may pose a threat to national security or public safety. however, i believe it's imperative that program as like secure communities be focused first and foremost on removing serious criminal offenders given i.c.e.'s limited enforcement resources. the program must be administers to protect community/police relations. in its september 2011 report, the task force on secure communities made important recommendations to improve the program. i wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation that i.c.e. develop good working relationships with participating state, cities, and communities, implement mechanisms to ensure the programs, prioritize those who pose a risk to public safety or national security, and most

importantly, strengthen mechanisms to prevent civil rights and civil liberties violation. in a response to the port, i.c.e. has made plans to implement several changes to the secure communities program to address the task force's recommendations. i look forward to hearing from director morton today about the status of these efforts and what additional changes we should expect. unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to describe i.c.e.'s partial risk-based approach to the removal of undocumented aliens, whether they be brought to i.c.e. through secure communities or another program as administrative amnesty. as i have said before, unless and until congress appropriates sufficient funds for i.c.e. to apprehend and remove every undocumented alien in the country, we should support the agency's efforts to focus its

limited resources on removing those undocumented aliens who pose the greatest threat to our nation. it is also worth reiterating that under current administration, under the country administration, i.c.e. has removed more criminal ail a yens and more aliens total than under the bush administration or any other prior administration, democrat or republican. with that, madam chair, i'd also, again, like to recognize director morton for the job he's doing and look forward to hearing from him. certainly he will provide this subcommittee with valuable insight in a complex issue of immigration enforcement. i yield back. >> other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements might be submitted for the record. again, our sole witness today is mr. john morton, who is the director of customs and

immigration enforcement. it's the second largest investigate agency in the federal government. the agency's primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of national laws, kcustom trade and immigration. he has strengthened i.c.e.'s efforts. the chair now recognizes director morton for his testimony. again, we welcome you to the committee, sir. >> thank you so much, madam chairman. thank you for inviting me. it's my honor and pleasure to appear before you today to talk about secure communities and other related initiatives. let me start, madam chair, by saying that i think secure communities is an excellent program and represents one of the most important efforts by the congress to focus i.c.e.'s enforcement on criminal offenders. secure communities got its start in 2008 in the appropriations

act when congress directed ice ici -- ici.c.e. to improve. congress instructed i.c.e. to identify all convicted criminals and to prioritize their identification and removal based on the severity of the alien's crimes. congress has since reiterated that direction in every single one of our subsequent appropriations and has consistently focused our resources accordingly. secure communities was launched in harris county, texas, in october of 2008. we have come a long, long way since that time. secure communities is now deployed in every state of the union and fully deployed in every state save alabama and illinois. put another way, secure communities has been deployed to 3,074 of the jurisdictions in the united states. a remarkable achievement in just under four years. i am confident we will complete

full deployment in the near future starting with the remaining jurisdictions in alabama when the 11 circuit rules on impending litigation over immigration law. for the first time in our nation's history, we can uniformly identify individuals who are here unlawfully and are subsequently arrested for a crime provided their fingerprints are on file with the fbi and dhs. this fingerprint sharing between the fbi and dhs, itself mandated by congress in 2002, now permits i.c.e. to identify large numbers of criminal offenders subject to removal as well as individuals who have been previously removed or have an outstanding final order of removal. the results have been significant, both in terms of immigration enforcement and public safety. i.c.e. has removed 58,297 individuals through secure communities so far this year alone. and over 140,000 criminals since the inception of the program as the chairman notes. this year 75% of the individuals

removed had a criminal conviction. of the remaining quarter, the overwhelming majority were either absconders, immigration fugitives, or had reentered the country after having been previously deported one or more times. contrary to what critics allegation, the largest number of people removed are aggravated felons. 17,000 to this date alone. madam chair, that's just good law enforcement. as the program has expand, we have also taken care to address concerns raised in certain jurisdictions as mr. thompson note. in particular, we have made some important improvements including considering minor traffic offenses only upon conviction, creating a 24-hour hotline for anyone who believes they are a u.s. citizen, ensuring victims and witnesses of crimes are not inadvertently placed in removal

hearings, and developing a strong oversight program in coordination with the department of homeland securities. with regard to the 287-g program, we have 68 active agreements. that number has not changed much over the years. 40 are in a jail setting. 20 involve task forces. eight involve both. the jail model continues to be the most productive by far, accounting for a little over 9,000 of the 9,500 removals this year. the task force model has proved much less productive. we are phasing out most such agreements as a result. for example, of the seven task force agreements we just ended in arizona, six of the seven had resulted in no removals of any kind for the last two years. with regard to overall enforcement, i think we'll ends the fiscal year with similar results to last year. that's about 400,000 removals. like last year, these removals

will focus heavily on our enforcement priorities. over half will have criminal convictions. the vast majority of the rest will be recent border violators and those who have ignored a final order. within our criminal removals, i think we'll see further emphasis on level one offenders. indeed, i am cautiously optimistic that this year we will remove the highest number of aggravated criminals in history. i want to thank the committee for its thoughtful bipartisan approach. i have always found the committee's oversight to have been firm but fair and the same was true when mr. cuellar was chairman himself. >> thank you very much for your testimony, director. i guess i would start off talking about secure communities. as you mentioned, it's been a successful program. that was one of the reasons we wanted to call this hearing today, to do our congressional oversight on the -- and evaluate the program, how it rolled out,

where some of the hiccups that we've encountered along the way, and really, i think highlight the successful part of this program. everything that we're doing in regards of border security is not as successful as secure communities. so i think it's good for us to amplify this message a bit about what a successful program it has been. i do think that a critical component in the makeup of why it's been successful is the engageme engagement, if, you will, the force multiplier by utilizing the state and local law enforcement. one thing we always talk about on this committee, a very critical element of the 9/11 commissions report that we never want to forget, is where they said we have to go from the need to know to the need to share. the need to know information to the need to share information amongst all the various agencies. i think that's, again, a critical component of our layered approach to border

security and law enforcement, et cetera. so as was mentioned, you have a pretty good buy in. excellent buy in, i would say, across the nation. i know in my district, the ranking member and i were just talking about in his district, our local sheriffs are very enthusiastic about this program. it allows for them to utilize technology in sharing of the frinl fingerprints and database, knowing if they pulled someone over for a routine traffic stop and they're in the database as either an overstay or illegal in the country, they're able to contact your agents and look for deportation. however, we have this situation in alabama, which sounds like it's going to resolve itself hopefully in the fall. i guess sort of the big hold out we see, although there are some municipalitie municipalities, small ones in california, the big hold out is

probably one of the largest counties in the nation, cook county, illinois, which has essentially become a sanctuary city. yet, they are still -- the community is still looking for federal dollars in grants or what have you to pay for detainees they have in their jails. but they don't want to participate in the secure communities. whether they're releasing these criminal aliens or what have you, i guess i'm looking for some response, if you will, both just to clarify the alabama situation, but particularly with the cook county situation. >> madam chairman, first with regard to alabama, i think that will be resolved, and i think we will see full deployment in mr. roger's home state. that was excellent timing. so i expect the 11th circuit to

rule fairly shortly. i think the supreme court's decision in arizona will lead us to a place where the 11th circuit will rule and we will be able to fully deploy in the remaining counties of alabama over the autumn. with regard to illinois, as you note, it's a little more of a difficult situation there. cook county, which is the largest county and has one of the largest detention systems in the country, has adopted an ordinance that essentially prohibits all cooperation with i.c.e., even with regard to very serious and violent offenders. i've written a number of public letters to the county. i'm very much opposed to their approach. i think it is the wrong way to approach public safety in cook county. i am quite confident that their approach is ultimately going to lead to additional crimes in cook county that would have been prevented had we been able to

enforce the law as the law is presently written. just to give you some sense of it, in very large jurisdictions in the united states, the rate of recidivism for criminal offenders can be as high as 50% or more. when i.c.e. can come in and remove offenders from a given community so they can't reoffend, guess what? we take that recidivism rate to zero. for example, if you have 100 criminal offenders and we're able to remove them, that's 50 crimes that will not happen over the next three years as a result of our enforcement efforts. that's ultimately the power of secure communities. it is a direct way to support public safety in a very thoughtful manner. what are we trying to do to resolve the situation in illinois? we have been working with the county to see if there isn't some solution. i won't sugar coat it. i don't think that approach is

going to work. in full, we're going to need the help of others. we have been exploring, as the secretary has said, our options under federal law with the department of justice, and we will see where that goes. then with regard to the annual request by cook county to be reimbursed for the cost of detaining individuals who are here unlawfully and have committed crimes, obviously i find that position to be completely inconsistent with them not allowing us access to and removing those very same individuals and will be taking a very hard look at their s.c.a.b. requests. that's the part of the law that allows the federal government to reimburse for those costs this year. my own position is that if we do not have access to those individuals, we will not be able to verify their request for the year. >> well, i can't tell you how delighted i am to hear you make that very candid assessment of what is happening in cook

county. as you say, exploring your options in regards to a financial assistance from the federal government. we do want to work with cook county, but there's reciprocity in all relationships. they need to work with us as well. they're not immune to federal law. if they're not going to assist us in removing not only criminal aliens but those that might go on to commit a terrorist attack or what have you because they want to have their city become a sanctuary, the federal government cannot stand by idly and allow that to happen. it's absolutely the wrong message to be sending. so i'm very appreciative of what you're saying. really exploring your options. is there anything further this subcommittee or the congress can assist you with in that particular instance? if so, we are certainly all ears because we do need to resolve that in the correct way. i think cook county is going to have to recognize that the federal government is very serious about secure communities. we can't just have one hold out

in the country for such a thing, or they really will become a magnet for all kinds of situations there. >> i would say that we're going to give it a very good effort to try to resolve the situation directly with cook county and with illinois and with the department of justice. if we can't do that, i think we would be happy to come back and explore further options with the committee. from our perspective, federal law is very clear on the question of cooperation with federal authorities and immigration. we do think that the ordinance is inconsistent with the terms of federal law and ultimately, i think we share the same aims, i would assume, with the authorities in cook county. that is public safety for the people that live there. it just does not make sense to release to the streets serious

criminal offenders who shouldn't be in the country in the first place given the rate of recidivism. >> i appreciate that. i guess i would just -- one other question i have. you were mentioning about the amount of the percentage of those through the secure communities program that have been previously removed that were picked up again. i'm looking at my notes here. i was trying to make notes while talking. 16% or something that your picking up had already been previously removed, which begs the question of the effective n ness we have on border security. are you surprised by that number? what are your thoughts on that? >> i think it highlights -- so some of the criticism of secure communities has been that it identifies and removes certain individuals prior to conviction. the answer is it does do that, but it does that in circumstances that frankly make a lot of sense from an enforcement perspective. when you look at, well, who are these people we're identifying

removing prior to conviction? they are in the overwhelming majority of cases people that have already been removed from the country and have come back again unlawfully, or they're people who have already been through the immigration system, have a final order, and ignored that final order. remember, the only way you get identified by secure communities is to have been arrested in the first place for a crime. so we're talking about people who have come into the criminal justice system and have either a final order of removal or have been previously removed. congress has been very clear with regard to both of those categories of people that their removal is a priority. so of course we focus on those two categories of people, even if they don't have a criminal conviction. it just makes sense. otherwise, we would be releasing to the streets somebody we had deported before and has come back unlawfully. it's a felony under federal law to re-enter the law after a prior deportation. i just don't think it's the

right policy for us not to focus our enforcement resources on those individuals. >> thank you, director. the chair now recognizes ranking remember mr. cuellar. >> thank you. i certainly want to congratulate you on the great work you have been doing. i think members, if you look at the activated jurisdiction document here, there's a map of it. you can see everything that's green that shows the act debated. it's 97%, which means out of the 3,181 activated jurisdictions, you have 3,174, which is pretty amazing. i ask you to look at the written testimony of the director because he does talk about the efficiency. there is the transparency part of it on it. of course, the safeguards that sheriff garcia in harris county

had talked about when we talked about it to make sure they do the work but at the same time provide that -- make sure there's no profiling involved in that. the end part is very important on that. i certainly want to thank you on that. besides alabama and besides illinois, i believe there were a couple of jurisdictions out there that have past ordinances also. i think in california, what is it, i believe california. >> santa clara. >> yes, exactly. again, to follow up on this, it makes common sense because i remember when i did the tour to make sure -- this is at the very beginning. the counties i represent, i was traveling rural areas, urban areas, especially the rural areas. they like this because if you're a small community, it's very important that you get this

help, and it was seen as a taxpayer saver. at the same time, because you're able to remove those folks out there that need to be removed, for a small local community, rural community, that means a lot. the other thing is just common sense. if you have somebody there and then they're wanted for something else, it's only common sense we coordinate the federal and state local partnership. the communication part of it, i think you all are working to make sure there's a lot more communication to the state and local level. i appreciate that. but i think you hit something very important. i think sometimes local state politicians have a way of attacking the federal government and then at the same time, they put one fist out there and the other hand out there. i don't want to point out my state of texas, but they say don't do this, don't do this, but they're waiting for the money. on the s.c.a.b. program, i think you're right. with all do respect to those

communities, i don't represent those, but they cannot say, you know, we don't want you to do secure communities but then at the same time, they're requesting federal dollars for holding those prisoners, you know, those persons in there and asking for federal dollars for reimbursement. i would ask you with all do respect to look at those communities very, very carefully because they cannot say we don't want you here. they cannot be selective in what moneys they're committing. as the chairwoman said, federal law should pre-empt what they're doing there, unless it's under article ten. we understand that. i would ask you all to look at those very carefully. i think it would be unfair to be with a fist out there saying we don't want you, but then at the same time, hand out there saying give us money for reimbursement. again, director, i don't have any questions to ask you, but i just wanted to say i think you're doing a great job. very balanced approach that you and your men are doing out there.

i really appreciate it. it's not easy. it can become a little political sometimes. it's not your job to be political, b i think you're doing this in a very transparent, very fair, very focused way to make sure that we get the people that are not supposed to be in the united states and get them out. criminals are not supposed to be here. no questions. just the comment. appreciate your good work and the men and women that work for y'all. >> thank you. >> i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognizes mr. thompson of mississippi. >> thank you very much, madam chairman. director morton, in june 2011, a memorandum between i.c.e. and dhs for civil rights and civil liberties indicated that statistical monitoring would be used to identify possible anomalies and arrest patterns under secure communities with reports at least once a quarter. what has been the result of the

statistical monitoring to date? >> you're right, mr. thompson. one of the major reforms that we undertook to ency of the progra to address concerns that somehow secure communities might inadvertently have been used to promote racial profiling was to create a statistical analysis. we teamed up with the office of civil rights and civil liberties at the department of homeland security so that it wasn't simply something that i.c.e. was doing itself. we had people who were knowledgeable and expert in this area. we actually helped them to hire a statistician. in direct response to your question, as we started the statistical analyses, we are looking at the first couple of instances in which the statistics appear to be anomalous, and we're doing a couple of things there. first and foremost, we're trying to work with the department of

justice and the civil rights division in particular to come up and use their expertise with some modelling and to understand the statistics. there can be a lot of reasons why a county has statistical spikes. some of them not necessarily related to civil rights concerns. so we're working with the civil rights division to sort of come up with a cross departmental approach because ultimately it would be the civil rights division that would investigate and prosecute anything we would refer to them. we at i.c.e. don't have civil rights investigative authority. the second thing that we're doing is were we to identify any particular jurisdiction that did have a concern, we would work with the civil rights division to engage in a direct investigation in the form of interviews on the ground

inspections. we're doing our own auditing of the program, which isn't a criminal investigation, but we go around to the various jurisdictions and audit the results ourselves. i'm happy to say that to date we have not had instance to refer something for direct investigation to the civil rights division, but we have had the first set of results that suggest there are some counties we need to do a little deeper digging to determine what's dpi going on. >> if at some point when you've moved along with the program some of us would be interested in seeing some of those reports for our review. >> i think we'd be happy to give the committee or you in particular a briefing on our results and share exactly what we found with you.

>> on a local matter, a county south of me, adams county, mississippi, where some i.c.e. detainees sometime housed -- there had been a rash of gang-related violence that led to the death of one guard and several injured. explain to me as well as committee members what kind of oversight do you give private contractors who have contracts with i.c.e.? just kind of describe what you expect of those companies like cca in this particular instance. >> several things. we have detention standards that are worked into our contract with them that they must abide

by. in many of the larger facilities that are dedicated or primarily focused on our use, we have our employees there in addition to the contractors. even those where we don't have a full-time presence, we routinely visit them. with regard to gang violence, there what we do is just as in the criminal justice system for those incarcerated, we screen for gang affiliations at intake. so we classify people based on their criminal convictions first and foremost, but we are looking for gang affiliations as well, and we do what we can to separate gang members so that we don't create an undue concentration in a particular facility. now, as you know, not everybody volunteers that they're a member of a gang and the use of tattoos is less widespread than it was in the past, but we do our very

best. >> well, i thank you. i see my time has expired, but i'd like to get with you just to further this discussion about this particular facility. >> yes, sir. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair now recognizes gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. >> thank you, madam chairman. thank you director morton for being here today. you know, there's an interesting constitutional debate raging across this country right now in the wake of the supreme court ruling on the arizona law. i bring that up because south carolina passed a very similar law. i think there will be future supreme court rulings on this, but i want to point to justice scalia's dissenting opinion. when he talks about the rights of the sovereign states and we're a nation of individual sovereign states and what rights