficult job. I believe what I shared with you
    was, you're not going to be allowed to do what you're supposed
    to do if you take this job. This President does not want to see
    the immigration laws enforced. That's what's happened. The
    officers know it. Everybody that studies it realizes that
    you're not moving aggressively to help them end the illegal
    immigration, and as a result we've got this difficult problem
    out there.
        You're a good man. You've got good abilities. I do believe
    you care about your officers and you are right, we have a lot
    of fine, talented people. There's just a level of frustration
    out there that I hope you'll spend some time listening to and
    see if you can't respond to.
        Thank you very much.
        Secretary Johnson. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Sessions. Take care. We'll dismiss.
        [Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m. the hearing was concluded.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]