lives of children. >> going after the network is important, and we are increasing prosecutions of smugglers. i think smuggling organizations, as you pointed out, are the key to this. nobody free lances across the southwest border that i've seen. they're all the -- they're all paying smuggling organizations to get them up the east coast of mexico, into south texas, and then the interior of our country, 3,000 or $4,000 a head simple think the important part of this is increased prosecutions of smuggling organizations, those engaged in this activity, many of whom can be found in the united states. and so i think that is part of it and i think there are other things we need to consider. this afternoon, when i go back to meet with my team, because this is a problem that we have to address for a number of reasons, including the

humanitarian reasons. >> any way i can help, please let me know. my time hassedexpired. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman program -- >> thank you for being with us today. as you're aware the house appropriations committee just released the homeland security appropriations bill which contains the detention bed -- something has been talked about here today, and it says, quote, that's funding made available under the funding shall maintain level of not less than 34,000 detention beds through 2015. close quote. what's the purpose of detention? >> public safety. >> the purpose is, as i understand it, to ensure that it complies with court proceedings. is that correct? >> those with immigration court proceedings, some are released

pursuant to conditions. if we don't think they're a risk of flight or public safety. but those that are considered to be a risk to public safety should be detained. >> that's that what i'm asking. be intent is to ensure that these undocumented immigrants wind up appearing in court. isn't that why we have this? isn't that the basis for the system? >> one of the purposes, yes -- >> thank you. >> also need to pay attention to public safety. >> i understand that. and paying attention to public safety is what law enforcement does. are you aware of any law enforcement agency in this country, any other law enforcement agency, that is required to hold a certain number of people every day? >> no. >> why -- so, why do we do it -- >> statutory requirement is beds, not people. some people think it's people. but it's beds. >> a colleague made the point

the detention is a mandate, not only is it people but meant to be a deterrent because apparently he believes, some of my colleagues believe it is congress, rather than the law enforcement, that should enforce the law. how do you feel about that? >> well, as the exchange i had with congressman gowdy reflects a few minutes ago, i think that a core function of the executive branch is to enforce the law which includes appropriatal discretion. >> and every law enforcement agency in america has the ability to make their own decisions to exercise in their discretion, except in this case, where congress has stepped in and has insisted the interpretation of my colleagues, some of my colleagues here, is not yours, though it should be, but the interpretation here is

that it means people, and the costs, the cost then is $2 billion a year. 2 billion daz year that we spend when there are -- at a cost of $160 per detained person per day when there are alternatives that cost anywhere from 17-cents to $18 today. the average cost for alternative detention is $5.94. why shouldn't we let law enforcement do, in this case why shouldn't we let immigration officials do their job the same way we allow law enforcement to use their discretion in every other place in the country. >> i don't want to -- don't misunderstand in the, please. there are lots of people in the immigration, the removal system, who should be detained. who should not be at liberty. we make estimates every year of what we think our detention bed space should be.

congress comes to their own number and give us their own number, and that's the back anding for we have every year. >> but -- sac john -- secretary johnson, i.c.e. detained a record number of detentions in 2012 when there are alternatives. so with these detentions and the interpretation that congress had put forth, there is no discretion that can be utilized. so, my question to you is, why wouldn't -- instead of having this back and forth of how this should be interpreted, why didn't we have this requirement, this detention bed mandate in the law to begin with? why does it come through the appropriations process instead of through a debate about policies that should take place in this committee, and shouldn't be, through these alternatives to detension, be working to save taxpayer money and make sure that immigration officials can

do their job? why are we mandating this? >> well, i think that, first of all, that's a discussion you should have with your colleagues. >> well, secretary johnson, i'm asking you. i don't believe we should. i have had this discussion and a lot of my colleagues can't understand why when we spend so much time talking about taxpayer dollars and making decisions, wisely and spending decisions wisely, in this case we have policy that benefits a certain group that costs $2 billion a year, and that is a policy that we impose that we don't impose on any other area of law enforcement. it tears families apart there are less expensive ways to do it. i don't believe we should have it at all and i ask you whether you agree with me. >> i think there are certain number of people in the system who should be detained. >> we agree. we absolutely agree with that. mr. secretary. i'm talking about all of the

others -- that could be released on alternatives to detention which would save taxpayer money, would not put communities at risk, and would allee these -- allow these people to go back to their families and ashower their going to show up in court which is what this is intended for. >> let me finish my sentence. there are some people who can and should be detained. congress has to allocate resources to do that. i also believe there is instances where it is not necessary, given the costs to the taxpayer to detain people who are in the system, and, therefore, alternatives to detention is something that can and should be looked at and funded by this congress. now, arriving at the right balance between what we devote to those who should be detained and those who can be released, as an alternative to detention, is a difficult job.

that we have to continually evaluate it to achieve that balance that ensures public safety and maximizes the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. that's what i'm interesting in doing in working with the congress to achieve. >> time has expired. >> we're not -- focusing on a mandate -- >> time for the gentleman has expired. over ten minutes and i would only add to the secretary's comment that right now there are over 860,000 such people who are under deportation orders and not detained and have not left the united states. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. secretary, in the supreme court's decision of kendall vs. the united states, the court stated that to contend the obligation imposed on the president to see the law faithfully executed implies a

power to forbid the execution. a novel construction of the constitution and entirely inadmissible. would you agree with that? >> without knowing who wrote it, i agree with that. >> good. you think that dhs has been living up to the supreme court decision? >> i believe that's my obligation as head of the agency and that's what i seek to do. >> good. now, recent press reports warns that the administer offer -- was called on the carpet by the attorney general for apparently her desire or expression of wanting to enforce the drug laws in the united states as they're on the books, particularly the marijuana laws, and i was surprised that the attorney general, chief law enforcement officer, would have a problem with another law enforcement officer wanting to uphold the

laws of the united states. so, with that in mind, i was listening to your response earlier today and i was refreshed because -- he was asking you about the scanning of ship containers and you said, well, you had looked at and it it's a duly passed law and things that are duly passed law, it's your job to enforce it, and you acted -- my question about kendall versus the united states, and it's your job to enforce duly passed laws. so, as you're doing the review, in the department, as the head of -- for the president, let the president know about enforcement priorities, so if you're were to do this rereview and come back and say, i've had various hearings with the rank-and-file, the police on the ground,

hearing from them. look at the resources, looked at the challenges we have, and in the interest of public safety, we have gang members coming across the border, infiltrating our immigrant communities here. we have drug dealers coming across the border. we have chai molesters, violent felons, not able to detain them all. we have many tens of thousands released. i've seen that. the deterrent effect of not enforcing the laws is terrible and we have now people lining up at the borders, trying to get across because they don't believe we're enforcing the laws. i've seen that, and saw the president, in talking to the rank-and-file, morale is down amongst the agents. they believe that their mission is to enforce the law, they want tone force the law, they believe they're being inhibited from doing so. so you make this review, you come to the president and say,

the laws are duly passed and i believe it's my duty to enforce the laws, and that's what i intend to do. do you think, based on your experience with the president, that he will say to you, well, you're tired do a job, conformed do a job do your duty, do your best and enforce the law. do you think you would have a different response? what you're telling me doesn't really match with what i believe the policy of the united states ought to be and don't match with my politics or what i'd like the law to be. so, do you think the president like the attorney general would call you on the carpet and have concerns if you were to come back with a review as i described? >> that's a good question. i appreciate the way you

articulated it. because i've been not just the head of a department of our government but the senior lawyer for the largest department of our government and i've had occasion to make some really tough legal judgments for this administration, in the conduct of our counterterrorism policies. let me answer the question this way. i am appointed by this president. my political loyalty is to him. i had the higher obligation to the law, to the constitution and the laws duly enacted by this congress, and i will not participate in something that i do not believe squares with my legal obligations, which are higher than any other obligations except perhaps the obligations i owe -- to conduct

myself in this office. the district judge who swore me in said, you're about to take an oath. your oath is not to homeland security. your oath is to the constitution. and i believe that. i believe that very passionately. so, my obligation is to the law, and i think i have a pretty good understanding of the law, as a lawyer, someone who has been a government lawyer, and i conduct myself within the main stream of legal interpretations of duly enacted laws by congress and the constitution. that is at least how i have south to conduct myself in public office and hope to continue to do so. >> thank you for your answer. thank you. >> before turn to the gentleman from florida,let me announce to the members and to you, mr. secretary, that a vote series has begin, which includes five votes and we have probably

time to get the a gentleman program florida and the mr. desantos in before we go to the vote series and that will take us at least 30 minutes. mr. secretary, are you able to return? >> i have appointments this afternoon, sir, but i am happy to stay as long as you need me. >> we'll make you as comfortable as possible and will return promptly after the vote but we'll get two more out of the way before we vote. so, recognize the gentleman from florida, mr. garcia, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, good afternoon. thank you for your service, and i want to thank you for your ongoing review as welling a your willingness to meet with the different -- trying to move forward on comprehensive immigration reform. mr. secretary, we're coming ounce our second anniversary of the daca program.

can you give us a review how it's working. >> i'm sorry. >> can you give a brief overview how it's working? >> we have had something like 600,000 people enrolled so far. it's a large number of people. i think our department has done pretty good job of enrolling those people and administering this program, and we're reaching a stage where we're going down the road of renewal, and that's not a big revelation, not a big secret, and so i would anticipate that the daca program will continue. i am looking -- i'm interested in understanding the program better to see if there are ways that we can more effectively administer this program, but my general sense is that the program is working reasonably well. >> thank you. i recently meat young man in my

district named julio, who came to the united states from honduras a month after his 16th birthday. after missing the daca cutoff by one month. just one month. after graduating from high school he worked construction, trying to go to college. his parents didn't graduate high school but he evenly was given the -- eventually was given the opportunity in a university in my area, miami-dade college, and florida university where he became a campus leader. julio is an asset to our community but when he finishes college he is done, his ability. so do you think that allowing him to stay couldn't -- don't you think that allowing him to statue would be in the spirit of the daca program? >> is it within the -- certainly there is a spirit of the daca program that reflects the

special nature of people who cross the border as children. i think in any program like that involves large numbers of people, you have to have cutoffs and deadlines and clear parameters. we can't have a case-by-case judgment made with respect to how we're going to administer this program for 600,000 people. so there need to be clear guidelines, clear rules, but certainly the case you describe is within the spirit of what we're trying to achieve with the program. >> thank you. on another note, jurisdictions throughout the country have expressed frustration and skepticism through the secure communities program, including miami-dade county, formally refusing detainer requests. as part of your review are you looking into this area? >> yes.

i'm very troubled by how this program is being administered, and the reaction we're getting from governors and mayors and we need to do a better job. >> mr. secretary, thank you for your service and your review. >> thank you. recognize in the gentleman from florida. >> welcome, mr. secretary. i was looking through this list of the 36,000 criminals who were released and some of the stuff is really troubling when you look at serious, serious crimes, homocide, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, domestic violence. i mean, do you egregious as a general rule that if somebody illegally enters the united states and they're committing crimes that endanger the life, liberty, or property of the american people, that -- the response should be those individuals are sent back to came from? >> correct. >> so i noticessed in the response you sent the committee that there were certain numbers

of criminals who were enumerated as having been released because of binding legal precedent. for example, there were ten individuals released whose crimes were classified as homocide, wilful kill, guns, and the reason, according to the response, was because you're only allowed to hold them for a certain amount of time, and in those bases it's because the parent country while not accept them back. is that a fair guess why we would be releasing people who committed -- who are out there mowing down people with a firearm? >> i know in many cases a person is released on conditions because we do not think we have the legal authority to continue to hold them. >> can't support -- i'm just trying to figure out -- >> could be one of the reasons but i hesitate to try to give a broad cad categorization of -- >> are there certain instances

where there are violent criminals whose countries have not allowed to us return them? >> that is probably the case. >> have you notified the departments this is the case? because there's a statute, 8usc1253 which says upon notification the secretary of state is supposed to order the consular office in those countries to discontinue granting visas until the countries are willing to accept back their foreign nationals. so have you notified the secretary of state this happened, and if not, why not, and if not, will you do so. >> i have to check. >> if you can do that, that would be helpful. the statute imposes a duty on the secretary of state and we me a -- if we were to comply with the laws. one of the thing is saw, there were over 15,000 convictions for dui, and you see reports where there are illegal immigrants driving drunk and killing people. i was airplane when -- alarmed i

saw two dui convictions are not enough to require deportation. chairman smith wrote i.c.e. before youyear dhs secretary, asking them to launch removal proceedings against illegal immigrants with prior convictions for drunk driving. my question for you and secretary napolitano didn't respond affirmatively -- well you honor former chairman smith's request and protect innocent american lives by detaining these individuals who have these multiple dui convictions? >> well, i hesitate to give a categorical response to broad -- to individual cases without knowing the circumstances of the individual cases. in general, i believe that someone who represents a threat to public safety, who is removable, should be detained and removed. >> that would through children

you say multiple convictions for dui -- >> i generally regard a dui as a significant misdemeanor. >> i question about a u.s. citizen negatively effected by the administration policies. there's an article in the "new york times" about the daca program and they said that the department has to devote so many resources to doing the daca that these u.s. citizens are now seeing their wait time goes if they want to bring in a foreign national, spouse or family member. so my question to you is, do you find it troubling that legal immigrants and u.s. citizens who have simply been playing by the rules are suffering due to the administration's desire to grant these benefits which we can both agree were not statutorily mandated, it was administrative discretion. does it bother you that u.s. citizens are getting the short end of the stick? >> it -- my understanding it was a terror from that abated after

a period of time -- it was a temporary phenomenon that abated and it's my understanding that is not the case now. >> you awe agree there's a problem? >> i agree that those who are lawfully in this country, who are seeking citizenship, should not have to wait an unduly long period of time to obtain that, yes. >> very well. i yield back. the committee will stand in recess resume immediately following the votes. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> so as you heard, break in this hearing on oversight of the hopeland security department, and personnel heading to the house chamber for votes on the spending bill for the commerce some justice department and science programs. votes on amendments to those spending bills and we're also expecting final passage of the bill later this evening. you can see live coverage of the house on c-span, including further debates on amendments to justice, commerce, and science.

>> and back here live at the rayburn house office building on capitol hill where members of the -- questioning jeh johnson, addressing border patrols, immigration and a number of other items. while the break is underway we'll go back to earlier today and show you the opening statements. we're expecting this break to last 50 minutes and we'll return to live coverage when the votes in the house conclude. [inaudible conversations] >> the judiciary committee will come to order. the chair is authorized to -- we welcome everyone to this morning's oversight hearing on the u.s. department of homeland security and i will begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. i want to extend our welcome to

secretary johnson for testifying before us today for the first time. the obama administration has taken unprecedented and most likely unconstitutional steps in order to shut down the enforcement of our immigration laws for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens not considered high enough, quote, priorities, end quote. dhs does this under the guise of prosecutorial discretion. the beneficiaryies include many thousands of -- convicted criminals who have been nut removal proceed examination who dhs has simply let back on to our streets in addition to simply not removing deportable aliens dhs has been granding hundreds of thousands of them administrative legalization and work authorization. the department of homeland security does this under many guys, invoking doctrines with names such as deferred action,

and parole in place. the net effect of these policies has been described by former i.c.e. acting director, john sandway, quote, if you are a run of the mill, your odds of being deported are close to zero. over the past few years i.c.e. has been claiming to have removed record numbers of unlawful or criminal aliens from the united states. of course, to the extent these numbers are valid, they would have simply reflected the vast increase in enforcement resources provided by congress. i.c.e.'s budget has increased from 3 billion in 2005 to 5.8 million in 2013. but the numbers rely on smoke and mirrors. 0 almost two-thirds of the removals claimed by i.c.e. involved aliens apprehended by the border patrol along the border or intercepted at ports

of entry. when we look at the number of true i.c.e. removals of aliens residing in the united states they have fallen 43% from 2008 to 2013. even president obama admits the numbers are deceptive. removals are down because the obama administration is twisting the concept of prosecutorial discretion beyond all constitutional recognition. all in an unprecedented effort to create immigration enforcement-free seasons. most disturbingly, despite the administration's pledge to prioritize removal of serious criminal aliens dhs is releasing thousands of such aliens on to our streets. the judiciary committee discovered through subpoena that between october 2008 and july 2011 the -- aliens has been

arrested state and hall off. s and then released into our community, and 17% were re-arrested on children charges within -- criminal charges within three years. the charges including 8,500 duis, over 6,000 drug violations, and more than 4,000 major criminal offenses, including murder, assault, battery, rape, and kidnapping. in one of the most horrific cases an unlawful alien dhs decided not to pursue after being arrested for attempted grand theft was later arrested on suspicion of killing a man, chasing those who had robbed his 68-year-old grandfather. ...

in 2013, i.c.e. released from detention over 36,000 convicted criminal aliens that it had actually put in removal proceedings. i fast ths for identifying information on these releases criminal aliens so we may determine what new crimes they have gone on to commit. i hope and expect that secretary johnson will fully cooperate in providing this vital information to the committee and the american people. the end result of dhs's practices is that the american people have lost all confidence in this administration's willingness to enforce our current immigration laws or use any enhanced enforcement tools that congress may give it. this in turn has made it

difficult for congress to fix our broken immigration system. unfortunately, we can only expect dhs' efforts to evade immigration law enforcement responsibilities to escalate. president obama has asked secretary johnson to perform an inventory of the department's current enforcement practices to seal it can conduct of them more humanely. these are simply code words for further ratcheting down enforcement of our immigration laws. we do not know yet how far secretary johnson will go. persons within and without the administration had pressured him to no longer seek to remove previously deported aliens who have illegally reentered the united states or aliens who have up scouted from the removal proceedings and become fugitives. some have demanded dhs grant administrative legalization to parents who endanger their children's lives by bringing them here illegally. others have gone so far as to

demand administrative legalization for the entire universe of millions of unlawful aliens who would receive a special pathway to citizenship under the senate's massive comprehensive immigration bill. secretary johnson is not responsible for the dangerous and irresponsible decisions made by dhs before he was sworn in last december. we can only hope he will bring back a level of adult responsibility to the enforcement of our immigration laws, but his recent comments he is considering scaling back one of the dhs' most successful programs to identify and remove dangerous aliens secure communities, cause grave concern for the future of immigration enforcement. i look forward to the test my of secretary johnson. with that x number pledged to recognize the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, for his opening statement. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte, and members of the committee. we all join in welcoming you,

secretary johnson, to the house judiciary committee. as secretary and long before you had a distinguished career, both in public service and in the private sector, but the thing that i like most about it is that you're a morehouse college graduate, and that has a special resonance for many in the congress and in our community. before your appointment to the department of homeland security, secretary johnson served as general counsel of the department of defense where he oversaw many critical reforms, including ending the discriminatory policy "don't

ask, don't tell." given this background i can think of no person better equipped to lead the department of homeland security and to carry out the president's directive to review our immigration policies to ensure that we are carrying them out in the most humane way possible. yesterday, the president of the united states announced a delay to this review to provide my house colleagues the room they need to pass legislative reforms. whether through the senate bill or several house bills. and i'm committed to work with them to achieve needed reforms of our system. most of us agree that the system is broken and that only congress can permanently fix it your so the secretary's testimony and

opinions here today will be very important to us all. we should get started on that process right away, before the window for reform closes. every day that passes without a vote in the house is a day that thousands of families are torn apart, that businesses are deprived of critical skills, and that brilliant entrepreneurs and investors are forced to take their resources and talents elsewhere. every day that passes is also a day in which we failed to jumpstart our own economy. the congressional budget office has concluded that the house and senate immigration reform bills, s. 744, and h.r. 15, would decrease the budget deficit by $900 billion over a 20 year

period. so i stand committed to work with my colleagues for legislative reform. but if my colleagues won't act to fix a system that most agree needs it badly, then i fully support the president doing what he can under the current law to improve that system. i agree with the president's call to make our immigration system reflect american values people who commit serious crimes, pose a danger is to the public, should be our highest priority for removal. those with strong ties to this country, the spouses of citizens and permanent residents, parents of citizens and dreamers, and those who have worked productively in the united states for many years should not be. we know the administration has the authority to set enforcement

priorities. and it also has the authority to set detailed guidelines to ensure that those priorities are carried out by deportation offices, trial attorneys, and other enforcement personnel. this authority has been specifically recognized by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle of this committee, including a letter sent by current members to the clinton administration urging it to issue guidelines on prosecutorial discretion. so far we've heard hardly more than excuses for not doing immigration reform. the senate bill has too many pages. the house wants to take its time and the reform step-by-step. we must secure the border before we can discuss anything else.

well, i think the newest excuse for not working to reform the system is that the republicans cannot trust the president to enforce the law. put aside the fact that this administration has set records with respect to enforcement spending, detention, prosecutions, and removals, but can't trust the president excuse strikes me as an extremely odd complaint from a legislative body. what's the point of passing any bill if we have that kind of impasse? how many other issues of national importance do my colleagues think congress should ignore until they have someone else that they might prefer in the white house? it's time to cut out the excuses and get to work doing the

people's business. americans agree the systems broke, and they strongly support comprehensive immigration reform. and so it's our duty to stop passing the buck and get to work. mr. chairman, i thank you for the time, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. conyers. and without objection, all other members opening statements will be made a part of the record. we think our only witness, the secretary, for joining us today, secretary johnson, if you would please rise, i will begin by swearing you in. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you got? >> i do. >> thank you. let the record reflect that the secretary responded in the affirmative, and it's now my pleasure to introduce them. jeh charles johnson was sworn in on december 23, 2013, as the

fourth secretary of homeland security. prior to joining dhs, secretary johnson serve as general counsel for the department of defense where he was part of senior management team and lead to more than 10,000 military and supreme lawyers across the department. secretary johnson was general counsel of the department of the air force from 1998-2001, and he served as an assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york from 1989-1991. in private law practice, secretary johnson was a partner with the new york city based law firm of paul, weiss, rivkin, wharton and garrison. secretary johnson graduated from morehouse college in 1979 and received his law degree from columbia law school in 1982. the secretary reminded me this morning that he has a connection to this committee as well that many members will find of interest. in the early 1990s, he worked

briefly for then house republican ranking member of the judiciary committee, and fish of new york. spent it was actually the 1970s. >> well, way before my time. i thank you for that information, as was the information that many members of the committee may find of interest that there are 10,000 military and civilian lawyers in the department of defense. whether that's a good thing or bad thing, we will leave for a future discussion. in any event, we look forward to your testimony. your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, and would ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. to help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. when the light switches from green to yellow you will have one minute to conclude your testimony. we welcome you to the committee. >> thank you, chairman. you do have my prepared written

statement. let me just summarize a couple things within my five minutes. first, thank you for inviting me. i look forward to our discussion this morning and this afternoon. i begin by pointing out that as the leader of the department of homeland security, i recognize that our most valuable asset is our men and women, and i have pledged numerous times to support them in good times and in bad times. my first full week on the job, i went to south texas to attend the funeral of cbp officer daryl went house, who died in the line of duty in south texas. yesterday we lost another one, border patrol agent alexander giannini, age 24, who died in the line of duty in what appeared to be a one car accident in arizona.

and i'm sure that the members of this committee join in mourning his loss and expressing condolences to his family. thank you for the opportunity to be here. as i mentioned, i know a number of members of this committee from other contexts, from the house armed services committee, from private life, and it's good to see you. let me begin by saying that in my judgment, counterterrorism must remain and should continue to remain the cornerstone of the nation of the department of homeland security. as the president mentioned yesterday at west point, core al-qaeda has been largely decimated, but in the last several years we've seen the rise of al-qaeda affiliates, al-qaeda adherents and other al-qaeda like organizations around the world. we have to be vigilant in regard

to those organizations. we are concerned, i'm concerned about the so-called lone wolf who would attack us in this country, domestic-based, independent actors who commit or attempt to commit terrorist acts as evidenced last year by the boston marathon bombing. we in the department of homeland security need to be vigilant against all these potential threats, and i believe we are. i believe it is also particularly important given the decentralized and die fuse nature of the -- diffuse nature of the terrorist threat to homeland faces, that we spend a lot of time and effort working closely with state and local law enforcement, first responders, through training, through working together and jttfs, and so forth, preparedness grants. we have an initiative that i'm personally involved in and

particularly interested in, countering violent extremism at home through engagements in local communities. i believe it is important where possible that we push out our homeland security be on our borders where we can do so consistent with agreements with other governments. i believe it is important that we establish in as many places as feasible preclearance capabilities in overseas airports at our last points of departure. in terms of border security, we devoted an unprecedented amount of resources takes to the support of this congress. to that effort, over the last number of years apprehensions have gone down but we have seen a rise recently in apprehensions, particularly in the rio grande valley sector in south texas. we are seeing a rise and we have to address, we must address, and i'm developing a plan to address

in particular with regard to illegal migration by those other than mexicans coming from central america and unaccompanied children. the problem with unaccompanied children is one that i'm very familiar with, having personally visited mcallen station, texas, several weekends ago to see the problem myself. i directed a number of actions in response to that situation which i would be happy to discuss further with members of the committee. we are developing a campaign plan for the southwest border which represents a whole of dhs approach. you are correct, chairman, that i am engaged in every view of reforms to our enforcement priorities, and the president has asked me to wait for reasons that i agree before announcing those reforms to give the house of representatives the opportunity this summer to act on comprehensive immigration

reform. it is something that i very much support and belief in for a number of reasons, including added border security, mandatory e-verify, enhanced criminal penalties for those who would hire undocumented, as well as the earth path to citizenship, and both the president and i urge the house of representatives to act. we're doing a number of other things which i would be happy to discuss in more detail in the department to enhance morale, to enhance our process for budget deliberations and our acquisition process, and we are making great progress in filling the numerous senior level vacancies, including myself, since december the senate has confirmed seven presidential appointments for senior leadership positions in dhs. i believe it's critical to the morale and good work of the agency that we have new energy common delusion into department and we're making good progress.

thank you, chairman, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, secretary johnson. we will now proceed under the five minute rule with questions, and i will begin by recognizing myself. secretary johnson, i appreciate the president's recognition of the importance of doing immigration reform. icon and i think most dems of congress believe we need to do immigration reform as well. but it needs to be recognized by the president and by you and others in the administration that when the president says that he's going to set a time limit and then consider taking actions himself, which many of us read to be the president again repeating, i have a pen and a cell phone, and if you don't act, i will, that that makes doing immigration reform harder, not easier. because those who may like what the president decides to do administratively have less reason to negotiate the hard

decisions he made about how to enforce our immigration laws in the future. and those who do not agree with the president's position on immigration reform say, why should we negotiate if we can't trust the president to enforce the laws as they exist? so i just expressed to you my ongoing concern that the president is being helpful to the process when you worked with the congress and suggests that he wants to accomplish immigration reform, but he hurts the efforts in the congress when he says if you don't do it, and the suggestion is further, if you don't do it my way, i'll act unilaterally when many of us believe that united states constitution does not give him the authority to do that. but let me turn my questions to another subject, and that is there are now 85,877,990 deigned aliens with final orders of removal who have not been removed. the vast majority of these aliens have simply abscounded

and become fugitives in the u.s. it is to me critical, clear, is it to you if we do not contain aliens in removal proceedings, many will simply become fugitives and not be required to leave the country? >> chairman, you are correct that there are a large number of undocumented in the country who are fugitives who have abscounded after final orders of removal. i've looked at the same numbers. one of the things that -- >> let me get into the details. it's recently been revealed that in 2013 dhs released from detention over 36,000 criminal aliens in removal proceedings or after they had been ordered removed. aliens with convictions ranging from homicide to sexual assault the kidnapping and aggravated assault to drunk driving. dhs stated in response that many of these aliens were released as a discretionary matter after career law enforcement officers

made a judgment regarding the priority of holding the individual given i.c.e.'s resources and prioritizing for national security reasons. isn't it true that i.c.e. attorneys decide whether to offer bond and set the amount of the bond? so isn't it also true that the dhs could have detained most of these criminal aliens but simply chose not to? >> chairman, i myself would like a deeper understanding of this issue. i have your letter on the subject. we responded yesterday. i don't know whether you received a response yet, but my understanding so far is that a number of those released in fy '13 were as the result of an order from an immigration judge, or by an immigration officer acting pursuant to, consistent with supreme court precedent and other law. certainly, there's an amount of judgment that goes into that, so if someone is released they are

released pursuant to conditions that are intended to guarantee their return. but i look at the same list you've seen, and i've seen some pretty serious criminal convictions on those, on that list, including homicide and other things. and so i want a deeper understanding of this issue myself to make sure that we're doing everything we should be doing to ensure public safety in this process. >> and you note the homicides. for example, it was stated by the department that mandatory release, because of course decisions, account for 72% of those homicides. obviously, the congress needs to address that. some of those mandatory releases were because of being held for a length of time the court felt were inappropriate and we need to make sure that is it jus shod so that they are removed from the united states after they have served their sentences for homicide. but that still leaves 28% of the murderers, a substantial number

of people who the dhs simply voluntarily released. so i hope that you will look into what is happening there and try to help us understand how this can be fixed. second issue i want to address is the issue of secure communities but it's been one of the most sufficient mechanisms for removing dangerous aliens from the united states. through secure communities the fingerprint of everyone arrested and booked for a crime by local enforcement are checked against fbi criminal history records and also checked against dhs immigration records. if fingerprints match, i.c.e. can seek immigration holes against the aliens and launched removal proceedings. former i.c.e. director john morton has stated just to give you some sense of it, in very large jurisdiction of the united states, the rate of recidivism for criminal offenders can be as high as 50% or more. when i.c.e. can come in and remove offenders from a given community so that they can't

reoffend, guess what? we take the recidivism rate to zero. so, for example, if you 100 criminal offenders, able to root them out, that is 50 crimes that will not happen over the next three years as a result of our enforcement efforts. do you agree with former director morton asked to the power of secure communities? >> well, i don't believe we should scrap secure communities. i believe given the reality of where we are with this program in this country that we need a fresh start. we have mayors and governors signing executive orders and passing laws that limit our ability to effectively carry out this program. i think the goal of the program is a very worthy one that needs to continue. so as part of the overall effort i've embarked and right now, i want a fresh start to this program and i want a fresh conversation with the mayors and governors around the country to make this program work more effectively. we've got limitations being

directed our ability to conduct this program and i think it's an important program, but it's gotten off to bad messaging, misunderstanding in state and local communities about exactly what it is. some people think it's a surveillance program, but you're right, it's sharing fingerprints between one federal agency and another. and i think with more clear guidance and more clear understanding by mayors and governors, measures and sheriffs, of what our priorities are and we can go a long way to improving the administration of this program. >> not administrating the program is also a missed opportunity to address the problem with the release of criminal aliens back into our society, because when state and local law enforcement go to the trouble of identifying people and sharing that information and giving dhs more information about who should be removed, and then they don't see them removed as is the case in 85% of the aliens identified through secure

communities in 2013, not being deported, i think that builds a lot of mistrust in the system and will cost the system to fail of its own. so we encourage you to improve that system and to utilize it to a greater extent. my time has expired and i'm now pleased to recognize the gentleman from michigan, esther conyers, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte. we appreciate your testimony here today, secretary johnson. my concern is about the large numbers of people who are being deported this year who have committed very little violation except those related through their undocumented status. people who have lived here for years, some for decades, many of whom were brought as children, through jobs and family, including u.s. citizens spouses

and children or other close family who have legal status. they're only a fence arises from not being here lawfully. they can't get licenses. they can't drive. they can't work. so they use frequently a fake social security card, and so on. let me ask you, as you complete your review of enforcement practices, will you take a close, hard look at who is being targeted to make sure these people who have only immigration status violations are not made priorities? >> yes. the concept of prosecutorial discretion is one that's been around for a long time in the criminal justice context and in this context. and i think with the resources

we have from congress, we have to continually we evaluate how best to prioritize who we enforce the laws against. so that would be part of my objective. >> thank you. now, what factors do you think that the customs and border patrol -- customs and border protection and i.c.e. should consider before referring some of these cases for prosecution? i think that's an important consideration that comes from your experience and your analysis in the position that you hold now. >> i think that the priorities in general should be threats to national security, public safety, and border security. ..

to avoid practices and policies that operate as that it for further illegal migration. but i do believe that our people should be encouraged to focus on first border security, public safety, national security. >> thank you. i understand that much of the

spike in immigration prosecution is related to customs and border protection consequence delivery them, which promises to assign some form of lawn corpsman consequence to nearly every person that ended at the border. these prosecutions, at significant expense and by contrast, the department -- your department could effectuate a voluntary return or formal removal and many of these people at little or no cost in deciding whether this is a good use of federal resources come into you think it is important for cbp data and methodology and

recidivism to be made public making the data and methodology public and ensuring that it receives scrutiny might help to increase confidence in our current approach really two other improvements. put your view? >> let me answer that two ways. first of all, i think that we should be careful to disincentive eyes illegal migration. as i suggested a moment ago. i also support greater the in our policies about whether it use of force at the border and we've made some good progress they are in mickey mouse policies more transparent whether aspects of policy and i've been an advocate for that in this department and when it comes to counterterrorism act

dignity. when i was general counsel. >> my time has expired. i thank you for your responses. >> at his testimony from earlier today. we are live now on capitol hill where he expect members of the house judiciary committee to return for both short and continue questioning homeland security director jay johnson. should only be a few moments. the chair of the house veterans affairs committee along with numbers that the republican leadership held a press conference earlier reacting to report the spread of of veteran affairs department inspector general bush of hospital administrators at the va facility significantly understated by three months attack patients but are the primary care appointments. report also shows 1700 veterans using the phoenix va hospital were kept on unofficial waitlist. today republican leaders called for accountability and specific steps from the president on the problem in hopes that it would be fixed.

while we continue to be for this hearing to resume, we will show you a portion of that briefing. >> good afternoon, everybody. it goes about saving there is an accountability prop at the department of veteran affairs. the interim report that was released yesterday is a dna and indictment on just one facility within the department of veterans affairs and the office of inspector general has also said they believe that this is a systemic problem throughout the country's va health care facilities. and so the house is about trying to make a difference and help va help themselves. we have had problems time and time again where it appears that it is much easier to get it on this at va and it is to get

disciplined or be fired. and so, several of us sponsored a bill, h.r. 4031 that passed the house of broad bipartisan support last week. it is very simple. out of the 330,000 employees at the department of veteran affairs, visited the secretary the ability to discipline, up to fire him, but also by denoting senior executive level individuals, which are less than about 450. the secretary says he has the tools to do the job. he has not used those tools. we are going to give him more tools in order to do what is necessary to get the veterans that care, the benefit in the honor that they have earned.

>> good afternoon. i know there has been a lot of attention as to whether i or any of our colleagues think segregation psyche should resign. it is beyond clear that the va has not performed up to anyone's standard under his stewardship. but we must remember this is about war than one man. this is about millions of veterans and they deserve more accountability than one resignation. it is clear that the va has still served our nation's veterans for some time and that this poor treatment became even more alarming and more tragic lately. accountability for this starts at the very top. senior point and leaders the cabinet and agencies ultimately report to president obama. it is time the president specifically address what he plans to do to fix this problem

now. on monday i visited an acquired va medical center in richmond. there are many dedicated personnel they are providing the care to veterans needed. but as i spoke to our brave veterans in need of treatment, it was clear that more must be done to ensure that all va hospitals across the country are performing at the highest level demands. whether it is one resignation or 100 resignation that are necessary, we cannot keep waiting for action. last week senate democrats delayed the vote on a two-page bill that would help deliver accountability. where is the urgency required the house will continue to act swiftly on behalf of the men and women who serve this nation with distinction and honor. we owe them that.

>> i would like to start out today by sharing a story of two brothers from eastern washington have both served in iraq. i had the chance to talk to their mom on memorial day. she shared with me that when they returned, with multiple health problems, severe ptsd, they've been forever shame. and yet, as they approached the va to get the help that they need, too often the va has not been there. in fact, in one case the va took action that actually made it more difficult for them. lock them in a room for several hours without the help in the assistance they needed. this is unacceptable. but too often this is the story that was repeated over and over across the country. my husband were served in the navy, is retired after 26 years.

i also represent fairchild air force base and i've seen firsthand the impact of this outdated, mismanaged each of me. we need to modernize the structure and we need to change the culture of the va. we know 30% of the veterans coming home right now i'm some kind of service related disability. whether it's ptsd automatic brain injury. and they deserve the treatment that they were promised when they joined the military. too often that is not the case. so let's bring the va to the 21st century. let's increase accountability among its leaders in protect the brave men and women who have first along protect their best. -- protected us. we are listening and we will continue to fight for them. we are asking to their stories. gop.gov. we need to hear from veterans across the country so we can address challenges head on. i want to join in commending

chairman jeff miller for his tremendous leadership. i want to join my colleagues in my local veterans and asking for the senate to take swift action on the va accountability act. for those two brothers in eastern 10 and for the millions of euros late than, we are not going to stop fighting until they are protected. >> mp processor intensive and 12 in western pennsylvania. bill nicklas is one of six pittsburgh area veterans who died of legionnaires disease contracted at the pittsburgh va hospital. there was a world war ii veteran who survived guam, saipan, okinawa, but not the va. the ig report declares six veterans died as a result of systemic failures at the va. it has issued more than a year ago. today, what we know as those responsible were given bonuses, but the va has yet to discipline

anyone for the stats. the va must develop a cultural accountability to better serve our veterans. that culture is missing now and the house has passed bipartisan legislation to address this. the senate should pass it. the president should inet and secretary should use it to clean up the mess. we have a solemn obligation to stand with our veterans. as a principle of solidarity. they stood for rest, we stand for that. when men and women put on the uniform to defend our country, we as a nation. responsibility for every service connect to admissibility. whatever the injury, whether blindness, loss of a land, dramatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress, no veteran should feel as though he or she is allowed. they defended us. we shall defend them.

>> duncan hunter from san diego. the mistake of my congress pack here and put on my united states for record high. i got two surgeries have had from active duty time overseas than two tours in iraq and one in afghanistan. i intentionally went to private health care. i chose to not go to the va because the va does not work and i knew that five years ago. so i'm a soldier surgery .. fusion done in private health care. not everybody is unlucky. for those of us who go to war and join the military and a combat time in the united states is at war, we know the enemy intends to kill us. if you make it home, we intend to go back to our jobs and families and we trust the va to provide for us to give us the care and attention needed. no one, and i emphasize no one expects the va to fail in their

duty. no one expects the va to threaten the same safety and well-being that our military so dutifully defends. it is quite simple. the trust between the va cannot veterans, the trust between the va and, the trust between the va and the men that i served with him for his broken. it is broken and needs to be fixedly at the first step to fix it with the bill that jeff miller brought forward and will work as hard as we can to do that. thank you. >> type unanimous not salmonella from arizona's fifth congressional district democrat in the epicenter of this great tragedy, this debacle. last week i held an event in my office with veterans. we had about 150 veterans show. i heard horror stories after horror story. one guy came up and talk to me about how the intervention of our office saved his eyesight. and then i said to the crowd

that numerous times we've had to intervene. i mean hundreds of times in i've been back in office for the last year and a half we've had to intervene for veteran because they were either turned down for tonight are postponed by the dax index. made the comment that it shouldn't take a congressman getting involved for a veteran should be able to get an appointment. we had a standing o. i'm not win because they believe that is breaking should be. this is beyond the tragedy and besides the management accountability and i call on harry agreed to use some of this leadership to get that moving. the fact that these are the most important people, i believe we represent, they go out and give their all to protect our country and we have let them down. i think that besides fixing the system, those people that violated the sacred trust, if they indeed did maintain secret

list besides getting fire, they should go to jail and we should do everything we can to make sure there are criminal sanctions of these things happen. and should tranter resign, absolutely i believe he should. finally, this administration needs to put up or shut up when it comes to defending our veterans. there is another veteran and a mexican prison for two. sergeant tamara c., who is in tijuana languishing in a prison cell. it's time for this administration to stand up in canada now. he's an american hero and lead to thinner for them like they stood there for us. thank you. >> to ms. lewis charlie, legislative tractor for the american legion. the reclamation has been supported the accountability of veteran affairs. it was first introduced months ago before we start hearing about the scandals and with

these uncovering out the american legion is resolute what's the matter. we represent are american legion family were 3.000000 members who do not understand why the secretary of veteran affairs does not have the authority to manage his department as he needs to. if he needs to remove someone, if he needs to do most someone, he does not know how this authority we need to make sure he does have the authority. thank you. >> minister nnn chief of staff for veteran's american. every week reports that the va system seem increasingly bleak judge at the supports are not new. problems have been going on for years if not decades. this is not disinterested leadership in this is not about decoding. it's clearly systemic on behalf of our 270,000 hours of supporters, many have served in iraq and afghanistan. we urge the congress, we are society passed the va and

decided immediately into law. we applaud chairman miller for his work on this issue. >> at afternoon. thank you, chairman miller for leadership on this issue as well as house leadership for paving the way on this port piece of legislation. and that's how coley, senior policy analyst at concert veterans for america. i am here on behalf of the millions of veterans across the country who are waiting and waiting for the care they need. just like a sales manager that i met yesterday, an army that has served our country for 12 years has been waiting by the nuns to be seen in a maryland va clinic. the va management accountability act is straightforward. it's a good first step towards reform. given the secretary of the tools he needs to get better results. this is essential is better affairs are not only the va report, but many investigative reports as well. additionally, it is a good

measure for va employees that work hard and do the right thing as they deserve leadership at every level and core values of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect and excellence. we are so leadership of the senate to act swiftly on the part of the veterans affairs management accountability acts and bring it to a vote next week when they return. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm stuart hickey from the american veterans. each day in the news there's a constant drone calling for the head of secretary shinseki. cutting off the head of the problem is not the answer. the va is comparable to the monster lunch. we can chop off one head after another only to find two more grow back in their place. this insanity of doing things the same way and expecting a

different outcome is historically have the va has operated. a thousand times effectively changing its culture. in light of the testimony that a witness last night, we believe the secretary should begin immediately with the removal some officials and va starting with the half will direct her symptoms that direct heirs who are present in 2010 when the memo came out in our stillness positions now. they disregarded the director of the central office about this very problem and they need to be held accountable. over a year ago that's recognized the need for accountability when we recommended that the secretary be given the power to fire nonperformers. everyone was astounded to find out that they couldn't do that. and we applaud chairman miller's bill and we ask for senator reid and the senate to speed up this

process and get some va accountability on the senate side also. another area recommended to the secretary of the white house are for recommendations on how to improve the va in several of those for one example is to increase the number haitians the va doctors see. the ratio is about one.or to 12 or 1300 patients from the outside world primary care physicians see one tonight 4200. you could double or triple the patients they see in almost reduce the backlog ratepayer of witless patients. another thing after i heard the testimony last night as they have on staff over 700 attorneys and i think a good place to start would getting rid of 699 of them in higher talk was in their place. thank you.

>> questions. yes, sir. >> thank you, sir. i'm what "the boston globe." a lot of talk of accountability here. can you talk about the congressional role in this, not just today in light of these new allegations, but in the last few years. as we've heard tremendous problems have been known for many, many years. i am wondering if you could talk about the house role, but also the senate roll. doesn't congress take some of the blame here for this not being addressed, more forceful in making sure these problems were addressed. >> i think if you witnessed the testimony last night coming you would see why congress has a difficult time holding department of veterans affairs accountable. we have over 110 written requests for information, which includes thousands of questions,

some of them relating to patient care and timeliness of the access. they will not respond to us. to the point that i had to put up on our va website, trials and transparency that basically i was hoping to shame them into doing what they needed to do makes a difference. i read his letter to the secretary every week and tell him exactly what we need and yet we continue to get stonewalled at every turn. ellis go back and talk about oversight. you want to talk about oversight and make it yours to the house and senate. the house has had 70 hearings in the 113th congress about the issues. of that, over 40 of them were oversight hearing. and from the series in for my interaction with other members of congress, wherever it letters. we have requested oig reports. some in california. kevin mccarthy talked about once a day was over a year ago

that was about three times and once the oig came back with the report, we asked, which wrote a letter to the secretary said that he put these recommendations in place? the secretary says yes we've done it. well, no they haven't. and if the department won't be truthful to us is the congressional and constitutional body discharge of the oversight, i can only imagine what they will tell a veteran when they are trained to seek care. serve. >> you call for secretary shinseki's resignation. you'd think someone can come in at this point fix the problem was their response to the failed leadership you talked about? >> this is much larger than one individual. i said before, it is much larger than secretary shinseki. there's been no leadership from the white house says it believes to this crisis that exists. the urgency exists.

the president could have come out immediately and said we are opening for private care. to all veterans who have not been able to get an appointment in a timely fashion. yet only this administration would celebrate the fact that they forced somebody who was already going to retire to resign, which is typical of the department of veterans affairs and only this administration would in fact celebrate the fact they were going to allow veterans to use non-va care when they have had that ability for over a decade. so leadership is important that the top. but i'm telling you there is a bureaucracy that doesn't care who he because they know they are going to be there after the president. they know they are going to be fair there after the secretary leaves and they sure will be there longer than the veteran affairs chairman in the house of rep and his. >> you know what, it matters. it sends a clear signal. part of the problem that va as

they did the same thing. they will tell you well, we can't get rid of this person because we don't know who -- look, if they can't do the job, they've got to go. >> one of the point speaker boehner has made what has been repeatedly asked about the question of general shinseki's resignation as he doesn't want this to distract from the real issues in the idea of get rid of him and you'll have have a fight -- >> -- forbearance and giving us as much time as he has today. we will turn out to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. marino is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. welcome, secretary. minus that with me, so i will do the best that i can as far as asking you some questions. you made, and i apologize, you're at a press conference

numidia comments concerning the people here in this country. and i don't know if you refer to it as illegals here deserve to become citizens. do you recall about? >> say it again. >> that the illegals here -- i'm not sure if you use the word illegal, but people here undocumented, deserve to become citizens because a lot of children grew up here. to recall that statement? >> i don't think that's what i said. no. >> it was in the media and i take with a pound of salt what i read in the media. my question is though, what type of illegals that are here -- and i want you to do a broad category, should go back. can you give me an example of people that we do not -- they should not be here if they are here illegally?

>> well, under existing enforcement priorities, those who are here undocumented who work with it a felony is, convicted of serious misdemeanors, convicted of multiple misdemeanors, who are repeat reinsurance, who are fugitives from a final immigration order or consider priorities for removal. and that is where we devote our resources in the removal process. so in general, what we say is those who represents threats to border security, national security. there's a lot of dubliners details obviously anything exact date asking this, but there deserves to be greater clarity in how we define that i removal priorities should be. but i put them in several different buckets, including threats to border security, those who abused the immigration enforcement to send in some way.

>> you're as the complex question that i get a great deal of the time when i'm not only traveling in my district, but around the country, concerning immigration. what do we do with the children that are born here in this country, that their parent or parents are here illegally and they are parent or parents have a serious criminal record. >> that is a very good question. >> it is a conundrum. it really is. do you have any insight on that at this point? i know you have only been in your position for several months. >> i can't characterize every case. hopefully enough circus and there is a parent in this country who is in a position to care for his or her child.

>> that does not have a serious criminal record? >> that does not have serious criminal record. >> i'm going to switch gears here a little bit to guantánamo bay. you said you think we need to close that operation down. he said we had some hundred 30 -- 50. >> at this point there's less than 160. >> detained there. what do we do with those people? >> they should be either prosecuted our military systems -- >> that we agree on. >> is part of the reform effort in 2009. we had at one point been in discussions with the state of illinois about a facility in thompson, illinois. or they should be transferred back to their home countries with suitable security arrangements. but you know, we are at a point

where the toughest cases at one point the population at guantánamo was over 600, maybe close to 800. the easier cases have left. the harder cases are the ones that still remain. so obviously, we've got to do with this population in one way or another. ..

combined. there have been a record removals that this administration has formally deployed more people than any president in history. record detentions. this is administration has detained more people than any president in the history, record prosecution come immigration offenses have now become the most prosecuting crimes in the federal courts. at our borders are more secure than ever over the last five years, border incursions a decrease to levels not seen since the 1970s. this notion a summit we can't do comprehensive immigration reform because this is administration can't be trusted to enforce immigration law is totally belied by the facts. i think the american people know that. my first question really is the thing that concerns me tremendously is the large number of individuals who are being

detained and deported each year who have committed no violation other than those related to the undocumented status, people who have a american citizen children, american citizen spouses, worked all the years that they have been here. frankly, people who would qualify for legal status under the bipartisan senate passed immigration bill and the house proposal h.r. 15. and hope, mr. secretary, as you assess where you put your priorities for prosecution that you take into account that those individuals, many of them are, in fact, likely to be permitted to pursue legal status. i think we've seen those priorities in terms of the prosecution that you, as you evaluate what the priorities of the department are. i'd like to ask you now to move to a question about guns. as you know according to the gao, a number of individuals that on the terror watch list of legally purchased firearms in the united states in recent years. according to the most recent gao study come individuals on the

terror watch list tried to buy guns, 1450 times between february 2004 and december 2010. on 1321 occasions, 91% of those attempts, the fbi was not able to blog guns and explosives goes to suspected terrorists. my first question is do you support legislation that would ensure the federal government has the ability to block gun sales to those on the terror watch list? secondly, so my colleagues have raised concerns about this, about the accuracy of the terror watch list. i'd like to hear from you as to whether not the our efforts underway to update that list compared to maybe the status of it five or 10 years ago when there was some concern about who was on it. it. >> consistent with the position of this administration, i support sensible gun control laws. i believe that part of our mission in the department of homeland security is to train,

prevent, educate with regard to mass shootings. and we've done that. secret service, through our fema grants, we tried to help communities better respond to mass shootings. and we obviously see far too many of these in this country. and so irrespective of motives, when a tragedy occurs, involves multiple deaths, whether it's a terrorist motivated bomb plot or a mass shooting, the department is prepared to do what we can to try to prevent these acts, to minimize the fallout from these acts, to provide grants to communities to better prepare for these acts, by way of first responders and so forth. and so we do what we can. >> but mr. secretary, what i'm asking but specifically, a gao study that showed 91% of the

occasions the federal government or the fbi was not able to block a gun or explosive purchased by an individual on the terror watch list. my question is, do you support legislation that would ensure that the federal government has the ability to block gun sales or explosive sales to individuals on the terror watch list? >> i'd have to study the gao report more specifically before i took a position. >> i would ask another 40 working with you. this is a very serious issue were individuals are place on the terror watch list because their dangers and have been identified as terrorists and have the ability to go in and buy a gun or by explosive. that is unimaginable to most americans. i urge you to read that report and look for to working with you to make sure that we prevent such individuals and have access to firearms. and with the i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. secretary, good to have you on the hill. mr. secretary, in responding to a question following a confirmation hearing you asked whether you had any concerns with the current interior enforcement policies that represent i.c.e. come and you stated and i quote, that i've reached no conclusion at this point, but i anticipate that if confirmed i will become fully immersed in this issue, closed quote. several months have passed since that time, mr. secretary. do you have any concern with the current interior enforcement policies and efforts at i.c.e.? >> thank you for that question. i have immersed myself in this issue, to the extent unable to do so in five months and i spent a lot of time talking to our workforce. one of the things that's apparent to me is our guidance for enforcement could use

consolidation and added clarity. i'm struck by the fact that our guidance exists in a whole series of written documents, memoranda, issued by i.c.e. leadership dating back to 1976, although it into 2012. it's a whole series of things. so if one wanted to fully understand what our removal priorities are, what are enforcement parties are you would have to look at the holsters of documents. no one place you go to do that. in many places i think it lacks clarity. so i'm interested in trying to build clarity and try to consolidate all of this guidance, which will be a very huge project. i also think that our removal workforce has some morale issues. i think they could use a pay raise. a lot of them are capped at

gs-9, and are upset about the fact that they can't go any higher. and i talked to people in our workforce who are contemplating leaving ero to go to a lower paying job where they have greater pay opportunity. and i think that's unfortunate. so those are just two issues that occur to me. but i continue to learn more and more about interior enforcement all the time, but these are two issues that strike me in response to question. >> i thank you, mr. secretary. mr. secretary, george washington university law professor, professor jonathan turley, in fact he's appeared before our committee several times which i'm sure you know him. >> i do. >> he told the house judiciary committee that abusing the concept of prosecutorial discretion, and i'm quoting the professor nye, president obama is now the fun part of the law that he said he disagrees with the it is difficult to discern any definition of the faithful

execution of the laws that would include the blanket suspicion or nullification of key provisions. if president, if the president could claim sweeping discretion to suspend key federal laws, the entire legislative process becomes little more than a pretense, he said. you agree with professor turley? >> without seeing his entire testimony, i'm inclined to agree with the passage that you read. read. >> and so am i. >> in terms of blanket exemption in the enforcement of a law, doesn't really look like an act of prosecutorial discretion. so i, this is a market exchange i had with congressman gowdy. i think there's a line that can be drawn between prosky told discretion -- prosecutorial discretion and simply echoing the inability or unwillingness to enforce the law in its entirety. i don't think that's prosecutorial discretion.

>> when i said i agreed i agreed with the fact that it appears more than a pretense. that's what i meant when i said i agreed. i thank you for being here. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the chair thanks the gentleman, recognize the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, secretary johnson, for your presence here today. for your service to country. let me say for the record i had the opportunity and privilege to work on mr. johnson as a young attorney, i'm confident that skill and ability that he has obviously has served the country well in this part capacity and will continue to serve the country well. as you move forward as our homeland to be secretary. so we are thankful. uncertainty thankful for that. wanted to ask a few questions about immigration and with our system is broken, and if so, how we might resul resolve it. based on some the things that you mentioned in your oral as

was in your written testimony, we've got about 11.4 million undocumented individuals in this country right now, is that figure about correct? >> yes, that's what i understand the estimate to be. i've seen 11.5, 11.4, somewhere in there. >> what is the likelihood that these individuals in any significant number will self deport? >> i think the likelihood is next to zero, that they will all self deport. i think we are to be realistic about the situation. they are not going away. >> what's the feasibility that we as a united states government, homeland security, any apparatus that we have available can't engage in mass deportation of such a significant number? >> with any realistic -- it can't be done. we have to accept the fact that we have an 11.5 million

undocumented immigrants in this country. we have to deal with them. i don't think we should allow them to continue to exist in a state of legal ambiguity, or in a dark hole. i think from my homeland secured a perspective i would rather deal with this population, encourage them to be held accountable, encourage them to pay taxes, get on the books and get on an armed path to citizenship so that they go through the necessary background checks, they're in a position where they can work legally, and we reckon with this problem which is why i'm a strong supporter of immigration reform. i think that we have to be realistic about the place we are in with respect to these 11.5 million people. there are states know where they're permitted to have drivers licenses. california supreme court says that an undocumented immigrant in this country can practice law. so they are not going away.

they will not self deport. i would rather see us reckon with this population than continue in the state of legal ambiguity we are in right now. >> i certainly take that position. i think most reasonable people would conclude based on the fact that self deportation is in practical, unlikely to occur and as deportation is impractical in terms of any execution. we've got 11.4 million plus undocumented individuals we need to do with, and appropriately, but we need to address that situation. so i appreciate those observations. you expressed concern earlier today and in your testimony that there's been a substantial increase in the number of unaccompanied minors who have been entering into this country. it's my understanding that that phenomenon really began to occur sometime in the fall of 2011, and we've seen a significant increase in and around that

moment. what are some of the factors, if any, that are leading to this substantial increase in those central american countries that we have experienced? >> i think that phenomenon is driven largely by the circumstances in those countries, and those central american countries. the levels of violence, the levels of poverty, because when you look at, when i see these children and ask at mcallen station where you from, they tell us honduras, el salvador, guatemala. and you just look at the situation in those countries and you have a readily available answer to your question here and so i want to try to work with these governments to stem this tide and to see what we can do to add to their own border

security and deal with some of the underlying problems that are causing this phenomenon. but i think the principal reasons we are seeing this is because of what's happening in the source countries. >> what can we do proactively to address not just the underlying violence which seems to be a problem, as it relates to some of the drug cartels essential being pushed out of mexico into honduras, guatemala, el salvador, in a manner that those countries were prepared to address creating a chaotic situation, but also there appears to be in absence of any meaningful child protective system in those countries and in the athens of border security, i mean, is there opportunity here for us through your leadership, through the leadership of others, for the united states, for congress to potentially get behind assisting a central american countries to our

southern border beyond mexico in a manner that could alleviate what i think is a humanitarian crisis that we have to deal with for those who actually make it to? >> i think first of all it requires a whole of government approach by our government, executive branch and congress, dhs and other agencies of our government here and this is something i've had conversations about with my cabinet counterparts who all recognize and appreciate the problem. i think requires a whole of government approach in homeland security, national security and law enforcement. and if it requires an indication with the government of mexico, because this problem is also their problem. people who migrate from central america to the united states migrate through mexico, and many of them stop there. and so i've had this conversation with the government of mexico about doing more. and i believe that there is a

recognition of the problem in our partnership with their government, and i believe that there is the mood and climate to address the problem. i've had that conversation with a senior most members of the mexican government. and i think that they want to help and i think, i think, my sense is that we are in a position right now to make some progress with the mexican government on that issue. >> thank you. my time is up. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i want to say that i've had the same opportunities to speak with senior mexican officials who said the same thing, which is a change in the attitude toward their southern border in any assistance the u.s. gives to them, to help secure the border with guatemala. i think it will pay dividends for both mexico and the united states. so i would certainly encourage you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wasn't, mr. secretary, i was

going to go on here but i said and a listener either the questions i'm going to get to, but we just spoke to my good friend from new york, brought this up, that their 11.4, 11.5 i think think it's high, lawyer tomatoes america but these 11.4 million our income will use the words undocumented. they are not here -- they're not here in a lawful status, correct? >> for the most part that's correct. >> no, no. are the here in a lawful status or not? >> for the most part that's correct. some of them -- >> no, no, no. reclaiming my time. either -- you can't have it both ways. if they are here in a legal status and then they're not undocumented and not here, they are here legally. if some form of legal status. when you say, and i think this is the problem of a political agenda or a want to our a feeling, it's not legal ambiguity if you are here and would talk about a group of people that are undocumented and

not to properly. that's not a legal ambiguity. so it concerns me that we take this conversation, and like i said, you've answered a lot of questions on both sides, very concerned about that we can't define a secure border. that's a different issue. i will be submitting questions for the record it to you on the. but just a moment ago, we would not be having this discussion in a large since it these 11-point whatever million were here and there was legal ambiguity on their status. there's no legal ambiguity. one side wants to different. another side which we think, work toward resolving this issue. i want to go do something else, but i just don't think it's been very honest with the committee to say that there's legal ambiguity here. if there were this would be a whole different discussion. >> there is legal ambiguity in that they're here undocumented there are states that permit them to driver's licenses. i consider that and ambiguous

legal state, and we have to fix it. the system is broken. we are not going to deport 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in this country. you and i both know that. we've got to deal with it. >> reclaiming my time. have you heard me say, have you heard me say that? >> we have to deal with -- >> have you heard me say that i would deport 11.4 million people? have you heard me -- >> not going away. >> mr. secretary, i'm not asking you to give a roundabout and. have you heard congressman doug collins said that we need to deport 11.4 million people? >> no, i have not. >> i want to move onto something else because we are obviously not going to see eye to eye on this one because a duplicate needs to be a fix but if we can't even agree on the fact that there's not legal ambiguity here there's a problem. one of the things i think we're making progress on is in the effort of the border protection and also homeland security in dealing with intellectual property issues coming across

the border and patent infringing goods making its way into the us. could you provide me with a brief update on the border patrol's efforts to develop a process which we can expect over the month to work on this issue of patent infringing products, across the border and areas that this has been discussed is because i'm happy to have that discussion and engage in a conversation with you, or any other member about border security, yes, sir. >> okay. i just asked the question. the question is, can you briefly on the update of dealing with patent infringing products of the things dealing with the ip intellectual property issues come across our border, just update me or giving an update if you can, if not, can you supply it and ride on the issues that are going on? >> guess i can. i will. >> supply in writing, okay. favorite of this year, -- stated that i.c.e. is working closely

with the border patrol to adopt best practices to ensure their limited resources are focused on finding the most egregious violators as relates to ip theft, is this correct? >> i believe so. >> could you share with some of the best practices are? >> i could do that in writing, scheuer. >> okay. in looking further, i've also been concerned, and i would just sort of come back and to finish up here, been concerned with the releases and detentions that we discussed. that's been discussed as not being -- ad nauseam. are you willing to ride with a different information regarding any, and released in georgia since 2012 so i confide appropriate oversight on path of the citizens of my district? >> i believe we're in a position to do that and i will do that. >> again, mr. secretary, i do appreciate your work. and the very concerned with the answers, especially the first part of our discussion because some of these things are not

legal ambiguity. the things they need to be fixed. if they are not then we wouldn't be looking at it from the perspective we are and that is why there's such conversation on this. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would just add to your concern that the real idea which deals with making sure that driver's licenses other forms of identification help convince the -- type of tragedy occurred on nine 9/11, 2000 with the that makes it clear on some who is not lawfully present in the united states does not anyway and for a legal status on that individual whose presence is here. >> you are correct and that's why they're still not legal ambiguity. there's a problem with a law that -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> is the chairman's time. >> i will yield an additional minute to the gentleman from georgia so he can yield to the gentlelady. >> i yield to the gentlelady. >> i think him and appreciate the gentleman yielding, that

there are certainly instances and i'm sure mr. labrador is also run into this in his practice with someone doesn't have documents but they are, in fact, legally present in the united states. it's not all that rare, surprisingly enough. i would just add that into -- >> and reclaiming my time and i do agree with the gentlelady that we agree on many different things but i think in this instance though i think when you discuss the 11.4 million the application was there all her under legal entity and that is not the case. >> i am not suggesting that. >> i yield back. >> the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the very patient gentleman from idaho, mr. labrador, for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. secretary for being here with us today. i want to start with something good because we're going to get to some issue that will disagree on but i admire your answers to mr. dutch. i don't know if your memory the exchange that you have just a

few minutes ago about an hour ago about the number of beds. i want to make sure your answer is really clear. there is nothing in the law that is me giving you to put 34,000 people on these beds, is that correct? >> i don't read the law that way. it doesn't read that way. >> it doesn't be that way and they keep hearing -- that's what i read as well and i commend you for your answer. i was actually confused thinking maybe that was the interpretation of the administration and i appreciate that you clarified that. i don't read the law that way either. i do believe a critical part of immigration reform is a robust ad and non-ag work, guest worker program to do you agree that such a program is important? >> yes. >> i think that the evidence at least in my mind is prickly or that a guest worker program can end illegal immigration. for example, the program did in the 1960s, in my opinion. the congressional research service found that the program

only works when combined with greatly increased law enforcement efforts. so here's the problem. employers in my district are telling me that legal workers, people who are coming to the united states legally, are absconding to work in the black market and they are being told that they won't be removed from the united states by i.c.e. agents or others to be agree that i.c.e.'s priorities are maybe undermined one of our legal programs that is actually meant to deter illegal immigration? >> that sounds like a problem, yes. >> we are hearing again and again in our districts that people are leaving, for example, the sheepherding program and moving on to other industries, and that the i.c.e. agents don't have the resources or are being told not to pick up these, and i'm concerned about the. your testimony, there's no way that illegal aliens will depart. in fact, you just stated a few minutes ago that the likelihood

is nearly zero. let me tell you that i disagree with you vehemently. in fact, my experience is totally different. some actually spent with immigration lawyer has been totally different from what your testimony is today to in my experience, many did leave prior to the bars banning illegal aliens from returning a decade or more. you're familiar with the three and 1 10 year bars and permits are? >> with what? >> are you the money with the bars that are in the lot right now where if you're here illegally in the united states, you must return to your home country before you can return to the united states legally? >> yes, yes. to be clear what i said, congressman jeffries asked me what is the likelihood that those 11.5 million people will also deport? and i said the likelihood of that happening with regard to 11.5 million people is near zero. >> that's what i wanted to clarify. >> do people self deport? >> people will do it, if we have the incentive in the law.

do you agree with that? >> i agree that there should be disincentives to engage in illegal migration. >> correct. for example, if we moved the three and 10 year bars, if we repeal those bars that are in the law, don't you think many people would deport him a self deport so they can reapply legally to the united states? >> i don't have any -- i don't have any empirical evidence one way or another to be able to answer that question stink you should look into that because i did that with many of my clients when i was an immigration lawyer but even when the bars were in place, if there was a high likelihood they could return, even in spite of the bars they would actually go back to the home country and return to the united states. don't you think it would be positive if we actually -- >> intuition says if there's a shorter period of time that you have to go back and wait, you're more likely to go back. >> so right now the waiting

period is three to 10 years. if we remove those bars and they know that they can return legally, for example, a u.s. citizen's spouse knows that they can go back to the home country and they can return legally within a matter of months instead of three to 10 years, don't you think they would probably more likely be willing to do that? >> intuition says that if the wait period is shorter people are more likely to go back. >> don't you think it would be a good first step to start with something like that where we could make a small change in the law and encouraged a lot of people, in my estimation and others, is about 25% of the people who are here illegally who qualify for some legal status, but for the bar. don't you think that would be a good first step? >> well, it's hard to comment on that proposal in isolation to the exclusion of everything else that's in the works in comprehensive immigration reform. >> so you would rather have nothing than at least have one

area where we can fix the status of people that are here illegally by having them go back to the home country and returned in a legal status? >> there are many things about our immigration system that needs to be fixed. i hope this congress will act on. >> and you don't want to pick one of them. you want an all or nothing approach of? >> i think that we have an opportunity on a cover his bases, either in one bill or several bills, to fix a whole multitude of problems that i think every member of this committee realizes exist. >> so your answer is if we don't do it comprehensively in we should fix nothing about the current system? >> i won't be categorical in that way. i am saying that it would encourage the congress to think about immigration reform in a whole variety of areas. >> we can do that and i agree with you, but if we can fix something today, if tomorrow we could get something passed that gets rid of the bars so we could