[inaudible conversations] >> the canadian homeland security subcommittee will come to order. we are meeting today to examine policy that impacts the department's ability to secure the border i recognized recognize myself in opening statement. left month a caravan of 1500 migrants also known as people without borders and extreme advocacy group that tries to abolish borders they facilitated the movement of a caravan traveling more than 2000 miles from from mexico to the southwest border of the united states. it began on the mexican

guatemalan border and then entering their country and by legal entry or with those people. the reality is this type of activity is happening every day in smaller numbers and with fanfare. and with fraudulent creams on -- no need to dodge border security efforts because the policy makes it too easy for them and with that port of entry or look for an agent to say they have a credible fear to say the simple two words allows him to be released about 90% of the time regardless of the merits of the claim and then once released they're asked to appear for a court date sometimes years in the future in a work permit after 180 days. 2008 referred 51 cases meeting this special to immigration court and in 201,692,000 the

reason for the increase they have learned how to exploit the system it should surprise no one that many do not even show up for their court date most likely because it is unfounded in the first place to maximize the ability to flee persecution we must combat fraud for those who have a legitimate claim for getting lost in the sea of claims by another. the trafficking victims reauthorization act which is a well-meaning law designed to prevent human trafficking howevertr desperate one -- disparate treatment for mexico or other countries like honduras or guatemala creates a perverse incentive and you must and that loophole to put children in the hands of smugglers abusing them along the way. once they arrive they are vulnerable to gettinge recruitment given the weakness of the setting -- vetting.

ms 13 are the only ones benefiting from the loophole drug cartel tracks the movement of people and an aquatics crossing the borders every single migrant a family unit or single adult illegal crosses the southwest border enriches the cartel and helps their growth the number of illegal border crossings show an urgent need through those glaring holes to witness a 300% hundred% increase april 2017 through april 2018 33% increase from last month to this month the largest increase month to month since 2011. smugglers and extreme advocacy groups including individuals making the journey as well as americans are victim to crime and making their way.s in addition and in the near

future so the poverty that most americans cannot fathom dealing with extreme violence anwr and gangs with the work of charitable organizations the truth of the matter is we cannot bring everyone with suffering where a nation of immigrants with 1 million legal immigrants in the country every week however we are also nation of laws we cannot sit idly by while the borders are overrun by lawlessness we have to build a policy wall alongside the actual wall to force those to do it the right way in the legal way congress must act to immigrationto policy to close these people's last september the speaker appointed me and

seven other members to a a working group tasked with addressing this issue and we spentad hours diving into the border policy less than nine months we have been working to sign the bill that became the labrador bill this is stronger border security to close is illegal and ends the insanity on the border we have received assurances our will will be brought before the house for a vote in june for two is consideration the floor. chairman recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee for any have.ents you may >> thank you chairwoman first alike to talk about today's hearing my position on the border wallets will knowmy by now i would like to express my deep concern of the so-called policy wall proposed by the administration what we'll talk about today. as with the physical border wall the need for policy wall is unclear the number of asylum-seekers requesting

protection indicates a humanitarian problem not a security threat. a growing number of asylum-seekers from guatemala and honduras and aware that el salvador and honduras rank among the top five most violent countries in the world including nations of the role former secretary john kerry acknowledged those complex editions on the ground during his confirmation hearing. the characterization the level seeking asylum is confusing blaming the people who are seeking protection is inhumane. the conditions leading to the humanitarian crisis are not those seeking protection we should redouble thece efforts to work with international partners to fix this problem and earlier to join the democrats to send a letter to

secretary nielsen separating migrant parents that do not warrant that when apprehended at the border i'm opposed to tearing kids away from their parents and i amn,po concerned criminalizing the adult what this will mean for legal claims for protection. the effective family separation also traumatizes and according to more than 200 child welfare and child development organizations opposing family separation there is ample evidence separating children leads to serious negative consequences with adult immigration as unaccompanied and to assure thatan families i fear these

policies are in the long run i like to hear your managing her resources for more asylum-seekers in this new zero tolerance policy dhs is encouraging people to claim asylum the staffing shortage persistent and how those ports be affected by the policy changes i thank you for joining us today and i yield back the balance of my time. >> now we recognize you for any statements you may have.

>> from guatemala to mexico border headed toward the united states. the journey was not easy and met with great difficulty and that deportation by criminal beings. one -- gangs and those specific goal is the circumvention and the goal was simple with law enforcement already overburdened the immigration system it did not change immigration policy it is not the last. although it lacks attention and then to see a troublingse trend in those alien children

to flood across the border many of them claiming fear every single person who claims credible fear meets the same threshold loopholes with those illegal immigration troops to facilitate humans across the border those cartels use those weaknesses to further enrichth the cartel. this is the rule of law in mexico along key parts of the southwest border is absolutely necessary to construct that policycy to close families and children at risk. last month we saw illegal border crossings triple from the same. his last year and we have to take dramatic action to be

first the disturbing development and for those that come here illegally that is the right policy this will send a powerful message to take advantage of the immigration laws. and i know that as a federal prosecutor they were prosecuted and we saw add trim addictwh is klein i along with the chairman and the chairwoman have proposed a robust border security and immigration enforcement bill to close these loopholes that secretary nielsen also it is

good to see you at -- pointed out sometimes in the past those changes to have unaccompanied alien children there will always be ways for aliens to come into the country illegally the time for change has come. i'm committed to working with this administration and otherad like-minded members to make that a reality. with that i yield back. >> other members are reminded opening statement submitted for the record i ask unanimous consent the gentlelady he allowed to participate in today's hearing without objections ordered. we three distinguished witnesses before us today the acting deputy commissioner of u.s. customs borderd protection previously he served as chief of border patrol as the chief

operating officer with the daily operations of u.s. border patrol ahead of land operations, the director january 2017 is a 33 year veteran ofme law-enforcement and 30 years of immigration enforcement experience serving as a police officer a border patrolat agent with a naturalization service as the advisory is special agent mr. francis is sworn in on october 8, 2017 recently served as the director of immigration policy within the dhs office during which time was on the senate judiciary committee where he worked on immigration legislation then served as acting director and deputy director dhs policy now

recognize you for five ranking member and to see which members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appearth before you today to achieve a strategic objective my fellow witnesses and grateful to work with such to secure the homeland with those physical barriers and capabilities have long been a critical component of the multilayer approach to secure the southern border that appropriations act of 2018 supports the t2 mission with the largest investment of the border wall in a decade. to put the funding to work to improve patient security and encouraging to encourage investment in the border wall system in addition to play a

key role in the continuum working with congress on the legislation then to protect american workers and taxpayers these have an impact performer missionm . and in accordance with the zero tolerance policy the department of homeland security has directed cbp all border processes to canal prosecution. no classes or categories are exempt in the number of individuals while trying to enter the country illegally and those presenting themselves without entry documentation on the southern border increase by 40% february to march compared to march 2017 it was 203%.

and then to hold those families distract horsemen officers with that capability to control the border into make it much more difficult. to begin the natural guard with other contraband and illegal aliens into theme country. and to be on the ground working with dhs headquarters with a seamless coordination of efforts. with supportive congress anden our partners to secure the nation's borders for infrastructure personnel and technology working with congress and legislative changes to help fulfill the mission to take a moment to of cbphe men and women to carry out those responsibilities

professionally and with integrity of the public's trust i will work to make sure they match their dedication we added three more names i will never forget their long one. and we look forward to your questions. >> members of the subcommittee and the ranking member and chairwoman thank you for being here today with talk about cross-border crime and illegal immigration. because those were issued last year into restore the

immigration system and to be increased over 40% we have near the devil dms 13 this year. with enforcement of public security threat and 92% reflected these priorities. and those that are empowered to have their mission the last father child administration sent a series. >> the chair wishes to remind our guest that demonstrations from the audience including use of signs or placards or t-shirts as well as a verbal out the first one -- outburst to give her your cooperation to maintain proper decorum.

>> the trump administration sent a series of priorities to congress of those misguided policies in holes to surfer on illegal immigration. and also at the table. >> please lower your signs. please remove the protesters. the committee will recess until order is restored. [inaudible conversations]

>> we will come to order. start where you left off. last fall the child demonstration sent a series of priorities to address those misguided for illegal immigration to reflect law-enforcement officials what we need to close those polls for immigration rightfully they listen to us it is time that congress do the same.

if there are no consequences for sneaking past the border skipping the immigration or committing crimes and there will be no integrity in the entire system. and to address those policies and the family units in those legal constraints they encourage more parents to subject themselves and their children to the criminal smuggling organizations that was reflected in the recent uptick to be severely constrained as a result so that all but guarantees and not be sent home. 3.4% of all uac and on the southwest border and then to

make progress also look at those criminals and as a result even immigrants were violent criminals and back into the community. and that is a tragic consequence we need congress to help us. and with that jurisdiction and then to be illegally present thanks ray policies refusing to honor those retainers. those to focus the only every living criminal as common sense to take us testing local jails in prison but as exactly what is happening.

but to be clear what we want is access to talk to somebody that we know that is in violation of federal law. but it is frustrating. to be in homes and workplaces those are riskier and increase of the likelihood and another words policies aimed at the community is the opposite effect to increase the presence of the same communities. this also undermines cooperation and partnership that they should be working together through public safety i'm encouraged that they have expressed themselves to work with us. i want to make sure everybody

understands they do not make the community safer. finally it is my hope from the i.c.e. personnel resources to continue the progress we have made over the past year these issues are not just about enforcement but humanitarian because we know we can be dangerous. and then to address these concerns more people making that dangerous journey north and then those that come to and it states illegally those steps i have taken with law enforcement officers and i.c.e. but enclosing i will be

retiring after 34 years as an officer. it has been an honor of my life to be with his agency. in the 20000 men that work compatriots by the very fact they come every day and put their safety at risk to protect their communities. i will continue to be a strong epic for the workforce again thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you mr. homan and now mr. cissna for five minutes. >> chairman and ranking member pleased to be here today along with my colleagues over border security. that means physical control we

have all seen prototypes that are dangerous and exhausting work and other evidence of physical aspects. i suggest true border security is much more than that. certainly to incorporate the administrative process to govern the entry and exit behind the border wall there must be a wall of law. as evidenced to understand this problem i referred to the future act that the chairwoman and those all cosponsors of that bill. and for those who regain control of the border with the immigration system that

responds to the allegations. now i'd like to mention the backlog that the number of us a lot more -- asylum filings has tripled between 15 and 17 those numbers are the highest annual number even over 20 years. u.s. eis has a backlog of 313,000 cases of critical proportions to our ability to properly screen applicants while they wait for consequence of this 70% is that those true asylum-seekers are lost in the applications that are not meritorious. in my written testimony u.s. eis is taking steps to address the dialogue -- the backlog also addressing the system and now i will share some

background. when congress established that process in 1896 congress understood that a mechanism the compromise statutory standard for those screenings at the border were set so low that nearly everyone past but over the years certain courts have taken this generous approach ruling that people or victims of general gained by could be a member of a particular social group. there is a reasonable possibility for an account the protective ground to qualify for asylum the credible fear at the border that there was a

significant possibility to establish eligibility for asylu asylum. so it means an alien only has to establish possibility that there is a reasonable possibility that he or she could be persecuted if they return home. in other words they have to show the possibility. many of those enter illegally and those that profit from them know that a few keywords are all it takes to get to the screening process. it should be no surprise we have seen 1750% increase in the number of fear claims with the expedited process from fy 16 the loophole is overly generous when paired with insufficient detention space those decisions that prevent us from detaining throughout

the process of adjudicating those claims it is a recipe for the challenges at the border the present system being gained is obvious from the department of justice and office review 56% of pending cases that originated from credible fear that were conducted by u.s. eis and those that originate from credible fear finally as announced the approval rate was over 20%. and for those first two quarters. sec. nielsen is called on congress to quickly pass legislation to close these loopholes they are exploited

at a detriment to the immigration of the system i stand ready to her with any member of congress to support the mission to secure our country. thank you. >> now i recognize myself for five minutes for questions. i want to summarize the big picture we have heard a lot of information and data so we have seen a 1760% increase between 2008 and fy? 1750% is a big number. there is a lot of violence around the world and a lot of poverty in trouble from individuals. this increase has gone up 1750% so the cartels and

individuals have figured out they simply have to say i have a credible fear in the border is so low that 90% can't enter the united states? >> the numbers are pretty bad. right now the credible fear screening rate was 76% and then they put a few more digits to say now around 80% of those that get through those assignment claims that are heard right now between 22 and 25% they grant asylum. >> so how many years later do they get a court date on average? >> it could be several years. >> what percent actually show up? we make the numbers that we have show it is about 50% on

every asylum claim in absentia orders i don't have that readily available. >> more than how? >> the family unit approximately 80% issued by the immigration court. >> i'm trying to paint the picture the significant numbers they say the right words because the bar so low then released into the interior of the united states with a court date far into the future the vast majority don't show up and for those who do only 20% are granted asylum are granted asylum so our system is used for people to go through those loopholes. >> i think the problem comes back from my old statement the whole idea of the credible fear system was to give some protection to people without legitimate fear of persecution

in their home country at the borders not to be expeditiously removed but the reality is the number of people coming to the border to seek this type of protection making these claims is greatly overwhelming our ability to do that process then you have to let them go and then you have a problem. >> the asylum law is very specific you personally will be persecuted because of race our nationality or membership personally you when you go back not that it is in poverty or has violence in general i will allow you to elaborate. >> you have to demonstrate you have fear persecution credible fear is a significant possibility to be persecuted on those grounds. and as i said the courts have stretched that over the decades and the reason for

asylum into the country is generously credible fear standard even more so. >> if you flee from a country because of this persecution one of the five categories and your life isn't dangerous and as you step foot into another country like mexico wouldn't that be a safe place to settle? >> what i and others have said for a while is people who flee persecution in their country should go to the safe on -- first safe place. >> exactly that is the point. >> that is the whole point. if you are legitimately fleeing because your personally persecuted us and as you are in a safe country you should stop there. can you share what we're doing related to this to increase partnership on the topic? payment for the past several years mexico does have a working asylum system and for

several years now we sent people to mexico to help them build their capacity to expand and remove their process and then continue to have discussions with them about that. people do ask and receive asylum in mexico and then to accomplish that better. >> i will come back. the chairman rankin -- recognizes the ranking them just ranking member commissioner family separation is concerning to me and this program announced by the attorney general simply explain the personnel there supposed to use to verify relationships fema goes agents and officers use whatever information is available to

establish familial relations sometimes people have documents. sometimes they don't. but if we don't believe there is a relationship with a minor we will refer the minor to dhs as it relates to day-to-day operations, their statements along with documentation and we will verify that the medieval late hhs sort the individual as the unaccompanied minor. >> question that is best suited but is the process different for families who present themselves at ports of entry versus those apprehended between ports of entry? >> we refer anyone who crosses the border illegally 100% of people who cross the border is

referred to the justice department for criminal prosecution that isn't the illegal act by verification of family relationships is the same on both. >> with this new policy in plac place, there is the point you are in a situation you decide to separate where do the minors go? >> we try to prosecute 100% if it is a family member then hhs will then step in. >> but can you tell us there was a panel that had seen reports of families separated and nobody can tell us where those children are going do you know where they are going? >> they are referred to hhs to be put into the shelter.

>> hhs controls the system as it relates to where the shelters are and where they send them and it is their work to place them with a guardian. >> this is a question for you director cissna the department of justice announced yesterday it is asking the department of defense to send prosecutors to assist of those that had been detained for the zero-tolerance policy and within a few short weeks they are experiencing tremendous backlash because officials do not appear to have the personnel or the resources necessary to process it also appears to be an issue so what is the administration doing to address these concerns?

>> i think that is probably better for i.c.e. >> add to my -- detention capacity we are working with the marshals and doj to identify space we are working on that along with the department and doj. i think that will be addressed. we want to make sure we don't get back to catch and release of the identifying shelters around the country i can be used but as far as hhs under homeland security act we are required to release unaccompanied children to hhs so once they identified someplace in the country our job at hhs is to reunite the child with a parent and make sure it gets too embedded

sponsor. >> three years ago most of us here lived the issue of unaccompanied minors coming into this country and i just find it ironic with the new zero-tolerance policy we are essentially creating a new class of unaccompanied minors. i will save the rest of my questions for when we come back but although we may not ci to i, director homan congratulate you on your retirement and thank you for your service. >> thank you as far as your question or comments, it is the port of entry with the asylum claims they will not be prosecuted and separated. there is no policy to separate. they are separating because they cannot prove the relationship and we have had many cases where children that

were trafficked that were not their parents that is what we are concerned about the other issue is they are being prosecuted they are separated. >> thank you for that so are you saying that with the new zero-tolerance policy that children are not being separated from parents seeking asylum? >> not 100% that children from parents are into situations number one there is no obvious proof that it is a parent or legal guardian we want to protect those children but the second issue is we have to separate them because in the parent goes to the u.s. marshals so it isn't a policy based on these two issues

prosecution and cannot establish a relationship. they use the port of entry that would not be contemplated in those cases. >> i am out of time. >> the chair recognizes the chairman from texas. >> thank you madam chair, director homan thank you for your many years of stellar service to our nation we congratulate you. and we look forward to working with you in the future. talk about sanctuary cities it reminded me a young counterterrorism prosecutor after 911 working with the joint task force and we cannot prove support as a terrorist to what we would do in many cases is to get them on immigration violation and deport them. what i worry in california that they are looking at the

wrong wall between federal law enforcement and local law enforcement. the idea that to defy the ict because it is a criminal alien but the state has decided we will deflect law enforcement, to me, the supremacy clause applies and then this is in the courts but what about the danger not just your agents but you people in the streets but from the counterterrorist in point? >> we always get wrapped around immigration. but the local state agency has chosen to let somebody take their freedom away and lock them in a jail cell. they are here illegally then we should access that. they have already chosen that. they are part of public safety should have access.

dea or i agree 100% but the other issue is the criminal investigation terrorism investigation we have law enforcement agencies to have hsi agents on the task force as part of the century law those that are on the database from the gang members in california including ms 13. . . . .

special interest alien pathways into the united states. this was given to me i think from your agency, director homan. this is, you know, dhs was created as a counterterrorism department. this is what keeps me up at night is when you look at special interest aliens coming from pakistan, from turkey, from syria, from iraq, from moscow, to africa, into the western hemisphere, with flights, on air sea and land and then the pathway up into the united states. we know that thousands, it's in the thousands of these special interest aliens try to make it per year. this is why i think closing the legal loopholes is so important because it does no good if they get in and you can't -- you can't deport them. it does no good if you can't prevent them from coming in in

the first place. there's also a program i wanted to talk about because i would like this committee to authorize this program for you, sir, is a program which deals with biometrics and deals with how can we track these individuals that make this journey from very dangerous countries of origin into this hemisphere and particularly into the united states. >> while i agree with you on this, that's the issue, if we learned anything from 9/11 commission, law enforcement needs to be talking together coordinating and sharing information. these sanctuary city walls prevent that from happening. 100% agree with you. i'm glad you brought it up. not just an immigration issue, it is a public safety national security issue. as far as these illicit pathways, that's the reason as you know after 9/11, you're exactly right, immigration authorities got most of the people that are involved with the terrorist activities

arrested because the fbi is still working on the case for that. we are working with central america, south america, on identifying on those in route to the united states, many known terrorists that these other countries will enroll them, take some prints, into our system, along with dod and gives us a shot of who is coming. panama has a great program. people have been turned around in panama, sent back before reaching our shores. i would like to use then secretary, we would rather play the away game than play the home game. we want to expand that to other parts of the country. already proven successful. already proven that people who want to do harm to this country have been stopped on the way rather at the border or inside the united states. a significant investment needs to be made there. >> i couldn't agree more. and i look forward to working with you on authorizing this important program.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. the chair now recognizes. >> thank you very much. i wanted to focus on the big picture. we talked about 300% increase, referring to what? the chairperson referred to 300% increase. what kind of crossings? >> in the family units and unaccompanied children. >> what were the actual numbers? >> i can get that to you. i probably have it here, but about 240,000 apprehensions so far this year. about a third of those would be people not from mexico who are unaccompanied children or part of a family unit. >> we talked about 1750% increase, was that fiscal year 08 to 16? did i get that correct? >> there are two increases that are about 1750%, one was in the

number of pending asylum cases over the past five years. >> over the five years? not one year, five years. >> five years, yeah. the other one was the number of -- >> what were the actual numbers on that? >> so i have that. >> while you are getting that to me, i have another question. we talk about cartels. we're talking about these folks coming over looking for asylum. are there cartels sending them over with drugs when they get to the border, do these folks looking for refugee status, are they coming in with drugs so they check in to, say, i want asylum, by the way, they have a backpack full of drugs, is that what happens? >> i'm not sure we see that very often. i think that's more of a rare occurrence, but i can tell you that -- >> couple of times, 30% of the time? >> i would just say that most everyone is in this situation is being smuggled, and the way that

the -- >> so you don't have actual numbers? i would like to get some of those from u you. i'm sorry, i have a couple of minutes left here. the other question is, you talk about a caravan -- you talk about a caravan, how many of those made it to the u.s. border? sounds like you don't have that number either. but i hear it is about 300. and what i'd love to do and i will request -- i will put in a question for the -- for you that i want to see what mexico's doing because my understanding is there a major effort at the southern border of mexico to address this issue and doing quite a bit in cooperating with the u.s. it is just it's something that i don't have that at my fingertips and it appears that you don't either. i would love to get an answer to that. finally, mr. homan, if i can, i don't want to put any words in your mouth. but you said illegal immigrants

are dangerous? >> i don't believe i used those words, no. >> i'm sorry? >> i did not say that. at least i don't think i did. >> again, because the issue i'm having in my state of california is i've got my farmers asking for more workers. they have actually called me from republican areas saying we need more workers on our fields. i've told them call the administration. i can't do anything. but as you know, ag is a top industry not only in california but it is in southern states and it appears we need the farm hands. that's why i'm saying we're not thinking of these folks as terrorists are we or dangerous? >> the statement i made is entering this country illegally is a crime. it is violation of federal law. >> yet they are needed as farm workers; correct? >> i think that's up to congress to make some changes in the guest worker program, whatever think you need, but violating the laws of this country isn't the answer. >> but yet they are needed, and the pull is economic. let me talk to you about another

kind of political refugee asylum seeker, which those are the folks that have a lot of money and they are transferring their money into the united states. what is it, $500,000 gets you kind of a visa? >> the eb-5 program. >> those people are also fearing for their economic lives in some of these countries; correct? >> perhaps. >> possibly, from china and some of the others? so do we look at those as welcome or not welcome, and what's the distinction? >> well, the eb-5 program is a program that is established by congress. >> following the law just like the asylum seekers? >> correct -- >> under existing laws. >> yeah, under existing laws there's an asylum program -- >> are these asylum seekers just from central america or all over the world? >> they come from everywhere. >> any other specific areas, syria, iraq? >> syria, china, venezuela.

>> there's no war in china. what's the issue there? >> well, there could be political persecution. used to be you could be -- previously one child policy that drove a lot of refugees from china. >> again, gentlemen, thank you for the great job you have done. i will follow up with some questions later on with you. madam chair. >> the chair recognizes mr. bacon from nebraska for five minutes. >> thank you, gentlemen, for being here today and share your expertise. i think you made a compelling case that our policies and loopholes undermine our security and law and we need to get that fixed. we could have the best physical security in place, but if we're going to catch and release or if we have an asylum policy that's being used as a loophole, we undermine all those efforts. so i for one support more physical security, but i know -- but i know we need to fix these laws so they support each other and defend our border.

we want legal immigration not illegal immigration. i want to piggyback what the chairman of the committee brought up, it is about the pathways to the u.s. i think this is an area that does not get the visibility it should get. we know the folks are coming here through pathways south and central america but they are originating from the middle east. some perhaps are looking for asylum but some are coming here for nefarious reasons, suspected terrorists. we had the homeland security secretary here this past month. i asked her about it. i said what can you tell us about this at the unclassified level? >> she made the statement that we are tracking roughly 15 suspected terrorists a day, somewhere in transit coming here. >> i think the american people need to know this. we're not doing a good enough job about that. is there anything you can add at the unclassified level about suspected terrorists using these pathways and trying to abuse these policies to come to our

country? >> well, the secretary is right. like i said, the program has already identified those who want to do harm to this country on their travel here. this is the whole issue about the southern board and the president wanting the wall and having a true border security. the question from the gentleman from california was criminal cartels move product. they don't care if it's just an illegal alien looking for farm work, whether it's drugs, weapons or terrorist, they are in the business of moving product into the united states illegally. that's how they make their money. so when he's talking about sanctuary cities, dangle that carrot out and you get to this city, you commit a crime and you'll be protected. we are bankrolling these criminal organizations, that have murdered border patrol agents, murdered my agents smuggled guns, weapons and terrorists. the same illicit pathways. when we talk about border security and border wall and closing these loopholes that's why it is so important. as i said earlier it is just not an immigration issue.

it is a national security issue. people who want to do harm to this country will use the same pathways that are being bankrolled by a lack of a strong policy. >> given what the homeland security secretary said. let me ask point-blank, have we caught suspected terrorists try to enter our country through these pathways? >> well, the detail she gives you is a recognition that when someone applies for entry or is encountered by one of our officers, they are hitting on the database that the government keeps that of known and suspected terrorists. so that's happening regularly >> the answer is yes? we have caught known or suspected terrorists coming here. i think we put this as an immigration issue that clouds the border issue and terrorism. why aren't we doing a better job at communicating this? i feel like it seems to be lost. i think if the american people knew of the magnitude of

terrorists in the middle east trying to come through a southern border using these alien pathways to the u.s. that's in this handout it would change the discussion. it would raise the support levels for what we're trying to do to improve our physical security and policies. i think the debate becomes easy. we can show that there's an actual physical terrorist threat trying to come here. i just don't know if we're making that case. can we do better? or am i off base on this? >> i can tell you, we're trying. you know what? there's a vast amount of media that don't want to report it. they want to make this a case against the administration. they want to make this about immigrant families trying to better -- i can't blame anybody for wanting to be part of the greatest country on earth, but there's a right way to do it. we're telling the story. the story doesn't get past -- the wall's been put up by groups that don't want the american people to hear the truth. that's why i'm out a lot trying to talk. i know ron is out talking a lot. we are trying to get that story

out that there's more than just immigration. we are talking about our country's sovereignty. we're talking about national security of this country. >> i think some folks perceive this as a hypothetical issue versus a real issue. i think the more real we make it with tangible names, tangible pictures of faces of folks who come here who had terrorist designs on our country, i think the debate gets easier. thank you. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes from california for five minutes. >> thank you, madame chairman. i'm going to go ahead and -- my colleague said he wanted to make this more real. i want to introduce into the record a statement by a mother who participated in the caravan during the fall of 2017 into the record. she's from -- >> no objection. >> she's from el salvador one of the deadliest countries that's not in a war zone and she talks about how difficult it is to turn yourself in. she talks about what it's like

to be intimidated by agents. and being separated from her child. for 85 days, her 15 month old baby had been separated, and her child was never the same and has come back and those are real stories. that's what's happening. now we love to talk about this issue, about the ms 13 gangs. we love to paint immigrants as criminals. that is not the complete facts. and that is very offensive for me to see continuing to happen. it is continuing to message this, this anti-immigrant agenda. there are many good immigrants. then i hear the rhetoric, more daca like people, guess what? daca like people are the people we need in this country. they have served this country. they have gone to college. they produce and they contribute to the economy. so to put them into the same category is completely offensive. now i happen to know about some

of these people who come over and seek asylum. why? because i represented a family, an accompanied minor when i was an attorney at a pro bono level and i had to find his mom who was also in detention. it is extremely hard to get asylum. it is very hard to get asylum. the standard is very hard. and it's very high. now, i had unlimited resources at a big law firm. i could hire experts, and even then i couldn't get asylum. was it a fraud? no. did they get protections? yes, under a different category. it took years. but there are people who come to this country because they are fleeing the violence. in my particular case, they had already killed one of her son. guess what? when one of your children is killed and you have one left, you are going to run. you are going to try to seek

safe haven. and so it makes me sick to my stomach to keep hearing over and over again, painting the broad stroke and the picture as though these are folks who are coming here to do harm. and so, you know, it is just unbelievable to me how this rhetoric continues and to see it continue in a campaign season just gets even worse and worse. and just because you don't get asylum doesn't mean that it's a fraud, and i think that's something that's just so important for me to state. now, i want to move on to the issue of separation. according to the new york times, more than 700 children had to be taken from adults claiming to be their parents since october including more than 100 children under the age of 4. secretary nelson disputed this figure at a may 15th senate homeland hearing. she said the 700 children figure

was an hhs number and not a dhs figure. does anybody on this panel what the dhs figure is? >> we can for the record get back to you with the actual number of people who were in custody and was either unable to determine whether there was a familial relationship that we could prove and we're comfortable with or somebody was prosecuted under having crossed the border illegally and then that caused a family separation. we can get back to you and give you exact number on that. >> okay. let me tell you, it is hard for some of these families, when they're fleeing violence and they're leaving their country, they're not exactly saying let me go look for documentation so that i can prove this is my child. i had a hard time in my own case having to find people there on the ground to get the documents that we needed to make a case. but people are leaving because they are in distress, because they are facing violence, and they're fearful. it's not generally something they are thinking about before they take off, how do i prove

this is my child. i will tell you right now, if i had to go find something to prove my relationship with my mother, it would probably take me a little while. so i understand how difficult this is. can you tell me how we are counting and tracking children that are separated from children? >> everybody that's taken into custody goes through a booking procedure; right? we get the biographical information and all of that is in the documentation system. that's how we establish whether they are related or not, using those documents. that becomes part of their record. part of that process is for a hearing >> i yield back. >> can i respond? >> absolutely. >> no one on this panel is anti-immigrant. we are enforcing laws that you all enacted. to sit there and say we are anti-immigrant, you are wrong. we are enforcing laws.

the laws clearly state you enter the country illegally it is a crime. and no one is up here saying all illegal aliens are criminals. a certain percentage of them are criminals. they commit yet another offense after they are here. i have said many times i certainly understand the plight of these people and i feel bad for some of these people, but i have a job to do. i have to enforce the law and uphold the oath i took to enact the laws enacted by you, congress. >> thank you. the chair now recognize mrs. rogers from alabama for -- mr. rogers from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you all for being here and thank you for your service to our country. i understand that you all may have talked about in the opening statements. i was a little bit. i apologize for that. that in march nearly 1500 person caravan, mostly hondurans, started on a mission to make a 2,000 mile trek to our border that was organized by some sort

of radical advocacy group. is that accurate, the characterization of that caravan? and they came through mexico to get to our southwest border. and under the pretense that they were in danger. was there evidence that they were in danger once they were in mexico that you all are aware of? do you know how many of that group made it to the port of san ysidro. >> our records indicate we arrested crossing illegally between ports of the entry. >> do you know of any of those individuals that caravan petition from mexico for asylum? >> in discussions with mexico they did resettle some of the original group

>> do you know if any of that roughly 500 that you just described tried to stop and stay in mexico? >> i don't know. >> director, do you know how many of these immigrants have received an initial determination in the united states? >> yes, so far a total of 327 cases of people that we think were part of this so called caravan, at least they self-identified or we had evidence that they were. of those 327, we have completed 216 of these credible fears screenings and of that 205 got positive screenings. >> do you have any estimate of how many immigrants in that caravan may have slipped through into our country that we don't have a handle on? >> i don't know that number. >> okay. i know -- sorry.

back in 2010, president obama ordered the national guard down to the border, support capacity, wasn't a whole lot said about it, but recently when president trump did the same thing, there was a big fuss made about it. what exactly is the role of the national guard when they're working at the border in concert? >> much like the previous deployments that we got great assistance from the national guard, we're specifically asking for a number of things. the aviation support is some of the biggest -- the biggest percentage of what they will give us will be in that. there are also a number of roles in sector headquarters and at stations helping us watch the screens that the camera feeds come into, the com centers, helping us dispatch and we're looking at other roles for them to play, but it is essentially that kind of support that allows us then to redeploy the agents that might have to do that work, so it gives us a bit more capacity in the locations where they are doing that work instead of border patrol agents.

>> do you believe that a physical border wall is effective in stemming the flow of ability of immigrants into our country? >> it has been very effective. we expect it to continue to be. >> do you believe that in addition to a physical wall security systems that support that wall are effective in deterring illegal immigration into our country? >> when the president directed us to make those plans, all of the estimates and all of the action planning that we've done is in fact that. it is a system that brings a number of capabilities, access and mobility, so roadways and avenues toward the border get there conveniently, a number of agents are part of the request we put forward. you have to have personnel, technology and infrastructure to make it successful. >> at present, do we have the resources physically and financially to secure our southwest border? >> across the board, no but we're using all the 2018 appropriation gave us to improve

conditions as it relates to those three, personnel, technology and infrastructure. >> it seems to me that this caravan that got so much publicity was a manufactured event to try to exploit our southwest border. would that be a fair characterization? those people for weeks were traveling -- >> it does highlight the discussion about loopholes. those folks a number of them knew when they made the claim for asylum that they were going to be released into the country. >> it is unfortunate. thank you, i yield back. >> the chair recognize from florida. >> thank you madame chairwoman and thank you to our witnesses for being here. it is good to see you again. commissioner, i would like to address how unaccompanied minors -- how they have reasonable -- how reasonable fear interviews are conducted. as a former social worker, a

former law enforcement officer, and a former crimes against children detective, i have seen children who experience confusion, fear, sometimes they're even silent after experiencing trauma. i'm sure that we all here understand these challenges and want to make sure that cbt agents have training and the resources necessary to screen unaccompanied minors with the care and consideration that every child certainly deserves. what is the status of cbp's efforts to address and implement gao's 2015 recommendations for border patrol agents and ofo officers to screen unaccompanied minors? >> we have made a number of improvements since 2014 and have responded to gao's requests and agreed with a lot of the findings. there's a number of training curricula out there for agents to use in the interview setting,

when they're with family units and unaccompanied minors so there's an on-line course that agents have to take that's mandatory. there's some specific training, and then the skills that agents use. so we try to make sure that the people who are doing that interview and those processes are trained and have the heart to do it. most of our workforce -- all of our workforce speaks spanish. more than half of them are native speakers, if you will. they are latino or hispanic people. and then a lot of them are family. so we understand, you know, from that human perspective, the situation that these children are in and do everything we can to make them feel comfortable. and we've made a number of improvements in the enforcement systems to record when people are fed, when their interviews are taken place, whether they've gotten a chance to -- how long they have been in our custody so we have improved the systems and the accountability within the systems and then invested in some facilities that are specifically designed for this

population. >> and since 2014, how would you critique the success of the training that you do have in place? how do you feel it's working? and what adjustments if any, have you made since then? >> we've gotten better, and the system adjustments and the things that we've done to make sure that those facilities -- i mean, they are border patrol stations. it is where people are getting arrested and interviewed before they move on through the system. so we try to understand that this population is a bit different than the larger population. i think we have done a good job in making those adjustments. >> okay. thank you. director homan, under what circumstances does i.c.e. detain or otherwise assume custody of individuals apprehended at or near the southwest border? if you talked about that earlier, i'm sorry. i was late. so if you could just -- >> i.c.e. appropriated for the detention of those in the country illegally. so everybody that border patrol apprehends if they don't immediately remove them, then we will get custody of them and we

will detain them until they have the hearing. that's on a case by case basis. we don't detain everybody. flight ris, k, danger to community, if the border patrol through expedited processing, so we detain them. >> under what circumstance does i.c.e. refer individuals who are apprehended at or near the border to doj for prosecution? >> border patrol does that as part of the zero tolerance. we will present people if we criminally arrest somebody and charge them with a crime, we will present them. as far as zero tolerance, border patrol is doing that work. >> okay. do you want to add to that? >> based on the attempt to end catch and release, the justice department put out word through their system and then the secretary followed that up with direction to cdp to refer all border crossers in between the ports of entry, anybody that

enters the country illegally will be referred for prosecution. >> thank you, chairwoman, i yield back. >> we're going to start a second round here. director, i want to go over the numbers again of the people in the caravan. you said 327 were referred for asylum processing. 216 were screened. and 205 received a positive screening? >> that's correct. so far. >> so far. >> yes, so there may be more cases coming but that's what we have so far. >> of the 216 screened, 94.9% because of this very low bar of proving a possibility of a possibility have made it through. where are they right now? have they been released into the interior of the united states? >> i can't account for all of that. i would have to ask my colleague at i.c.e. i can say that the issue here is once they are screened, once they have the credible for screening -- of course if it's negative, there were a handful that were negative, they will get removed if they uphold the

decision. but if it's positive, the idea is they would be sent to an immigration judge who would then determine with finality whether they will get asylum or not. if these are family units, as you may know, because of the settlement agreement, we may have to release them within 20 days. there may not be enough time to get to the immigration judge before we have to let them go. >> so that brings to my next point in your testimony, dwryou talked about last-in, first-out if you put them to the end of the line two years from now you are creating a whole other problem which is inhumane in and of itself as people are settling down. if you are doing the last in, first out, what's that time frame right now? >> the last-in, first-out refers to regular asylum applications. this is the 318,000 cases that we have here. >> okay. >> it is connected to the credible fear thing because of the surge in credible fear work, we've had to divert people from regular asylum work to do all this stuff at the border. and one of the results of that is that the backlog for regular asylum went up and up.

so the only way that we can -- one of the best ways we think to address that enormous multihundred thousand person backlog is to do last-in, first-out. by concentrating on the most recent cases, weeding out quickly and deporting the people who don't merit the benefit and then moving on to the other cases. >> please keep us posted on how these cases progress. i just want to make it clear again, you're doing everything you can with the administration in order to close these loopholes but there are legal things that we have to do congressionally in order to help you. just to be clear, 100% prosecution between the ports of entry, you're going to be prosecuted is the new policy. however, if you present yourself at a port of entry and say i have a credible fear, you will have no profession and these -- in prosecution and these loopholes will apply. why isn't everybody doing that? this is not a commercial message to them to start doing that. it seems like the cartels are smart and the people are smart. they figure out how to take advantage of our loopholes. why don't they just all line up at the ports of entry and i'm very concerned with the backlog then with the legitimate traffic

and we have talked about the manning there being bogged-down, and what the heck is preventing us from i know they are on u.s. soil then from sort of backing up and just working with mexico and saying turn around, you're in mexico. if you have a credible fear, work with them. >> we are in discussions for that exactly. mexico has done some in this -- as it relates to the caravan. they do quite a bit for us on the southern border, but obviously there's a lot more to do, a lot more work to do on both sides. so yeah, we would prefer that people don't make the journey at all. but there is a way for this to get solved and we think that -- >> to clarify, you mean safe third country where they do their claims in mexico. >> correct. and the 100% prosecution -- that may drive more traffic to the port of entry, but it's a safer condition. they don't have to go into the hands of a smuggler to be in that situation. we think that's bert for everyone. -- better for everyone. >> is there anything we can do

though to put some staff sort of right at the actual international boundary and work with mexico right there so we're not having to process all of them without us passing an act in congress? >> what we are trying to do now is regulate how many people come to the port and where they come. we're in discussions with them. that is by national agreement. we have several agreements with mexico on how to repatriate people and when people are refused at the port and those kinds of things. we are having those discussions with them now. again, bottom line is we really don't want people to make this journey. >> exactly. director, two more questions. for those who are claiming a false asylum claim, in your written testimony, you talk about how there's no teeth to that. can you talk a little bit about that? and also in your written testimony you talk about how you're concerned about people filing now, realizing this loophole and they have been in the interior of the united states now for maybe up to ten years, but they're realizing if they say they have a credible fear, it gives them a work permit, and this is now a work around for them to go from being illegal to being legal using

this loophole. >> yes, there are many many such loopholes. the one you just referred to -- this is for regular asylum cases. it is well known that if you file for asylum and six months go by and we haven't heard your case, you get a work permit. so a lot of people we believe do this on purpose because they know the backlog is so huge that we'll never get to their case and they get a work permit and they can wander around working freely in the economy for as long as it takes to hear their case. many of those people have legitimate claims. many don't. and the people who don't clog up the whole system for the people who do making the granting of their correct benefit delayed. >> so for those who don't have a legitimate claim, they've been in the country illegally for a long time. they have now identified a loophole. they can say they have a credible fear, apply and within six months they have a legal work permit? >> yes. and some people in fact apply for asylum on purpose knowing they don't have a good case not because so much they want the employment authorization document they intentionally want

to get thrown into immigration court. they want that because there's certain avenues of relief you can get in immigration court that they think they can get. one is called cancellation of removal. so they file these bogus claims on purpose intentionally to get into court. and that also clogs up our system. so we're wrestling with that as well, trying to get through those cases as quickly as we can. >> and last, on the no teeth to the false asylum claims. can you speak to that? >> well, if you file a false claim, usually the penalty is you receive notice to appear in immigration court, and you will debt -- and you will get deported. what we would like at dhs and we propose there would be more penalties put on to fraudulent claims. and we also want the definition of what constitutes a fraudulent or frivolous claim. doesn't necessarily has to be fraudulent. frivolous claim as well. if that were better defined we

could weed out these bad cases that clog up the system for legitimate asylum seekers. >> tightening that up is in our bill. >> if i could add to that, we're going to step up our enforcement against family units that have had final order removals. they have been ordered removal by immigration judge. i expect a lot of letters why are we targeting families and not criminals? but if they are given the due process and a federal judge makes a decision, if we don't execute those decisions, there's no integrity in the system. you will see a lot more enforcement in the near future on that. >> thank you. >> thank you madame chairwoman. i ask for unanimous consent to enter statements into the word. >> without objection. >> commissioner, kind of as a follow up to the question about the distinction in how people are treated at the ports of entry versus between the ports

of entry. with the new zero-tolerance policy in place, if someone is apprehended between the ports of entry and claims credible fear, what happens to them? >> well, in the situation with zero tolerance, they will be referred to the justice department for criminal prosecution for illegal entry. if they claim credible fear, that's a separate matter. so while they're in custody, they can have an interview or once they are concluded with the u.s. attorney and the justice department, that would be a separate matter for them. >> did you want to follow up? >> yeah, just because you're being prosecuted doesn't mean that you can't also make an asylum claim. and if that happens, i think what we expect will happen. i don't think we have seen many cases where this has happened yet under the new zero-tolerance policy, that person would go through the prosecution process and then be sent back into

i.c.e. detention. at that point, then we would interview them in the normal course for their credible fear screening. so if they're not imcompatible, the two processes. >> what i'm wondering about, you may be familiar with this, article 31 of the refugee convention, which says that the contracting states, the united states is one of those, shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1 enter or are present in a territory without authorization. what's your take on the united states agreement back in 1968 as that would apply to these people that are crossing between ports of entry? >> my understanding of the principal commitment that we made under that -- under the protocols to the convention

actually are that we're not going to return people to a country where they may suffer persecution. and we're not doing that. if they make a legitimate claim to asylum, we will hear it. and we'll do the credible fears screening. and they may in the end get asylum. but that doesn't mean that they didn't violate the law. that doesn't mean that they didn't violate usc 1325-a. and the law is the law. they should be prosecuted and punished for that. but that doesn't mean they can't also get asylum. we're not going to throw them back to a country where they could be persecuted if they have a legitimate asylum claim. we wouldn't be violating the protocol of the convention. >> but to be clear and we may agree or disagree as to whether this is the right thing to do or not what is happening with these people claiming credible fear between ports of entry they are being taken right into our criminal justice system; correct? >> i believe so, yes. >> commissioner, on the issue of

we had some discussion about terrorists at the southern border, last time i checked, we had encountered more terrorists on the northern border than on the southern border, is that still true? or has that changed? >> i would have to look at the data. i think it's probably still true. >> and you made some reference to the fact that some of the -- a good portion of the personnel in border patrol are spanish speaking; right? >> correct, it is a requirement. it is a pass fail requirement at the academy. >> so you can understand the serious concern that some of us might have with the incident in montana here over the weekend; right? where two american citizens were questioned about their citizenship just because they were speaking spanish. >> so i'm aware of that video.

i did watch it on youtube. i have looked at the full reporting. let me start out by saying that there is a policy in the federal government and law enforcement against racial profiling. the secretary has a statement out on it. and cdp has its own policy statement that prohibits the racial profiling as a tactic used in law enforcement investigations or encounters. and we expect our people, whether they're arresting someone, whether they're interacting with the public, bad guy or good guy, they treat those people with professionalism respect and dignity. we hold them to account when they don't do that. in the case of montana, we have asked our office of professional responsibility to review the matter. and so i don't want to prejudge it. i want them to do all the fact finding, and then i'm happy to come back and give you the full circumstance about what happened, but bottom line, we expect our people to act with professionalism and when they don't, we're going to hold them account for that. >> thank you. i yield back. >> yield back.

we now recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you. the state of california, democrats and republicans got together to pass laws against racial profiling, and i can tell you, in my life, taking the train from san diego to orange county, i have been profiled. a nice marine sitting right next to me, guess who gets the question are you an american citizen or not? you know, it is just something we live with. i guess we got to live with it. let me take a few moments to talk about big picture. anybody here think ms 13 is good actors or bad actors? we all agree they are bad actors. for the record. is there some of these folks coming from salvador, guatemala, do you think they have legitimate fear for their lives given that ms 13 is alive and well in those countries? the answer is probably yes.

so my question is, this is a public policy hearing today, trying to iron out public policy. is it the law or is it loopholes when it comes to refugees? if you get somebody who comes from el salvador, do we want to change the law to say there should not be a loophole for those folks that have a reasonable credible fear for their lives? i'm asking you, folks. do you want to close that loophole? >> we want to be in a situation in where people who cross the border illegally, if they have a legitimate refugee or asylum claim that they are put into that system and allowed to do that. what's happening here now or what's happening on the border now is that the people are making that claim, and they are not in -- they are not being held by i.c.e. until their hearing. so their due process gets lost to their own effort because they don't show or -- >> streamline process here. we talked a little while ago about our other partners, if i may call them partners, mexico,

in many ways and i think -- i don't want to put any words into your mouths here but you said there was some cooperation with mexico. i've talked to folks in your agency and they tell me that there's a lot of cooperation with mexico. and that the numbers of those folks coming across in those caravans were drastically reduced by the mexicans but they have their own laws that they have got to follow when it comes to humanitarian issues. so my question to you is, would you advocate a stronger cooperation with the mexicans when it comes to our national security? including this issue of asylum seekers? >> yes, to be precise, we do have a very good working relationship -- >> you are the experts, policymakers, do you have any suggestions how we can work with mexicans to make sure we make this hemisphere a little bit safer for everybody involved? i'm asking you as a policymaker. you are the expert. give me some opinions. >> we're continuing the discussion on all elements of security as it relates to the hemisphere with mexico. they are a strong partner. in fact they have helped us

cohost a conference on the northern triangle to help them understand what the governance challenges are, where the investments need to be made in that part of the world. mexico is a great partner in that. safe third country, mexico, does have an asylum system. so if it can be strengthened -- >>. >> more than half did not get it to the u.s. border. >> we encountered almost 500. i'm aware of the media reports. >> we do need to close the

loopholes in the congressional. >> you are a policymaker advising us. do you think the laws are too lax when it comes to whether you fear for your life or not, or is there something else you want to change? >> the loopholes are too lax. >> what would you tighten? >> 5% in immigration court only approves 20%. there's something been lost. is only 20% of their claim to fame that shows of problem. i can say that i think some of these people have a solid plan and their escaping here, of course. but i also think many are taking advantage of the loophole in a small threshold. the clogging up the system.

>> is it an issue of enough money being sent to the judicial branch so they can speedily advocate the claims? >> it substance and process. if you change nothing but change the process that would be a big help. if you kept it hot was be could detain people the full process could be heard. >> that's one issue. an address the settlement situation where the resources to hold people as long as it takes to hear their full asylum claim. the other issue substance. what should be the credible stander. another bill has a provision about divorce and the credibility of assessment. that would be helpful. there people who would say the basis of asylum itself needs to be re-examined. that's a separate issue. >> i yelled.

>> i had the comment that the fact that only 20% qualify for asylum means there's an abuse happening. one of the reasons it could be so low is because these people are not entitled to counsel. as i mentioned, it is very hard to meet the legal requirements. you almost cannot increase the standard, it is already so high. i believe if we gave people counsel you would see that 20% number increase, by quite a bit. i don't think the logic follows that only 20% are granted asylum

therefore there's all these abuses. having been in the system, having litigated asylum cases, i know firsthand how challenging it is and the difference it makes when he have counsel. most people who don't have an extremely different trend difficult time. i want to go back to in the issue you mention. how do you see u.s. cis determine a person's asylum claim is fraudulent. how is that assessment mean? >> the person could just be ineligible. that's different than being fraudulent. >> i want to know about the fraudulent. >> if a person says something that manifested is not conform to the facts on the ground we would determine they were lying and made a fraudulent claim. >> to we know how many were fraudulent based on that definition? >> no.

we don't have that yet but were working on. >> have numbers on how many asylum claims were denied in recent years that have led to perjury charges? >> i don't have that available. >> could you get those to me in writing? i want to touch upon the montana incident. the cdp has about a 100-mile radius jurisdiction where you can engage with someone or pull them over for reasonable suspicion, is that correct? >> roughly. >> the court through case the has given us jurisdiction to do a number of things near the immediate border. loosely defined as 100 miles. >> most of los angeles is in the because of being on the coast, correct.

>> how often would you say an officer is going to angl engageh somebody and going to question them about their status just because they're speaking spani spanish. >> were looking at a number of factors before we make a stop for someone it's roughly about 40 miles or so from the border. >> so should i advise my constituents within 40 miles of the border that they shouldn't speak spanish anymore? >> i wouldn't do that. >> what advice can you give? i speak spanish, that was my first language. it's actually an asset in this country to speak two languages.

so there's workers who seek to speak two languages. i get questions now of does this mean i shouldn't speak spanish anymore. what advice to thinks i should give them? >> a number of social engagements, i speak spanish myself. it's not something people should be concerned about if they are here illegally. >> in this case people showed id even though they didn't have to they were still detained another 35 or 40 minutes. what are some is supposed to do? you're showing your id and still being detained. >> i would like for office to do a complete review of the incident. i'm happy to come back and put in the record if it's done by then the total circumstance. >> if that happens to some are

they allowed to plot their cell phone and allowed to document that there been held. >> our agents are regularly filmed and where changing policy to allow us to use internet driven video recordings. we'll be invested in deploying a number of cameras in the workspace. some will be worn by agents. >> agents will not delete the videos, right? >> there's a policy on how we use the video on hot stored and collected. >> in summary as we wrap up come i want to thank the gentlemen for their testimony today and their service. we talked about trying to build the policy wall to secure border and trying to get people to stop taking advantage of the loopholes in the law. some that we have been working on is to raise the standard of

the initial asylum interview that happens at the border. his solo nearly everybody can make it through. the second is to hold individuals as long as it takes for them to have due process. the third is to make it inadmissible in our country for serious criminal, gang or terrorist which i cannot believe it's in part of the wall law but we have to change that. the fourth is to have a swift removal of your fear denied. the fifth is to terminate your asylum his seat if you get it if you return back to your country without any changing conditions. clearly if you're free for your life and go back to visit something is not right. the sixth, there could be a next the dishes return of unaccompanied minors so we can swiftly return them just like we can to mexico.

the last is to increase the penalties for false asylum claims to determine hold people at countable. is that a good summary of the loopholes were talking about? >> thank you. these all are in the bill. these are common sense reforms that will keep our country safe in our communities safe. i want to encourage all members on both sides of the, look at her bill, reader bill, study the bill. if you have suggested improvements them please bring them to us. we will work to get the bill to a place where we can get 218 people to vote for it. the time is urgent as someone who represents a border community is doing with public safety threats on a daily basis. as you and your agents are out there every day dealing with the

threats the time is urgent. it's not time to play politics. it's time to solve these issues. i think the gentleman for the testimony and members for their question. think doctor homan for your 34 years of service to the country. i bless you in your transition now. thank you for your service and what you have to. >> we ask you to respond to other questions in writing. the hearing record will be held open for ten days. this committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] >> watch live coverage from the

utah senate republican primary debate with mitt romney and state lawmaker from brigham young university, tuesday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span and c-span.org. listen on the free c-span radio app. make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. >> tonight, house hearing on sexual abuse of u.s. olympic athletes. the discussions about the politics of venezuela of the center for strategic and international studies. >> next, sexual abuse of olympic athletes. the acting ceo of the u.s. olympic committee apologized to athletes who are sexually abused by their coaches and doctors. she discussed reforms put in place and how it investigates sexual abuse allegations. the heads of usa gymnast