[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]