>> the negotiation feels this limits the number of new central fuses iran can deploy. prevents them from continuing to enrich to 20% level which they were doing in the past. but on the other hand, there's been recent analysis done by the bipartisan center on their website. they're no longer producing 20% enriched material, but their production of lower enriched 3.5% has gone up by 25%. >> right. what i've heard today on this panel -- >> the advantages or progress is substantially less than the obama administration advertised. >> what i've heard on this panel today is they've got way more than they need to have for nuclear power production. i think we're all in agreement they're moving in that direction and have been in the last 25 to 30 years, playing cat and mouse

game. do you believe the u.s./iranian agreement was detriment to the security the way it was negotiated to release sanctions at the time they did? do you think it was detrimental to do that? >> i think it was. up until the time of this agreement we said this was not permitted. >> ambassador, what do you think? [ inaudible ] >> your microphone please. >> reporting from the ie indicates iran is down blended invenn -- inventory to 20%. i think it speaks about

cooperation. what we've seen is there has been movement on the part of iran in response to relief on some of those sanctions. that's the interim type approach to it. certainly if you're sitting you're looking at something different. that's -- >> that brings me to my last question. do you feel they have a bided by the terms of the agreement? >> i don't have the particulars. according to iea, they have a much more positive report. >> if they don't a bide by that, what should we as a nation do, more sanctions, preemptive strike, prepare for the day they get a nuclear bomb? >> sanctions are big. they're having impact. >> i'm out of time. i appreciate you're time. thank you. >> we go to mr. vargus of california. mr. chairman, i want to thank you for having the meeting and also ranking member to give us

so much time. thank you. >> as many of you know, i've been critical of the interim deal. i thought it was a mistake. i believe we first should have gotten the final deal, then we should have negotiated the interim deals. in other words, we first should have made sure there was no path to getting a nuclear weapon. then we could have negotiateed interim deals. i did think the sanctions were working. i voted here to ratchet up the sanctions. i think you had to get to the choice, you want your nuclear program and militaryize as you attempt to do or function in the economy? we'll continue to press the sanctions until you didn't have function in the economy. i think that would have been the right way to go. now we're here. i think it's a very dangerous situation we're in because i think we're going to get to july 20th. for sure they're going to wanted more time. that's what we feared at the beginning. i think that's going to be the

case. then what do we do? do we say we're not going to negotiate and make ourselves look like the bad guys? it's hard to put the sanctions back on again. where do we go from there? i couldn't agree more. if it's a five year deal, ten year deal, 20 year deal, it's not a deal. that is a bad deal. this is a situation you have to make sure you force them to comply all the way out. otherwise they will simply play cat and mouse and outlast us ten years and get on with their nuclear program. where do we go from here? we're approaching this -- where do we go? >> on monitoring and verification, there's no question about it. we've talked about any time any place, access to all facilities, concern about covert facilities, concern about weaponization. these are things that need to be drilled down and pursued indefinitely.

>> right. i believe we're going to get to the six month. assume we get there and they want more time. at that point, what do we do? >> i think it's pretty clear that if we reach the six month point without having reached agreement on the comprehensive solution there will be a six month solution. the gpa at one point says it will take up to a year to negotiate this. even in drafting, they were anticipating the six month extension. i did want to pick up on one thing you said. you said you think the right thing would have been to negotiate the final agreement and come back and fill in the details. you know, it pains me to say this, but i think in fact that's what they did. gpa does specify the final agreement. the final agreement is that -- i read it earlier. the final agreement is that upon the expiration of the

comprehensive solution u the iranian nuclear program will be treated as any non nuclear state. the end final state is no sanctions, no restrictions on their ability to do whatever they want in the nuclear area. no ordinary safeguards. >> if i could interrupt for a second. i meant the issue of having enrichment program. any type to reach the ability -- >> that's there. >> i know what you're saying. i'm not disagreeing with you. i think in the final agreement what i would say is that if you're going to allow any kind of nuclear power program, it had to be one that was so tight there was no way around it that you had to have the fuel coming from somewhere else, monitored closely to have unfeathered access to their country where they could be hiding things. that's the deal i mean. personally i've been very

critical. i think people associated with this deal were good hearted and attempted to associate with a western type of nation and found out that's not who they're negotiating with. it was naive. mr. lauder, can i have you comment on that? >> i think it stands where negotiations continue. i agree with ambassador on this respect. to use that time to push even harder to expand the monitoring provisions that iran needs to undertake. iran is different. they have violated international norms over an extended period of time. they have not been in compliance with international agreement. it is reasonable then to expect that iran should need to undertake additional -- need additional monitoring provisions to build confidence in the international community that they are changing their path.

>> thank you. my time has expired. i want to say i think iran is north korea. i believe if they get a nuclear weapon, they'll also threaten to bomb los angeles or where else. unfortunately i think they might have the nerve to do it. thank you. >> we go to mr. george holding of north carolina. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think we all agree if the obama administration is able to craft a final agreement with a ran, it would be a foreign policy win in the eyes of administration. a foreign policy win and political win. true li in the environment administration that's accolades. my concern is if they achieve what they consider a win that they'll lack the political will to risk tarnishing that win by

calling out a violation that we find subsequently. my question i'm going to run down the line and have each of y'all respond to this. what internal controls are there there? a red team so to speak, that would insure that the politics of trying to salvage this foreign policy win don't trump good sense in the white house as far as calling out a violation? take 30 seconds and let's go down. by the time everyone has done that, i'll be out of time. >> i honestly don't know what sort of checks there might be in the administration. every president can structure decision making on foreign policy in his administration the way he sees fit. i'd like to think there are people at the defense department that are vigilant, people in the intelligence community drawing attention to problems.

i don't know. the ultimate red team is united states congress. this committee -- >> perhaps that might have been helpful when the president was considering exchanging bergdahl for five taliban terrorists. >> i think they're promised that in the gpa. i don't think the president has the authority unilaterally to get rid of all sanctions. he has waivers, ability not to enforce certain laws. i think at the end of the day, there's things only the congress can do. for them to fulfill their commitments toiranians in the negotiation o they're going to needs this congress to pass legislation. that will afford you an opportunity to pass judgment on the entire arrangement. for that reason, you know, i

think it would make the administration consult closely with you now that you were prepared to accept -- >> indeed. >> i don't know if that's happening. ultimately they need to persuade you they've struck a deal. if there's details you're not happy with, it's better you let them know that now rather than after they promise the iranians things. >> i agree perhaps the most effective red team for this will be the u.s. congress. you will have the opportunity i'm presuming to say this as an outsider. this is not a treaty. you will have the functional equivalent of a resolution of ratification when you deal with sanctions questions. that is an opportunity to express the congress' views about the types of capabilities for monitoring nurturing in the u.s. government and funded in

the u.s. government. and you could ask for a periodic compliance report to extend to which iran is complying with the agreement and what types of anomalies are detected. what has been done to resolve that. they ask for both a periodic unclassified and classified report. that certainly has been a feature of other agreements in the past. i didn't used to like them when i was in the executive branch. it was a lot of work that led to a lot of internal debate. i think it's something to make sure the iranians understand their compliance is going to be important to the united states across all branches. >> thank you. >> thank you. i agree with mr. lauder. i think the best red team is actually public opinion that you make the deal open and open compliance reports so some may be classified.

this is important not only to the security of the united states of america but regional security. this sets a benchmark how we're going to deal for example in the future with north korea. this will have a lot of ramifications. they don't end up here. >> mr. ambassador a few seconds. >> i believe the ground frotroo will be the monitors in the field. i believe it will be insiders with unique insight. i think a strong case will be made they can speak to compliance issues. if iran is cheating and so forth, i don't think anybody is going to conceal that aspect to it. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. we thank witnesses for testimony today. you've given us a lot to consider today as the administration continues to investigate. i'm troubled that this agreement puts iran on the path for

nuclear pe rooi to nuclear partner. i don't think any committee is comfortable given the supreme leader's comments in may in particular about expectations we might try to limit their ballistic missile program. i quoted earlier he said it was a stupid idiotic expectation. i didn't give you the rest of his quote which to me is very revealing. he said the revolutionary guards should definitely carry out their program and not be satisfied with the present level. they should mass produce ballistic missiles. he said this is the main duty of all military officials. he's not referring to a space program here. when you combine that with a call for the head of the iran's atomic energy organization to

add 30,000 center fuses last month to iran's existing thousands, ignoring what their leader is saying on this subject as they move forward with their program is very concerning to me. i especially wanted to thank mr. angle and the other members of this committee and our witnesses for the chance today to take a good, hard look at the ongoing negotiations. thank you all very much. we stand adjourned.

the annual radio and congressional correspondents dinner tonight with white house chief of staff mcdonough and nick otterman. our live coverage gets underway at 9:00 p.m. eastern. hillary clinton recounts her ten year as secretary of state from a recently published memoir "hard choices" live tomorrow 6:00 p.m. eastern on cspan 2. this saturday we'll have live coverage of the iowa state republican party convention that's happening in des moines. speakers include louisiana governor bobby jindal, rand paul and rick santorum. that starts 11:00 a.m. eastern on cspan. cspan's new book, sundays at

eighth includes huffington post correspondent david wood. >> there's something that drives them to this ideal of service and the -- it's like so many people i know who served in war that the intensity and experience, the intensity of the relationships they had with their combat buddies are so strong and so pure and true that they looked back on those times with longing. so i'd always ask them, do you wish this had never happened? they're like, i'd do it again in a heartbeat. i think there's something else that goes on there too. it is that going through a near

death experience somehow steeem to give them so much strength and courage and optimism that i think that's one reason they would do it again. >> read more of our conversation with david wood and other featured interviews from our book notes and programs. now available for a father's day gift at your favorite book seller. now homeland security secretary jay johnson testifies before the senate judiciary committee. he calls the children crossing the the border a problem of quote humanitarian proportions. this is secretary johnson's first appearance before the committee since being confirmed.

>> i welcome jay johnson today to the judiciary committee for his first hearing. the record we're starting late we had a roll call vote on the floor. both senator grass and i want to accommodate members here. for the past seven months, secretary johnson has led an agency that plays a vital role in providing disaster relief, insuring security. department of homeland security has primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing our nation's immigration laws, something the secretary has acknowledged is broken. one year ago, this committee came together after weeks of

exhausted deliberations. all day into the evening, day after day, we passed bipartisan legislation to fix the broken immigration system. we then had major debate on the floor of the senate. we passed it in the senate with a bipartisan majority. it would unite families, spur the economy as everybody from grover norcross on said it would give a huge boost to our economy and help protect our borders. we knew the last year cost of inaction was too great. members of this committee passed legislation and created a system worthy of american values. unfortunately the house of leadership refused to act. last we're senators reached across the aisle, worked together on meaningful legislation. all we've seen from the house republican leadership shifting

princeles and repeated postponements. i think that's a mistake. leaders came together in the senate, they ought to be able to do the same in the house. i don't think it's helped the republican party but also hasn't helped the country. that should be important to any party. everyday the house fails to act is another day families are fortune apart. our economy lags. every day the house fails to t act, we do nothing to fix our immigration system. we see photographs of children seeking a better life housed in facilities at border this. morning's news showed pictures of that. pictures are shocking, so are numbers. 6560 unaccompanied children crossed the border. some younger than my youngest grandchildren. numbers are now skyrocketed. in the last seven months, 50,000 children have been apprehended.

that number will likely double for the end of 2014. it's more children than all the people in the city of my state of vermont. president obama has called this an urgent humanitarian situation and i agree. our reports indicate the flow is overwhelming the responsible for these children. the senate passed immigration bill would help address this issue. people want to address it. house should take that up immediately. i'm deeply concerned the treatment of other detainees especially those sexually assaulted while in custody. when congress passed the violence against women reauthorization act last year, it included a provision designed to prevent sexual violence at

facilities. i thank the department for reissuing compliance legislations. i look forward to changes to stop the abuse. i'm troubled by reports of border agents using the use of deadly force. agents have responded with deadly force 43 times resulting in ten deaths, one who received a death sentence, jose, rodriguez, a 16-year-old boy shot multiple times including in the back of his head. he shouldn't have thrown a rock, but he shouldn't have been shot. 20 months later the investigation is showing the boy's death is still without resolution. the border patrol's recent release of hand book and personnel should respond to threats. we need more transparency and

timely resolution so families involved can have closure. agents can have better training. our broken immigration system has economic costs. because of the job creation in vermont and other states, senator sessions joins me on that. it's done with no cost to american taxpayers. absence can make this program personal permanent. this uncertainty could slow down the program's growth. i urge the eb 5 applications. the status quo is not an option. it's not sustainable for our families, for our economy, for

our national security. humanitarian crisis we face is the latest reminder of why house republicans must act as we did in the senate a year ago. democrats and republicans came together to fix our broken system. we waited too long. there's still a window of time. republican leadership and the house can join us in this important event, effort. i look forward to discussion with secretary johnson. . >> secretary johnson i appreciate your being here. hearings like this are essential to congress's oversight of the executive branch. you have committed secretary johnson to cooperating with congress. i appreciate that. i know you've instructed your staff to respond to every letter in a timely manner. there's some letters that are older than before you become secretary that the department still hasn't responded to. of course the fact those weren't

responded to isn't your fault. maybe you can do what you can to speed up what other secretaries haven't done. so many times answers are not responses so it's especially nice to have you here today to provide answers on issues we all care about. two weeks ago the house judiciary committee asked you mr. secretary to explain why the department released more than 36,000 convicted criminal aliens from custody in the year 2013. at that time you didn't have an answer saying that you wanted quote a deeper understanding of this issue. i look forward to hearing today what you have learned on those issues in the last two weeks because releasing 36,000 people with criminal convictions is no small matter. these individuals have been convicted of homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping.

they're many drunk drivers and drug offenders. they're now free roaming our streets. the administration cannot hide behind the release of individuals due to court order. although that might be true in some cases. in many cases the decision to release was entirely voluntary. the department needs to explain those decisions in specific cases and detail. i'm also concerned that the president believes he can and should act on his own when he doesn't get his way with congress. he said -- you've heard this quote. i've got a pen and i've got a phone. for example 2012 congress was not consulted about deferring action on individuals. they made their own rules. this has proven to be a loophole for mischief. the secretary announced a renewal of the program and weakened it.

for example the administration gutted the requirement and made the process easier to reapply by eliminating any need to provide evidence. what's alarming is the department confirmed it does not check the documents presented by applicants. when applications seem to be rubber stamped and lawful status is so easily obtained it's no wonder there's been a surge of alien miners at borders. the number of miners coming to our country has climbed from 6,000 in 2011 to expected 145,000 next year. some are calling it a humanitarian crisis. quite frankly it is. these of course are vulnerable children. they're being guided through desserted areas of joining countries with their lives on the line. they're escorted with strangers

away from family in some cases not knowing what lies ahead. there's massive potential for children to be abused. if the administration doesn't do its due diligence to verify the relative or parental relationship to children, these children could be put in the hands of pimps. they are lured by false promises. the administration has refused to be serious about immigration reform. it's got a policy of just get to the answer yes. that's a philosophy that has sent a signal that every one has a chance of getting immigration benefits even if you have to break the law to get them. the administration is finding ways to get around the rules implementing many recommendat n recommendations in the internal 2010 and amnesty memo that was leaked. this is a disaster made by the

administration and only the president can correct it by sending signals that these people should not be brought here. and that the law is going to be enforced. in other words, the president must take responsibility. unfortunately the administration does not seem to be prepared. it has failed to propose solutions to prevent children from being put in this situation in the future. let me suggest for starters. the president needs to send a signal the law will be enforced and people will unlawful status will be returned to their home country. instead of reviewing deportation policies and suggesting ways to remove fewer people, i suggest the president ask you secretary johnson finding ways to actually enforce the laws we have on the book. what is ironic, they've taken action on matters and refuses to

improve security on several programs. let me give you an example. holder versus martinez paved the way for former gang members here illegally to argue their status as a former gang member entitles them to remain in the united states. this would open the door to violent gang members renouncing their membership in order to just stay here. the department justice didn't appeal the ruling. i hope that you secretary johnson would give us your opinion on it and maybe even suggest that it be appealed. the new exemption to immigration laws announced by the secretary in january are also very concerning. these allow foreign nationals who have provided, quote, limited material support to terrorists and terrorists organizations that these people could in fact find asylum in the

united states. we shouldn't be relaxing laws to prevent anyone with connection to terrorism to live here. especially when it's reported up to 70% of them show signs of fraud. i don't have confidence of our government's ability to effectively carry this out. in addition to the department's management failures in administering chemical facility, anti-terrorist program, intended to regulate standards for purposes are well documented. i've done that in previous hearings. some welcome problem has been made recently. i'm concerned the program is not functions effectively. the department is far behind in meeting deadlines. operational practice training created by executive branch regulation provides foreign students to obtain work in major areas of study during and after completing academic programming.

in 2014 the government accountability office found extensive alarming mismanagement of the program a. the department doesn't know where thousands to individuals are working or whether they're working at awe. given the risk foreign students have proposed to our homeland i consider this a serious matter. so i ask secretary johnson to place a moratorium on the program until he can show all have been located. two other issues shortly. one is eb 5 regional investment program. that's as you know a based immigration program designed to stimulate job creation through foreign capital a investment. we are told this program is used to facilitate terrorist travel, espionage, money laundering and fraud. the inspector general said it

cannot manage the eb 5 program effective effectively. the program needs overhaul and attention from the administration before the vulnerabilities have a devastating effect on the homeland. finally, i want to comment on the use of drones. the use of drone technology holds great promise for securing our borders. the department of homeland security should be as transparent as possible about how itse intends to use drones. it was reported a document apparently made public through requests suggested that the customs and border protection might arm drones with non lethal weapons. that sub agency reported issuing a statement shortly thereafter disclaiming such. if that's the case, why would the document say that? i yield the floor.

>> mr. secretary, your full statement will be placed in the record as though read. before we came in here, you mentioned to me -- you wanted to talk about what is happening on the border. consider your full statement part of the record. please, the floor is yours. >> thank you senator. senator grassly, members of this committee. you have my prepared statement. in it i referred to various mentions of dhs including the counter terrorism mission, border security, cyber security, marry thyme security, response to national disasters, protection of our national leadership among other things. in the five minutes i have, i'd like to focus on the problem of children crossing our southwest border, in particular into south texas and the rio grand valley

sector. chairman, as you noted the numbers are rising from 2011 there were approximately 6,000 that year. this year there will be multiples of that. this core lates with an overall rise in illegal migration into the rio grand valley sector prince princeab principlely from nationallies guatemala, el salvador. to meet this surge, we have surge resources normally dedicated to things such as border security. i saw situation vividly myself. it happened to be sunday, mother's day. i approached a 10-year-old girl and asked her, where's your

mother? she told me i don't have a mother. i'm looking for my father in the united states. i returned to washington the next day determined to do something about this situation. undeniably there's a problem of humanitarian proportions in the rio valley sector. here's what we're doing about it. number one, monday may 12th i declared a level four condition of readiness in the homeland security which is a determination that the capacity of cbp to deal with the situation is full. we need other resources of dhs. i appointed the deputy chief of the border patrol to be the dhs coordinator of that effort for a dhs wide response to this situation. on june 1st, the president pursuant to the homeland

security act directed me to establish a unified coordination group to bring to bear assets of the entire federal government. this includes dhs is and all components,hhs, department of defense, gsa and state department. i have in turn appointed the fema administrator to serve as the federal official for this u.s. government wide effort. our goal is to quickly and safely transport the unaccompanied children out of custody into the hands of hhs supplementing this process all along the way in a safe and humane manner into ultimately a safe and secure environment that is in the best interest of the child pursuant to the requirements of the law. fema has dedicated 70 people full time to coordinating this

effort. we're looking for more space for processing and detention. the department of defense has loaned us lack land air base in texas for hhs to process kids. we're leasing fort seal in oklahoma for the same purpose. we've gone to a dod facility in ventura, california to deal with processing of the influx of people into south texas. we've had to go beyond the station. we've had to go to arizona as senator flake knows. we were additional sending family units to there for processing and on into the interior if they are released. we are now sending children, uac's to arizona. as i explained to governor brewer saturday night, i pledge to deal with this situation as best i can and manage the situation as best i can.

as of now, we're sending uac's unaccompanied children to arizona for processing and then on to hhs. they're not being released into arizona. gsa is looking for other space to lease to deal with family units to deal with the children. to deal with the processing of these kids. we brought on more transportation assets. the coast guard at my direction is loaning air assets to transporting children from dhs to hhs custody and from one facility to another to deal with this situation. ice is listing more aircraft. five, we're doing a preliminary screening for health reasons of all those that come to our facilities in texas.

the houcoast guard is lending. we called on charity organizations to assist in this effort. the american red cross, i've had conversations with directly u. at our request, they're providing humanitarian needs for the situation. i'd like to give a shout out to texas baptist men who provided shower towers in texas. immigration judges give faster removal proceedings. in addition to all this, we know we must do something to stem this tide. we've been in contact. i've done this personally with ambassadors and other officials of all four countries. guatemala, el salvador, honduras and mexico. i plan to go to guatemala myself in july to deal with this situation. we have renicinitiated our publ

affairs in english and spanish on radio and tv to talk about the dangers of sending your kids over the borders and putting your kids in the hands of smuggling organizations. we've surged criminal investigator resources. in hsi and cbp for the prosecution of smugle er those that smuggle the kids n. may 2014, there were arrests on the border. i've conducted a 90 day surge to 60 personnel in offices in san antonio and how ton to work with doj to wrap up prosecutions of smugglers. i developed a plan in may to deal with the border calling on ooul assets of the department of homeland security in a coordinated way to address our border security in the southwest border and to fill the gaps if

necessary to call upon other departments of our government to assist. i've asked we consider all lawful options to deal with this situation. if there are options i want to hear about them. finally, members of this committee and senate, we need your help. we've had through omb for additional $166 million in fy 15 to deal with this situation. i know hhs is also asking for additional funding. i'm providing daily reports to my interagency partners. i'm receiving daily reports on this. yesterday we began briefing members of congress and staffs in congress calls three times a week. i'm told yesterday in our call we had 300 call-ins from on the hill to keep you informed. we can and must address this

situation. thank you. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that because you know this is an area we're greatly concerned about. incidentally i'd like to take a moment to recognize our special guests with us today. normally we don't do this. i want the record to show we have families who have been personally impacted by deportations. some are directly impacted by cbp use of force. i appreciate those. please feel free to stand and the record will note you are here. thank you very much. mr. secretary, it's been a year since the senate passed the comprehensive bill. i mentioned the work we went through. we were here some nights 9:00 and 10:00 at night.

i remember the excitement when we finally passed it out of here. i was on the west coast in oregon at a farm community. i went to a church that had hundreds and hundreds of spanish speaking people who said they had watched every bit of this he hearing. they had seem because we streamed it and cspan carried it. and they would watch it at night on a big screen in the church auditorium. one of the hundreds of people in this church said to me, do you remember when the gavel came down and final vote, the number of people stood up in the back of the room and shouted? i said yes that meant a great deal to me. i said yes. the whole congregation stood up and repeated that.

personally it would be more gratifying if we actually get the bill through. democrats work together to get it through the senate. we passed it. we passed it in the senate. but now we need real pressure from the administration on the other body. i discourage right here the press saying immigration is dead. that's easy to say if you're at a job where you're paid every week, whether in the media or anything else. if you're a family looking for immigration reform, it's not easy to hear. can you tell us why it's so imperative the house of representatives take up the bipartisan senate bill and start voting on it? >> you noted it's my belief our

current system is broken and totally unsatisfactory for reasons i think almost everybody in this room can agree. as i look furtherer and further into the system, i find more and more problems. we have 11.5 million undocumented in this country who are not going away. they're not going to self-deport. in many states they can have driver's licenses. in the state of california the supreme court says an undocumented immigrant can practice law. i don't think they're going away, going to self-deport and i don't think we have the resources to deport 11.5 undocumented. in fact i know we don't. and the bill passed by the senate last year, by a vote of 68-32 addresses the problems we have in a number of respects. added border security, added

personnel, added resources which is something i believe we need very much. particularly on the southwest border. mandatory e verify. some people brand that amnesty. i do not. it requires an expensive requirement, paying penalties and taxes. it requires a 13 year wait to get online behind those who are already online. i believe it's an excellent piece of legislation. it's obviously the product of a lot of compromises and very hard work. i believe that the bill that was passed by the senate last year will go a very long way to adding to our border security and fixing our system. i'm continuing to urge the house

of representatives to pass comprehensive reform, whether in one bill or a series of bills. we really need to act on this. i remain optimistic that we will. >> this country to its credit has responded to humanitarian crisises around the world. whether tsunamis in the pacifics, earthquakes in haiti and so on. we have humanitarian crisis here in the united states. i mentioned seeing children that are the age of my grandchildren when they go to grade school. they are walking to school, living in a nice secure home and all. yet we see these children holding each other's hands,

coming by themselves, whether from el salvador or where else to cross the border. they're risking everything on this journey. some don't make it alive. some have suggested to the administration that the proposal is driving the crisis. i don't agree. i think it's the fact that we in the congress haven't broken, haven't fixed a broken immigration system. i feel very strongly about this. i live in a border state and i realize it is entirely different than a northern border. i'm an american first and foremost. i think this is the america that brought my grandparents here from italy. i wonder what we're doing. what do you believe is driving this huge rise in these children

crossing the border? senator, i believe that the situation is motivated primarily by the conditions in the countries that they're leaving. el salvador, honduras, guatemala. violence, poverty, i believe that is principally what is motivating the situation. i suspect also that the parents are aware that under our current law, once they're in the hands of cbp they are -- we are required to give them to hhs and hhs is required to do what is in the best interest of the child. i believe what is motivating this principally is what is going on in the countries they are leaving. >> they're doing what is best for the children but the facilities they're being

detained in outside observers haven't been able to look at those facilities you understand. ngos and others. i urge you to allow others to go in and look at these facilities or frankly we'll come down and look at them. i think it should be done. >> i've been to mcgowan once. i'm going back again next week. aim going to a detention facility outside chicago day after tomorrow. it's something i care about. >> i appreciate that. i know you do. but let's make them more open, what is going on, and my last question i referred to the excessive use of force a teenager shot several times because he threw a rock. nobody justifies throwing the rock but nobody justifies a

death sentence for throwing a rock. are you taking steps to ensure there is proper training? and proper action when excessive force is used? >> senator i know from my days as the senior lawyer for the department of defense that whether it's a law enforcement entity or a military force, if excessive use of force occurs, it threatens to undermine the entire mission and the credibility of the entire mission so i have encouraged cbp to be more transparent when it comes to its use of force policies and they have. i have encouraged them to more explicitly deal in the use of force policies with rock throwing and situations where the officer is threatened by a

vehicle. they have rewritten those policies. i applaud the commissioner's efforts at greater transparencies and the personnel changes he is making in internal affairs in cbp. >> we can discuss this further. senator grassley. >> mr. secretary, i'm going to start with the documents from your department that reveal that i.c.e. released about 36,000 convicted criminals awaiting deportation, 116 of those convicted of homicide, with a total of 193 homicide convictions among that 116 people. one conviction even included willfully killing a public official with a gun. i.c.e. claims the court decisions required the release of criminals convicted of 72% of the homicides. i've asked for evidence to prove

that. but that means by its own admission the department voluntarily set free an untold number of murderers. i would like to know how that happened and have you made any effort to relocate them? >> senator, i received a letter from you on monday on this topic which i intend to respond to promptly. i received a number of letters from members of congress on this and we've responded. you are correct that a number of these are the result from orders from immigration judges. i believe you noted that in your opening remarks. it is also the case that a large number of these releases are after final orders of deportation and we've gone beyond six months of detention. and the supreme court precedent requires with exceptional circumstances that we release an individual if after six months

it does not appear we can repatriate the individual pursuant to a case called zabadas vs. davis 2001. you are also correct a number of releases are at the discretion of i.c.e. officers, pursuant to conditions of release that are intended to secure their return. now, i've asked for greater clarity on the numbers particularly appearing to be released after a homicide conviction, i'd like to understand the situation under which that refers particularly the case you referred to of the killing of a public official with a gun. i'm waiting for an answer on that. i've asked our people to do two things, senator. one, i want to be sure we are construing the supreme court precedent properly. there is an exception in the rule for extraordinary circumstances of national security, public safety.

i want to be sure we're not construing that too narrowly and in the case of a convicted felon convicted of a homicide i want to understand why that doesn't fit the exception. i've asked our lawyers to take a close look to see whether we are reading the case properly. i also want greater clarity with regard to the approval and review processes for releasing these individuals and possibly elevate the approval level for releasing a convicted felon pursuant to conditions. so it's something i'm very focused on. i agree with your concerns and i'll be responding to your letter with greater detail, sir. >> okay. then i'll go to more specifically in this area with regard to the 36,000 aliens released the administration uses the excuse that many individuals

were released according to court order. i would like you to provide me with data on the recalcitrant countries by the end of the week if you would why they won't take them. when you testified on the house side you said you were nota ware how many times your department has asked the department of state to use its visa denial authority. so i'd like to have you tell me if you can right now if you have any plan to recommend senator carey deny visa countries that refuse to cooperate. the reason i ask that question is it seems like in the case of guyana when we use that tool, that they accepted 115 out of 116 people that we wanted them to take back. it seemed to me to be quite a tool. >> i'm aware of the case of

guyana from 2001. i agree it was effective in that instance. i've asked our staff to take a look at whether we should do more of this. >> well, when you reach a decision with your staff on that point would you tell us in writing please. >> yes, sir. >> i hope you'll make a quick decision because i think this is something that we need to work on to get these countries to take these people back. then, also, you brought up the zabida case and i only suggest to you it probably needs a legislative fix. i don't have a legislative fix to present to me but would you see that as something that you could look at as a way of narrowing the impact of that case? i'm glad to hear you're reviewing it and there may be wider use than is appropriate. but i think the legislative fix

is necessary. >> senator, it's my understanding that the case concerns a construction of the constitution so i don't know whether a legislative fix is appropriate. but i think looking at legislation is worth while. when i read the case, i was struck by the fact that there might be room for greater exception for detaining people who are true threats to public safety. i'm interested in having our lawyers be sure we're interpreting it properly. i'd be willing to think about legislation, sir. >> yeah. this will be my last question because i will go over the equal time i have with the chairman. the crisis along the border, this is in regard to unaccompanied children, the crisis along the border involving these minors i think, and you would probably disagree with this, but can be attributed to the president's policies.

you recently said, quote, we have to avoid practices and policies that operate as magnets for further illegal migration end of quote. i understand that there are a variety of reasons people come to this country, family, finding work, obviously wanting a better life. it's clear to me and agents interviewing these children that the surge is partly due to the promises of immigration reform and administrative amnesty so while i applaud the administration's efforts in working together to find food and clothing and shelter for these children no one has presented a long-term solution and i take into consideration the contacts you said you have made or are going to make. but if you're releasing tens of thousands of individuals each year, how will anybody in a foreign country think we are serious about enforcing the laws? i won't go into detail because i don't have time but we have a

summary of some questionnaires and interviews that were made with about 230 people, and you quickly draw the conclusion from this memorandum from your department that doesn't have an official seal that people are coming here because they think we passed a new law and they want to take advantage of it. >> well, first of all, those apprehended at the border are priorities for removal. if you are a recent arrival you are a priority removal. that's one. the legislation being contemplated provides for an earned path to citizenship only for those who arrived in this country before the end of 2011 so would not provide it for somebody who came here yesterday. >> that is the propaganda going out. >> that doesn't square with the reality of the legislation.

>> well, what we could do if we want to solve the problem is have the house pass the legislation we passed and that would settle it and people would know where we are. i'll turn the gavel over to senator feinstein but i'll leave you in writing two questions, one about the staffing of the northern border especially as it impacts the state of vermont where it's slowing commerce, the lack of staff is really slowing commerce and hurting us. and also ab 5. i would appreciate it if you or your office could give me a response on that this week. >> we will do so. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me begin by saying, congratulations on taking forceful action. i'm really impressed with your initiative. i support everything you've done. i became involved in this issue in 2008 while on television, on

television i saw a young chinese girl. i think she was 14. chained before a judge, tears rolling down her face, a survivor of one of the container episodes where people came across the pacific in a container. she couldn't speak the language. she had no resources. her parents were dead. i got involved in the issue and authored the unaccompanied alien child act, which president bush sign signed. it became the law. then some changes were made which moved the children into hhs and office of refugee resettlement. but i've never seen anything like this. i was just looking at the statisti statistics, and here's the problem. it's honduras, guatemala, and el salvador. and honduras from '09 to '14 the

increase is 1,272%. guatemala, same time, the increase is 930%. and el salvador, it's 707%. unaccompanied aliens under the age of 17 from mexico have actually dropped 28%. so this appears to me to be very much a scentral american proble. if you look at where they're coming across, that changes it. of course the biggest change is in the rio grande where we have 33,470 minors coming into this country that way. this is a real heart break and if i were the president of el salvador or guatemala or honduras i wouldn't stand by and

see this happen. you mentioned that you met with your ambassadors. is there not something that those countries are willing to do, a, to provide some protective ability to the very poor families, some food? because as i understand this these are parents who can't provide for their children and see their children's best opportunity to live and remain unmolested as taking what must be a horrendous journey. probably for the most part handled by coyotes. the question i have of you, mr. secretary, what was the response of the ambassadors with whom you spoke? >> well, the response is, they -- all of the right things. but the followup is going to be key. that's why i think sustained

engagement with the senior levels of their governments is key. i called all four ambassadors monday morning after i came back from texas and they all said the right things and pledged assistance to this. but sustained, continued involvement, they've sent consulate resources to texas to help us repatriate some of these kids, so they've devoted their consulate personnel on the border but you're right. we have to deal with the underlying issues in their countries which is obviously a big undertaking on their part and we have to engage on this with them because there is no other way. i think a key to this, also, is the mexican/guatemala border which is the choke point. our southwest border is 2300 miles long. their southern border is 130 miles long. through which almost all of these kids are passing. so with the cooperation of the

mexicans and guatemalans if we can help with greater border security along that border, i think this will go a long way. that is one reason i'm going to guatemala next month. >> i'm going to write a letter and anyone who would like to join me to the presidents of these countries and just give them the statistics and indicate our great interest in this issue. we can provide -- senator flake has a huge facility in his state in arizona, one is about to open in ventura in california. i have two people there today. we've alerted your staff to take a look at the facility. but i am really concerned. this is the beginning of an epidemic. and unless safety is restored to these home states, and poverty is alleviated to some extent, i see it continuing because it's hopeless for children.

i would hope people out there, i see a collar of the catholic church, others would really pay attention to this. i'm certainly willing to be helpful. we can work with the unaccompanied minors act. we can make some changes i suppose. but it doesn't solve the basic problem. and so i would ask any member that would like to join with me in a letter to the presidents of these countries and say, what are you prepared to do? i mean, the embarrassment must be enormous. do you have any specific actions that these countries might take? that we would work to convince them to take? >> i'd be happy to work with you on suggestions for such a communication, senator. there are a number of things we are contemplating asking of them but i'd be happy to work with

you on those. >> good. thank you. >> i'd also like to add that we've gotten i think terrific offers of help from faith based organizations who are concerned about the situation in texas and that's been a terrific response. thank you. senator grassley? >> before senator hatch i'd like to put in the record that interviews that i spoke about in my last question to the secretary -- >> no problem. so ordered. thank you. senator hatch? >> well thank you, madame. i appreciate you and all the difficulties in putting these matters together. i still remember resolving the agricultural component of the senate bill in your office under your direction. it was a very good job by you. mr. secretary, i appreciate this

is a tough job and if anybody can do this right i hope with all my heart that you can. it's also an impossible job in some ways because of the failure to -- the failure of congress to do what really needs to be done here. even then it's going to take a lot of effort on about everybody's part to resolve these problems. i share the concerns raised by senator grassley about the alarming increase in the number of unaccompanied alien children along the southwest borders. the administration is calling this a humanitarian situation, but in my view the administration's own unilateral actions and permissive approach to immigration enforcement have created this problem. i'm concerned because i think the administration has been irresponsible in this regard. let me just say this. in april u.s. citizenship and immigration services confirmed

for the second year in a row that the h 1 b visa quota was reached within the first five days. we tried to solve that in the senate bill or at least make strides to solve it. preserving jobs for american workers is important but a recent study by the partnership for a new american economy shows that the h 1 b visa cap actually hurts u.s. jobs growth. our time is limited this morning so i appreciate maybe some brief responses to what questions i am able to ask. i know you agree that we need to solve the visa problem and we need to solve that too or at least i hope you agree with me. if you don't we'll have some real talk together. >> i -- >> senator hatch, before the secretary answers your question, i have a french intelligence delegation waiting, and i'm going to ask senator whitehouse

to take over and give him the list. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. the secure communities program is designed to locate, take custody of, and remove criminal aliens. this important program could be rendered useless if local law enforcement officials fail to turn them over to i.c.e. officials. federal immigration regarding detainers is increasing. these are the official notices from i.c.e. that the agency intends to take custody of an individual from a local law enforcement agency. now, that litigation is unraveling the cooperation between i.c.e. and the state and local law enforcement agencies. now, do you believe that i.c.e. detainers should be honored by local law enforcement agencies, and if not, how would you keep

the secure program effective? >> i have a lot of thoughts about secure communities. first of all, immigration detainers, themselves, go back to decades, when i was a prosecutor 25 years ago we had immigration detainers put on people. so those are not new. the secure communities program is essentially fingerprint sharing between the fbi and the immigration component. that's what it is. there's a lot of misunderstanding about what secured communities is. i believe that the goal of secure communities is a good one, which is to promote more effective enforcement against those who are threats to public safety, those who are criminals. i believe it is a worth while program. however, it's gotten off to a very bad start. it has a very bad name. there are mayors and governors out there signing executive orders, passing laws that limit a state or a city's ability to

comply with the detainer. that is an extremely unfortunate situation. they're limiting the ability of our people to do their job. and so i believe as i've said before that we need a fresh start on this program. i'm evaluating how to more effectively enforce our immigration laws against those who are threats to public safety. i believe we need clearer guidance for our people and with the clearer guidance i intend to take that to the governors and mayors to say, here is who our enforcement priorities are so that you don't have any uncertainty about that anymore. hopefully we'll do a better job cooperating with each other because i believe the principle is a good one, senator. >> thank you. my time is up and i appreciate you and what a difficult job you have. >> thank you. >> how are you? >> how are you? >> can we talk about cyber for a

minute? >> yes, sir. >> i have two topics on that. one is quite narrow and specific. dhs is the lead federal agency that is responsible for working with state and local governments and state and local law enforcement in a variety of ways and specifically around protecting their information systems. and it appears that there's been a little spate of recent cyber attacks on local law enforcement agencies. and across a lot of this country, small, rural police departments don't have a lot of cyber resources available to them. they don't have even in some cases full-time information

officers. it strikes me that both from the point of view of kind of creating embarrassment and upheaval in some of the goals of some cyber hackers or from compromising law enforcement and emergency response, a more serious intent, small police departments make a particularly appealing target. i wonder where within dhs we can work together on trying to make sure that they have both the resources and the threat awareness and the knowledge that they need to protect themselves because say crypto locker takes out the cyber resources of a small department, including current law enforcement records and police reports and things like that it can create a very unfortunate situation. >> well, first of all, i agree

with your observation about state and local government. i also know that more and more governors and mayors are asking me about this issue. governor schneider of michigan comes to mind for example. he and i have talked about this several times. i know that more and more state and local governments have cyber security advisers devoted to this. >> which nypd can do and boston police department can do but when you get down to -- >> oh, yes. >> -- little police departments, i do think that we need to figure out how we organize a common resource that can have their back and be there just an early warning system in a better way than we presently do. >> my cyber security experts if they were sitting here i'm sure they can tell you about the ways in which we do work with state and local law enforcement. i suspect but i don't know through our grant making ability, we may be able to also support the development of cyber

security capability in these governments. but i do agree it's something that is an emerging threat that we all need to focus on. >> i look forward to continuing to work with you on this. this hearing isn't the forum for that, but i do think it's important and i think that there are a lot of as you said mayors and governors around the country who are seeing this is a particularly unfortunate target to emerge, a particularly vulnerable one. the second cyber topic has to do with how we structure our cyber enforcement response. i want to first of all commend what you, what the department of justice, the fbi all do. we are throwing a lot of resources at the problem. we have immense talent being thrown at this problem. we've had some really terrific, new steps, specifically by the department of justice against

the pla hackers and against the two big bog nets, so there's great stuff that is going on. but i'm not convinced yet that we're doing the thinking we need to be doing about what our cyber enforcement structure needs to look like five years out and ten years out. we're so engaged in today's hackers and trying to warn businesses who is coming through the windows and doors at them that there really isn't in my view a very comprehensive process of what this needs to look like. and this is a threat in transition. it's a growing threat. and i'd like to hear your thoughts on the long-term preparedness and the review of what our structure should be to address this threat. >> well, first of all, the secret service has tremendous capabilities in the investigation of cyber crime.

we do it on a routine basis. the secret service for example is the lead law enforcement agency when it comes to the target stores episode. i've had conversations with jim comey who i've known for 25 years since we were ausas together and others in the intelligence community. and also general alexander who was recently retired about how we answer this exact question. and my view is that, and i know all of these people either from my ausa days or from my dod period. in my view, if we can sit down together, and this is not a complicated conversation, among the three or four of us component heads to say, all right. how are we divvying this up? what is our strategy going forward? when does the fbi get involved? when does the secret service get involved? when does it become a matter for our national security intelligence resources for our

government? we can develop a common strategy. i don't believe it's very hard or complicated and it's one of my -- one of the items on my agenda. >> i'll follow up with you on that and our next senator recognized is senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, we're having a humanitarian disaster. there is no doubt about that. and the humanitarian disaster is caused by a legal disaster. your leadership and the president's leadership has failed to send a clear message throughout the world that you can only come to the united states lawfully. you cannot come unlawfully. in fact, you've sent a message that conveys just the opposite. it's unbelievable that the top law enforcement officer of our country is doing such a thing. you've been sued by your own officers or at least your predecessor for not allowing them to follow their oath to enforce the law.

under your leadership it seems to have gotten worse, secretary johnson. you and i talked about it. i expressed my concern. i thought maybe it would get better but actually things have gotten worse and we're seeing this flood of young people and it's just tragic. it should not be happening. the first thing a law enforcement officer should seek to do is to create a climate that reduces lawlessness not encourages it. you don't want to be in a position of having to arrest more people and deal more people. you want to not have it happen. it's just amazing to me. and i want to push back a little bit. my chairman, talking about excessive force and violence, i wish you'd push back a little harder, mr. johnson, but this is the kind of thing that's happening to your border patrol agents every day. they're being attacked with vehicles. they're being shot. they're being pummelled with large rocks. one picture in here is seven

inches length in the rock that hit an agent. i would offer that for the record. lawlessness begets -- >> without objection. >> lawlessness begets violence. i know in san diego a number of years ago they -- 20 or more years ago they built a fence. there was violence and lawlessness and drugs. and afterwards both sides of the border are prospering. the lawlessness has ended at that time. and we've done better. have you? just ask you this. have you? you didn't say in your testimony today and nothing i've seen in your reported statements is a clear message to the world. they must not come illegally to america. have you said that any time recently? >> i've told my staff that we need to consider all options to deal with this situation. i rule nothing out that is lawful. i want to know about every option. i want to consider every option,

senator. >> well, here in el salvador newspaper, the headline is, extension of suspension of student deportation. otherwise you extend the suspension of deportation, secretary johnson. it says, almost all agreed that a child who crossed the border illegally with their parents or in search of a father or a better life was not making an adult choice to break our laws and should be treated differently from adult violators of the law. it goes on -- >> i still agree with that. >> it goes on to say, the administration of president obama has launched the program suspending deportations. here, another central american news outlet, the first paragraph says, central americans who are -- who illegally cross the border into mexico say they are arriving at their final destination that u.s. immigration officials are allowing central american women

and children to freely enter the country. is that correct or not? >> i don't believe that's correct, no. well, this is what the lady said. they interviewed her. this is in a spanish publication. it was easy to get there. i only had to walk 15 minutes with my daughters. i turned myself in to immigration. but was told that u.s. immigration, i was told u.s. immigration was letting, quote, lots of women with kids into the united states. la prensa in el salvador, obama announced a unified and coordinated federal response to this program to provide humanitarian relief to children affected including accommodation, care, medical treatment, and transport. but he didn't say and you've not even said this day right here in this committee, do not come. it's unlawful to come.

you cannot come to the country without lawful permission. so i ask you again, are you prepared to say that to the whole world? >> i am prepared to say that a parent should not send a child across our southwest border. >> well, can a parent bring a child with him? it's dangerous. >> because it's dangerous. >> i said, because it is illegal and it is dangerous. >> and will you pledge to enforce the law and interdict and send back people who come to the country unlawfully? >> i have pledged numerous times to enforce the law, senator. i do it every day. >> well, you didn't say it in your opening. and you haven't been quoted in the papers as saying that. >> i enforce the law every day, senator. we're deporting people according to last year's numbers at a rate of over a thousand a day. >> well, you're familiar with a memo from deputy border chief ronald vitiello i suppose on may 30th of this year, your own

deputy. could i ask -- you went over about a minute and 12. it's 50 seconds over now. could i ask for one additional minute, mr. chairman? this is what mr. vitello wrote, your own deputy. >> that is a draft or -- >> you probably -- that was his draft. yeah. you probably altered it or had it altered. he said, if the federal government failed to deliver adequate consequences to deter aliens from attempting to enter illegally to the u.s., the result will be even greater increase in the rate of recidivism and first-time illicit entries releasing other than mexican family units, credible fear claims and low threat aliens on their own recognizance along with facilitating family reunification of unaccompanied alien children in lieu of repatriation to their country of

citizenship, serve as incentives for additional individuals to follow the same path. to stem the flow adequate circumstances mus occur either as a direct member of an illicit member alien smuggling organization or a private facilitator these consequences must be delivered both at the border and within the united states. do you agree with that? >> as i said in my opening statement to deal with the situation in south texas we've had to surge resources normally devoted to other tasks. we are now calling upon the entire federal government to address that situation so that my border patrol agents can go back to patrolling the border. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you very much, senator whitehouse. and thank you very much,

secretary johnson, on your work and i was just down in mexico with senator hitecamp and cindy mccain on the sex trafficking and heroin trafficking and met and talked about this issue at length. i also have appreciated the efforts mexico is starting to make, which is very necessary to this to secure their own southern border in addition to the work that's been going on to go after the drug cartels and capture of those but there is clearly work to be done. i want to take you further north. one of the things i certainly learned down in mexico is one way out of this violence and the things going on down there is to have a stronger north american economy, what we're calling a new day in north america, which means more and more regional coordination between canada, america, and mexico. as we compete with countries like china, i think this is a major part of our economic growth to bring more jobs to

america. so every single day we have 300,000 people the u.s./canadian border. every single day two way cross border trade between our nations amounts to $2 billion a day. they are our major trading partner. canada. $2 billion a day in trade. 3/4 of canada's goods are now sold in the u.s. and, in turn, canada is the number one buyer for goods produced in 36 out of 50 states in this country. yet we have some border issues with canada and they're not the border issues we've been hearing about. they're border issues about making it as easy as possible to facilitate the movement of people and goods with our number one partner, our number one partner in dealing with the ukraine, our number one partner when dealing with security. i know you understand this. one of the things having just been in canada this weekend with senator blunt and crepo and senator sessions as well as senator stabenau, we identified

some infrastructure issues on the border. over the past two years u.s. customs and border protection has received authorization from congress to initiate pilot programs to enter into public/private partnerships and actually accept private donations to help improve the efficiency of border crossings. i'm concerned these border crossings are right now the grants have been given solely on the southern border. we have, for instance, the land port of entry in international falls, minnesota, which both in 1993, it's been deemed in need of replacement by the cbp, the customs border protection, and the general services administration. we are really interested in this public/private partnership. obviously with the energy and the oil and everything else coming from canada as well as the trade and agriculture trade going on we think this is a smart investment in america's economy. could you talk to me about why these programs are only in place

on the southern border and can you commit to adding northern border sites for these partnerships as soon as possible? >> yes. a big part of my job not with standing everything we've talked about so far in this hearing is promoting lawful trade and trav travel, particularly in north america. i've had conversations along with our president with the mexican president with the prime minister of canada at the summit that took place in mexico in february i believe it was or march. i've had conversations with minister blayney, minister wrait in canada about facilitating and promoting trade and travel. it is a big part this of administration's agenda to develop trusted traveler programs. the president signed an executive order on a single path for export/import purposes into our federal agencies, and i've

personally visited detroit and port huron. >> you're aware of the windsor bridge issue which is another problem. >> i have walked on the windsor bridge. >> close to getting that resolved. >> i have seen the tractor-trailer backup on the bridge. >> yep. >> in port huron, and i've seen the situation in detroit and i believe that we need to expand the customs plaza capability in port huron for example and build a customs plaza in detroit one way or another and public/private partnerships i think are a good and creative way we should explore. we need to get this done. i'm impressed by the fact the canadians have stepped up. >> they have completely stepped up to help pay for that bridge. they're doing a lot with public/private partnerships for their own infrastructure and are interested in this idea and really think we can't just be putting them at the southern border. this is not as much as i said about security as facilitation. one last question. you probably heard about this current plans call for the

current uscis field office in bloomington, minnesota to move to a location three miles from the nearest public transportation option. field offices provide critical services as you know, immigration services, and i think you heard what happened here. they've apologized. gsa made a major mistake. they saw a sign for a bus and thought it was a public bus and there is really no bus service to this area. they have been helpful in meeting with us and could you talk about it as we're looking at legislation to make sure that uscis field offices are accessible for the immigrant and refugee communities they serve? what your views are on this and we are currently trying to see if there is any way to dial this back because it was a mistake. >> i have talked to senator franken about this. i am aware of the issue with this particular office and i agree that people should be

encouraged to go to cis offices for just about every region imaginable so i agree they need to be accessible one way or the other and i will look at this situation. >> i understand. again, i appreciate your good work. thank you. >> thank you. >> senator cornin? >> thank you. mr. secretary, good morning. good to see you. would you agree the trans national criminal organizations that traffic human beings into the united states don't discriminate between economic mig grants and people who they traffic for sex or other illegal purposes? would you agree with that? >> that sounds right. i'm not sure i know the answer to that one. >> they're in the business of making money. >> guns, drugs, people, children.

adult. they don't really discrimination. i think there is this misconception that somehow there is good immigration, bad immigration, and bad/illegal immigration in the sense that somehow these are separate pipe lines when in fact my impression is to my knowledge it has been taken over by essentially trans national criminal organizations largely the cartels in mexico and all of the horrors that you know and i know and others know these unaccompanied children are subjected to, they are subject to the tender mercies of these traffickers. so i want to really ask you about two things. you came to my office recently. i appreciate it. after doing some investigation of the detentions along the u.s./mexican border.

i appreciate the acknowledgment you recognize this is a national security issue as well. in fact, 414,000 people were detained at the southwestern border last year from more than a mun different country. do you agree with those figures? >> yes. as we discussed on the southwest border and rio grande valley in particular we're seeing an increasing number of illegal mig grants coming from virtually all over the world including other continents and it's an increasingly diverse population. >> well, i appreciate your acknowledgment of that and your investigation of the facts. let me turn now to the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied minors. there's been several references to the internal summary prepared by agents in the field concerning the recent surge of

unaccompanied minors. when asked why they chose at this time to migrate an overwhelming majority said it was to take advantage of a new u.s. law that grants free pass to unaccompanied children and female adults traveling with minors. now, it appears the free passes that they're referring to are the notice to appear. in other words, when people are detained they're given a notice to appear at their court setting i'm told by border patrol that 90% never show back up. but the high percentage of subjects interviewed stated that their family members in the u.s. urged them to travel immediately because the united states was only issuing immigration free passes until the end of june, 2014. so you previously acknowledged that this -- there is no legal way to enter the united states. there is no free pass under the

law, is that right? >> well, there is a legal way to enter the united states. the migration we're talking about here is not legal. >> thank you. >> right. >> you're right. thank you for correcting my statement. i meant there is no way for these unaccompanied minor children to legally enter the united states in the way that the 47,000 that have been detained since october have been doing. >> that is correct. yes. >> okay. >> and so i would just suggest to you there is this perception that the executive branch of the federal government is not enforcing the law, because of talks about easing deportations or repatriations i think is the nomenclature you use. and the perception is that there are no consequences to illegally entering the united states, and if that is the perception, the flood of humanity will continue and contribute to this humanitarian crisis that we've been talking about this morning.

and i would just suggest to you that as you deliberate these matters and as you consult with congress and the president, that this is one of the biggest obstacles to immigration reform because if the perception is both domestically and in other countries that the federal government is not committed to enforcing our own laws, then this flood will continue and the divide and distrust will grow even more. so one final point. if this entry of 47,000 children who have been, who have come unaccompanied who have been detained since october if that's not legal under u.s. law, i don't understand the argument that if we just somehow pass the

senate immigration bill that it would have a positive impact on this humanitarian crisis. you're not suggesting that we need to pass some other law in order that would have prevented this humanitarian crisis, are you, sir? >> well, first of all, the document you read from, i've never seen. i don't -- it's supposedly a draft document. i don't know that i agree with the assessment there. >> well, there are interviews with 230 of the people detained coming across the border. >> i have never seen the document. >> will you take a look at it and tell us whether you think it's authentic? >> enough people have referred to it that i'm sure at some point soon i will take a look at it. >> i hope so. >> i'm not sure i agree that is the motivator for people coming in, for the children coming into south texas. i think it is primarily the conditions in the countries that they are leaving from.

i do believe that if comprehensive immigration reform is passed, the uncertainty that may be existing in people's minds about our law gets resolved and it will be clear to people that the earned path to citizenship that's being contemplated in the senate bill only applies to people who came here before year end 2011. same thing with doca referring to people who came here in the year 2007. doesn't refer to people who came here today or yesterday. so the perception i don't think is correct. i also know anyone who is apprehended on the border is a priority for removal. >> mr. secretary, this is my last question or statement. i would suggest that as a person who believes that we need to pass a bill to fix our broken immigration laws, that the single biggest impediment to collaboration between congress and the executive branch to get

that done, we may not agree about the details but we all, i think, agree the need to get to that solution. the biggest impediment is perception that the president and this administration will not enforce whatever laws congress were to pass. so that is a real problem and in this instance it has helped induce this humanitarian crisis and this flood of unaccompanied children that is very dangerous to them and their families and created a real crisis. so thank you for your response to my questions. >> before i call upon the senator i'd like to just ask everyone to be aware of the time limits for our questioning because there are people who are waiting. senator? >> thank you. and thank you, secretary, for your service, for your leadership in the department and for your testimony here today. i want to touch on a number of different issues, ag inspections

at the border and in courts, cyber crime and its cost to the u.s. and a number of issues that relate to deportation practices. let me start with those. these are issues we've discussed before and some of these are questions i've asked your predecessor but i want to make sure i get an appropriate update on where we are. in deportation proceedings aliens are not routinely provided what is called the a file but have to file requests and this extends the cost and difficulty of deportation proceedings without affecting the outcome. has dhs begun to routinely provide a files to aliens facing deportation? >> senator, you're correct that is something you and i have discussed previously. i don't know the status of that issue right now but i can get back to you. >> i've also discussed with you and your predecessor lateral repatriation which is a polite way of describing night-time deportations that often put children and women at risk,

particularly vulnerable folks facing deportation into dangerous locales at difficult times into very bad circumstances. i think it violates basic human rights and some of our international agreements and i wondered if dhs has implemented procedures to ensure the deportations are done in a manner that doesn't jeopardize the lives of repatriating migrants. >> we are working with the mexican government right now on that issue. this has been the subject of discussions between our two governments. often it involves a matter of logistics, coordination, and so forth. we also have a policy going back to 2004 that we not separate families or remove vulnerable population at late night hours, which i believe is a good policy and i intend to reiterate it. >> well thank you. i have heard from the faith community, from advocates that they continue to see significant impact on vulnerable families due to the policy. it hasn't had an appreciable

positive impact. last, on the list of sensitive locations for enforcement actions, courts are not currently on that list, and i've received, to me, some concerning reports that immigration enforcement, which occurs right at or around courthouses, deters women from seeking protection from abuse orders or folks who are applying for relief from landlords. i just wondered what steps dhs has taken to assess the appropriateness of enforcement actions taken at courthouses to ensure they're only taken in exceptional circumstances where there is some case specific justification rather than in the broader range of cases that deters access to justice and deters some of the important things i referenced, protection from domestic violence. >> you're correct that courthouses have not been on the sensitive list. i know some months ago i.c.e. determined to put courthouses in

a special category deserving of some sort of special treatment. i agree that courthouses are special places in the nature of a church, but i can readily see for reasons of public safety why any law enforcement officer would feel compelled to take action with regard to an individual at a courthouse. i've asked our folks to better develop that exception with regard to courthouses. >> thank you, mr. secretary. we've also talked about customs and border in terms of overtime for inspections that are related to agriculture. the port of wellington and many other ports have folks who would like to pay overtime so that when whole ship loads of produce arrive they can get inspections in a timely fashion. and this is subject to a very complicated interagency budgetary issue. my understanding is that ag, we've made progress in terms of promulgation of the relevant regulations. that would now allow fee increases for overtime services. is this something that, to your

understanding, cbp ag inspectors are able to work with the department on and you are hopeful we'll make some progress before this very busy, upcoming fruit season? i believe so. >> that would be great. last question if i might. cyber crime. >> yes. >> cyber crime is an area of primary focus for you and for the department. >> yes. >> it causes enormous costs, negative impacts on our society every year. i recommend you to the role that the air national guard can play in terms of providing a qualified work force that is able to be a resource both for national security purposes and for state and local preparation reasons. i just wondered how the national guard model fits into the department strategy, your strategy, to meet the threat posed by cyber crime and potential cyber security threats. >> air national guard. >> mm-hmm. the 166th network warfare squadron would welcome a visit any time in new castle.

>> okay. that's a worth while inquiry. i will look at that, sir. >> thank you, mr. secretary. look forward to following up with you on all of these issues. >> thank you. >> senator flake? i shall news thank you. >> i appreciate your being here. my question comes from someone that's supportive of immigration reform. a member of the gang of eight, i'm proud of the legislation that we passed. i hope that similar legislation or some legislation can pass the house and we can get this done. but i just want to follow up on some of the questions my colleagues have done about the motivation of people coming when you look at the numbers, it is just -- staggering, as you have said. it created a humanitarian disaster. when we -- we involve fema, as you mentioned, for something like this, this -- denotes a disaster. we ought to be looking at the

causes of it. we know some of the causes. as you explained the which i can situation in these countries, the -- drug activity and cartels, gangs, leads to it. but to reject out of hand, which you seem to be doing, that the perception of lax enforcement is not a motivator in this regard. i think that as naive at best and very destructive at worst. when you look at the numbers, these are otm apprehensions. other than mexican apprehensions. the three countries we talked about. october of last year, 14,000 during that month, november, 14,000, december, 14,000. january, welfare thousa12,000. relatively straight. and then comes march. right around the time of the

deportation review that was undertaken by the administration, word like this spreads and word spreads that there will be a review of deportation and then we look, march, otm, member, it states steady around 14 thousand how until march. then march 24shgs,000. april, 26,000. may, 38,000. can you just allow a little that it might -- might be a perception that lax enforcement might be some motivator for people to come here? >> i can't -- i mean, i can't control people's perceptions and i don't have a categorical sense of people's perceptions in central america. do i believe, senator, that what is principally motivating this migration are, as you noted, the

conditions in the central american countries, i also believe that people are aware that when their kids come into this country unaccompanied, we are required by law to give them to hhs and hhs is required by law to act in the best interest of the child which very often means reuniting them with the parent. i think they know that. that's what the law requires us to do. >> i think they do as well. when you look at the interviews, you read the interviews that are being conducted and you see the statements of people saying -- they are waving down helicopters when they see a federal helicopter. waving them down. rushing to border patrol agents and saying "take me." there is a perception of lax enforcement that will allow them to get a foothold here and then i would submit is one of the motivators and a big one in why we are having such a massive increase in unaccompanied minors

and people from these countries that we are talking about. i don't think that this is a blow to your ego, but what you say on these matters in he is countries to these ambassadors or media outlets in guatemala or el salvador, honduras, does not matter as much as what the president says. it would be extremely helpful in my view and the view of many, senator mccain and myself sent a letter to the president pleading with him, make a statement, let people know that those who are coming now are subject to deportation. these other rules that may be reviewed will not apply to people coming now. do you think that would be a good idea for the president to make such a statement and for us to follow with public relations efforts in these countries? >> well, first of all, nothing anymore is a blow to my ego.

i do think that a robust public relations campaign in some form is vital. i do agree with that. whether it is -- >> start with the president. >> officials from their own countries or what have you, i do believe that a robust aggressive public relation s campaign need to be part of our strategy. >> i hope that's the case and i have many questions about what is going on in arizona. i just was struck by one thing you said. i said that you hope for the border patrol can go back to patrolling the border. that's extremely disturbing to those of us with -- in border states. how many border patrol agents are being pulled from border patrol to processing unaccompanying minors or others. what percentage of the force is being pulled away from those duties in arizona and texas?

>> i don't have an exact percentage. i know we have had to surge resources to process these kids. plainly, there are still plenty of people on the border conducting border patrol activities and i believe that with the added resources we are getting from other agencies, these folks are able to return full time to their normal responsibilities. >> let me just close in saying i hope that the president, in particular, you as well, will mauck such a statement, continue to make such a statement, and then launch a public relations effort in these countries. letting them know that people who come here will be subject to deportation, that they will not be able to participate in either the policies that the administration has pursued or the legislation that this body, the senate, passed and that the congress will hopefully pass. >> thank you for your work. >> senator, if i may, one other thing i want to add, senator flake, i remembered from the qfrs you sent me in the

confirmation possiblers, statements of your constituents the ranchers, one of the first things i did when i got into office, i went to visit them in arizona. i think it is fair to say we had a good visit, good conversation. i wanted to understand their border security concerns. i went down there and they are a terrific bunch of people. >> let me just say, they appreciate that. they told me that. i appreciate that and may office does, the manner in which you have answered questions. this is a -- bit of a departure of what we have seen before. i'm very, very happy to see that and been pleased with your response and the seriousness with which you take this job. so thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. secretary. clearly, all of us are concerned about the inplucks of unaccompanied minors crossing the border. it is a multi-faceted problem with no easy solutions leading to a level for a condition you

declared. i would like to ask you, in the coming weeks, to work with me and colleagues -- other colleagues that are interested in enabling us to travel to see some of the facilities. i think that would enable us to really better understand and grasp the enormity of this crisis situation. turning to possibrosecutory discretion, i'm looking at your memo that enumerates factors in discretionary regarding numerous immigration procedures including deportation. of the 400,000 or so deportation that dhs is carrying out each year, do you have that on how many of these are -- people who are being deported who could receive prosecutorial discretion, exercise of possi e prosecutorial discretion based on family ties or community

ties? >> there are ways to mauck that statistical assessment and we are -- in the midst of doing that right now as part of my review of our enforcement policies. i think that the data in years past has not been as clear as it could be. one of the things i would like to do is to mauck the data clearer. be a little more forthcoming each year and correlate the day that to the individual priorities in the morton memos so we have a clear sense of whether somebody is being removed who is a priority one or two or three. so i think we can do a better job there. i also think we need clearer guidance. when you say the morton memo, for example, it is unclear to me whether you are referring to the march memo or 2 june memo of 2011 or a whole other series of memos that have -- >> there are various iterations of enabling your agents who are pretty much across the board to

exercise possibrosecutorial discretion. so -- i would like to understand of the 400,000 or so deportations, who actually are being deported because, for example, i get concerned when recent reports indicate that i.c.e. field offices in detroit is placing people with strong family ties without any criminal record into deportation proceedings. it is kind of reminiscent of what has been coming out regarding the veterans administration. it is one thing to have a policy directive such as the morton memo. it is another to what is actually going on out in the peeled and the exercise of that discretion. i recognize that the morton memo also says that these are guidelines and that your agents have -- can prosecute people who are here illegally. i think in terms of scarce resources, and establishment of priorities of how we ought to be enforcing our law and