would be private. these bills create this new, sweeping authority despite existing provisions in the wire tap act that allow companies to perform monitoring to protect their systems. the administration's proposal does not contain that broad new authority. can you tell us why it does not? >> what we are looking for in part of the protection of critical infrastructure, we're looking for the code. we're looking for the fact of the attack, the methodology used, the code or signatures that were employed, so that we can then check and see whether that's being done elsewhere and also mitigate and also communicate with other companies about this type of attack so we're not looking at content. we're looking at the how. >> right. thank you. why does the administration --

well let me back up. the administration's proposal only allows a federal cyber security center to share the information it receives from private company with law enforcement authorities if the information constitutes actual evidence of a crime. in comparison, one of the senate bills allows the disclosure of information received by the federal government to law enforcement if it, quote, appears to relate to a crime. why does the administration have a heightened standard for disclosures to law enforcement? was this done to protect the civil liberties? >> right. senator, i don't know the reason for the difference in the language between those two things. i think what both are getting at is use of information for a

nonlaw enforcement purpose would not be immunized or would not be permitted, but i'd have to follow up with you on, well why the difference between the two phrases? >> okay. thank you. let's do that. i want to thank you, madame secretary, before i finish i do want to say that i agree with my colleagues who say that we need to do something about cyber security. there is no question about that. i just think we need to get the legislation right such that the bill does not unnecessarily sacrifice civil liberties. and i thank you so much for your service and for being here and for your answers. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator frank. senator sessions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. your meteoric rise to the chairmanship exceeds even senator franken's. >> mine was actually --

[ laughter ] >> that's neither here nor there. for the purposes of this hearing we have the secretary and i don't think we should squabble over that. >> we're glad to have both of you fine senators here. madame chairman, this is homeland security, a big operation. i guess it's the third largest person nel operation or second in our government. >> i think it is the third largest, yes, sir. >> third. over 200,000 people. it is cobbled together. i got to say, i was uneasy about that bill. as i recall the democrats said we should consolidate and president bush said, no. then he finally said yes. and he did it and we passed it without a whole lot of consideration in my view. so you have a lot of agencies. you've got coast guard, secret

service, tsa, all sorts of agencies with different histories, cultures, and so i know the challenge is hard. i just truly believe -- i don't think that it's completely together yet. do you agree that there is still cultural and bureaucratic efficiencies that could be obtained if focused on today? >> senator, we continue to -- we operate under the caption 1dhs and continue to excavate differences in systems and cultures and protocols and procedures. there has been a lot accomplished over the past fine years by nigh mooi two predecessors and over the past three plus years now that i've been secretary. but given the size and scope of the merger that is under way, it does take time. the department of defense took by most accounts 40 years to

really become unified as a department. my goal is to substantially beat that record. >> well, i think so. i just would say every dollar the taxpayers send us they need and have a right to expect is wisely spent. when we've got duplication, mismanagement, and competition unwisely within departments and agencies it just needs to be confronted and strong leadership. i just throw that out. i would suggest you focus on that. senator kyl raised the question of chicago and their refusal to honor detainers placed on prisoners which i find is cook county's policy at least is unacceptable. you have written letters about it. i hope you will follow through on it. they are, i believe, ontrack to obtain their secure communities moneys and program through 2013

but alabama, who has been sued by the administration, for trying to have laws that help america enforce its immigration laws, not block the enforcement of immigration laws, has had its secured communities' moneys stopped or not continued for counties that have asked for it. can you tell us where you stand on that and when can alabama expect that they would be able to have their secured fundings? >> well, as i shared with senator kyl, i believe the cook county ordinance is unwise, overbroad. we are evaluating all options there. we've been trying to work with the county to see if there is a resolution. with respect to alabama given the litigation and what was

enjoined and not enjoyed, what we did was simply to stop the expansion of secured communities to the final -- i think we've covered 75% of the foreign born population, so it is the final quarter but our plan senator was to complete implementation of secure communities nationwide bite end of 2013. >> that would include alabama? >> that would include alabama. >> well that's a problem for me and maybe i'll file some written questions to make sure we're clear about where that is heading. i'm uneasy about it. it seems to me the state was targeted because their law was not popular with the department, with the president. whereas not taking to date any firm action against cook county which clearly endangers i think the people of cook county and the country. but with regard to the visa exit

program, this is a plan that was designed and required by law in 1996. i observed it and have seen it since i've been in the senate but difficulties that have occurred we have the visa waiver plan up and working. the entry program up and working. i do not believe it's that difficult to implement an exit program. i've said that when the bush administration was in office. i'll say it again. i think reports from the government accountability office, gao, validate that and i hope that we can make some progress on it. first, you indicated earlier that you have a by graphic plan

that has some capabilities but is it not true that biometric, fingerprint, dna, or some other such system, fingerprint clearly being the most logical from my perspective, that a fingerprint or other biometric exit system is what's needed to have this system up and working? otherwise somebody could walk out with a card that has their name on it and their biographical data but there would be no way to verify the person holding that card is a person actually exiting. >> senator, let me offer to have our staff come and brief you personally. it's enhanced biographic. it's not simply a card but i will make sure that you get briefed on that. with the biometric the issue is going to be whether the congress wants to appropriate the money for whatever margin is left

after the enhanced biographic. our plan and our plan to use the enhanced biographic as a platform for that is in final clearance and we'll share that with you as well. >> well, i had a long -- a year or more intense discussion on this subject with secretary ridge and i met with international stakeholders and it went on in months and months and months. and i insisted the only system that really works based on your experience as a federal and state prosecutor as i've had that same experience, it's the fingerprints that's in every police officer's file. it's the fingerprint that's taken when a person is arrested somewhere in the united states and becomes a fugitive. and the fingerprint is the basic basis for identifying fugitives. so when he left, after refusing

to commit, he left one bit of advice. he said we should have a biographic system that should be -- biometric system that should be the fingerprint. and not to his successors. and i do believe that that's the system that works. so you -- is there any plan not to have that? >> no. what we are planning is to go in phases. the first phase is the enhanced biographic, which we are a long way toward implementing right now and then use that as a platform for the biometric. >> well, i just say that, in my view, it should have been the biometric all along you should have been working on that and we'd have had it a lot sooner than four years. otherwise when you indicate you're not going to look for people who have over stayed, then you basically are saying we don't intend to take any effort

to enforce really an entry exit system in the united states and that allows the countries that are approved for visa waiver i think to have an unfair, unlimited entry to the united states. >> senator, we have gone back and looked at visa over stays and we have racked and stacked them according to biographic information we have about the over stays, turning that information over to i.c.e., to prioritize its enforcement operations. and that work is already under way. the problem or the logistical -- the reason why there is no biometuchen-edisb biometric system is quite frankly it is not easy at exits. the lanes and ports have always been designed for entry. the architecture has never really been designed for exit so that's an issue. and cost and man power are

issues. >> maybe a briefing from your staff would be helpful to me. >> be happy to provide that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. senator blumenthal? >> thank you for your service and for your very steadfast and effective work on behalf of our national security and your words earlier on behalf of the secret service. i think all of us share your view that they do, to use your word, a marvelous job of protecting the president and many other law enforcement functions. i want to follow up on a line of questioning that senator graham began in terms of looking forward, the kinds of systems, maybe analogizing the secret service to the military that are used in that context. i wonder if you've given any thought to additional steps that can be taken to safeguard

against but also monitor the kinds of abuses that obviously occurred or allegedly occurred here. >> we are intent, senator, on doing a thorough examination. how we do it now and what we need to do to improve, to make sure this never happens again. so all of those kinds of options are on the table. >> thank you. switching to a different subject, i was recently approached by a couple, same sex couple who are married under connecticut law. one of them is a citizen of the united states. the other is not. and i wrote to you and i want to thank you for your assistance in connection with their application for a green card to be held in abeyance.

you are probably familiar with the problems that arise under these circumstances but eventually we need a solution like the uniting families in america act that can provide some longer-term solution to this problem. but i wonder whether we can establish a policy of not deporting or in other words holding green cards for same sex couples, one of whom is here, the other seeking a green card? >> senator, the legal advice we have been given is that unless and until the law is overturned by the court, and i'm talking as to doma, which we have -- the department of justice has urged be done -- but until that happens, we cannot unilaterally

give green cards based on that. what we have done, however, is when we have same sex couples, if they fall within the other criteria of our priority memo, our prosecutorial discretion memo, that allows us to intercede with removal and some of the other actions. >> i'm a strong supporter as are other members of this committee in repealing doma which would provide a comprehensive solution. i've been approached by other similar couples who have enormous contributions to make to this country. and whose families are every bit deserving of the kind of recognition that we accord to heterosexual couples. and so i hope that i can work with you on this area of trying to devise solutions in the meantime that will enable those

couples to continue to be family is here as we need and they deserve. thank you. >> yes. absolutely. >> thank you, madame secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator durbin, i'll defer to you. >> thank you. i've been trying to juggle schedules and you have been very patient waiting here. thank you for your service. i'd like to ask you a few questions about dream act, which you and i have talked about from time to time. yesterday senator schumer and i held a hearing on sb-1070 the controversial arizona law. and i talked about seven arizona residents who would qualify for the dream act but also would be the targets of the arizona law. that's beyond reasonable suspicion that they're undocumented. they have stated it publicly. all of them are either attending college or graduates of arizona state university with degrees in engineering as an example. you were asked by a bipartisan group of senators to suspend

deportations of dream act students. in spornresponse, you and the president have established a new deportation policy and under this policy as i understand it, it is a high priority to deport those who have committed serious crimes or are a threat to the public while low priority to deport individuals who have been in the united states since childhood like those eligible for the dream act. last night we received updated statistics i requested on the review of deportations that dhs is conducting under your policy. there are currently more than 300,000 pending deportation cases. of these i.c.e. has reviewed 219,554. approximately 16,544 cases, 7.5%, have been identified as eligible for administrative closure. of these cases, 2,722 or 1.2% of actually been closed. please explain the difference between the 7.5% of deportation cases eligible to be closed and the 1.2% of cases actually

closed. when do you expect the percentage of cases being closed to rise or do you expect it to rise as the review progresses? when do you expect the review to be complete? >> right. i think the difference is primarily attributable to time. you know, we have been doing this case by case review. we just started the pilots right after christmas and we've moved now to go, you know, across the country since then. so that's part of it. part of it is that as we offer administrative closure, often times the recipient of the offer will ask for time tongue about it. i think that will catch up and i think we will be closed with the case review by the end of the calendar year and then we'll see what the numbers show. >> you and i had another conversation about work authorization. this to me is a very basic issue we should discuss at this hearing. historically, as by interpretation of the department

and under previous president george w. bush, in cases where there was deferred action, these individuals were allowed to work, given individuals are offered administrative closure. and your department has taken the position that individuals whose cases are administratively closed cannot apply for work authorization. it creates a real problem. you're saying to qualified individuals they will not be deported, but they can't work to support themselves and their families. many will end up in the underground economy, which puts them at risk of exploitation and undercuts the labor market. only a few thousand people have had their deportations halted so far. i can't imagine this will have any significant impact on employment in america. i ask you, then, why we're not at least making certain that if we have deferred action or administrative closure that a person is allowed to work.

>> well, first, just to make sure we have a common understanding of the record, we have continued deferred actions and do that before the cases get into the administrative system. the administrative closure are cases that are already on the docket. and most of which are on the nondetained docket but a certain number are on the detained docket. and those are the ones we are going through, in addition to evaluating new cases, as they come in, to see that they meet the priorities that we have set. so, with respect to the work authorization, we are going back now in light of your concerns, and in light of the fact that we now have some numbers to look at, as opposed to when we started this whole process. to see if we should make some adjustments. so, i would be willing to keep you apprised of our efforts in

that regard. but i think -- i thought about your concerns after we spoke. and i thought there were concerns and we are exploring how best to address them. >> thank you, madame secretary. you and i both know the president was committed to the dream act, co-sponsored when he served in the united states senate and has made some important decisions to help these dream act students. i hope we can find a way to go further when it gives them an opportunity to work. i asked you about the program created after 9/11. arab-americans, american-muslims, south-asian americans face national origin and religious profiling. at least that was what was suggested at a recent hearing i held in the same room two weeks ago. the special registration program targeted arab and muslim visitors, requiring them to promptly register or face deportation. i called for the program to be terminated because there were serious doubts it would help to combat terrorism.

we heard testimony that terrorism experts have concluded that special registration wasted homeland security resources and ended up -- more alienating arab-americans and some muslims. more than 80,000 registers, more than 13,000 placed in deportati deportation. how many terrorists were identified by special registration? none. so last year dhs terminated all special registration requirements. however, because of special registration, many innocent arabs and muslims face deportation and barred from applying for citizenship. you issued a memo to address the situation with these individuals. it provides the individuals who failed to comply that they wouldn't be penalized if it was involuntary, intentional. or otherwise reasonably excusable. will you ensure that the standards for noncompliance with special registration are going to be applied fairly and generously? >> yes, i will. and i will make sure that ice reports to me how that is being implemented.

i visited a detention facility in my state. the tri-county dissension center deep southern illinois. i applaud i.c.e. for issuing its revised detention standards recently. i'm in the process of looking those over. i'm still concerned about some of the conditions i noted. some of them will take a deep investigation before i can say with any certainty that there are violations that need to be addressed. but there was one thing that was very basic that caught my attention. and that was lack of access to the telephone. turns out many of these people who are being detained, not charged with a crime, but being detained, are basically 200 or 300 miles away from family. it may seem like a small issue, but to these immigration detainees, it's not. currently these immigration detainees don't have the right to an appointed attorney. approximately 80% go forward without one. and basically none of them have

access to e-mail, unlike federal prisoners. and many of them are in remote facilities, like the one i visited. they repeatedly raised with me their concern of their inability to communicate with their family. they said they couldn't afford the phone calls that cost well upwards of $1 or $2 a minute that they're being charged. these are not wealthy people, you can imagine. they're very poor. we tried to use the phones, local phones, to see how they would work. and they didn't. so there was spotty service and high cost. large number of county jails with which ice contracts actually profit by taking an cut of the exorbitant fees that phone companies charge to detainees. 30 to 60% of phone call charges. my office has been working with your staff to come up with a solution. do you have any report of progress? >> not as i sit here. i will follow up. you are right to raise the concern. so let me follow up with our staff. and i will be happy to get back to you.

>> thank you. thanks for appearing today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator durbin. madame secretary, i have the honor of the last questions of the oversight hearing today. i appreciate your patience and your diligence before the committee today. i was reminded in your opening testimony how challenging your job is by the fact that you casually reference you have a daily threat brief. you supervise the third largest federal agency. you have a scope of responsibility that i think is awesome. the challenge that you and your leadership team face strike a balance between security, privacy, commerce. it's a very difficult, delicate balance. i want to start by thanking you for your service. i've known you since you were an attorney general and always have been impressed with your record of service. on the secret service scandal, if i might, there's been some suggestion in the "partner washington post" that this is

actually part of a long-standing pattern of practice. in my previous role i had the honor of supervising a local law enforcement agency and i know how devastating to morale and even to operations such incidence can be. this particular incident is very troubling. i know that there is an aggressive and far-reaching investigation under way. but have there been allegations of serious misconduct related to the office of professional responsibility in the past? and what steps, specifically, have you directed secret service director sullivan to take to ensure that this particular type of misconduct doesn't occur again? >> to my knowledge, there had been no similar-type incidents reported to the office of professional responsibility. i cannot speak to the inspector general. that's a separate department. but not as to opr. what the director is doing is

really reviewing training, supervision, going back, talking to other agents, really trying to ferret out whether this is a systemic problem. if it is, that would be a surprise to me, i must say, as someone who has been the service secretary for three-and-a-half years now. i have found the men and women i work with to be extremely professional. and the men and women i come into contact with to be extremely professional. but we want to make sure that we get to the bottom of this, that we deal strongly with the -- those who committed the misconduct and gave the report. that's already been done with quite a lot of speed. and that we ferret out any other problems. because, you know, the men and women of the secret service don't deserve to have their reputations besmirched. >> i want to commend you on how swiftly the investigation has proceeded. i want to reassert what we share, which is a conviction that it needs to be not just this incident but a far-reaching

investigation that can reassure the american public that this is not somehow an agency where this was routinely tolerated or broadly practiced, that this truly is an outlier incident. i also at the outset just want to thank you. the last time you were before us, i asked you a question about customs and border patrol and interdiction of allegedly counterfeit materials. you've just implemented a new administration policy that allows agents when they seize goods at the border that are believed to be possibly counterfeit to share that information with the rights holders. i think that's a good and strong advance. i had introduced legislation, but given how swiftly legislation is moving here, i'm glad that the administration has embraced that change in practice and policy. i want to dedicate most of our time to cyber security. i share senator franken's deep concerns about privacy and how we strike an appropriate balance. but also senator whitehouse's grave concerns that if we fail to effectively legislate this