division talks about global antitrust enforcement. that's followed by a forum about foreign policy and u.s. strategy in the middle east, and the panel on how political candidates can discuss foreign policy issues with voters? and at 6:55, a hearing on the rights of federal union workers. tuesday, the justice department's inspector general micha michael horowitz testifies about the ongoing hillary clinton e-mail investigation by the fbi and justice department. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at speechc-span.org and live on free c-span radio app. >> thomas holman, the acting director of immigration and custom enforcement agencies testified about central american migration and border security. est mo of the hearing focused on

migrants and their attempts to seek asylum by crossing the u.s.-mexico border. the committee on homestand security on border and maritime security will come to order. the subcommittey is meeting today to examine policies that impact the department's ability to secure the border. i now recognize myself for an opening statement. last month a caravan of nearly 1,500 migrants was organized by people without borders. an extremist advocacy group with the stated purpose of, quote, abolishing borders, unquote. under the guise of humanitarian action this group facilitated the movement of a migrant caravan traveling more than 2,000 miles through mexico towards the southwest bothered of the united states. the caravan began in tapacula on the mexico/guatemala border with the express purpose of traffic

to the united states and entering our country el lily or by utilizing loopholes in immigration laws. the reality is this type of activity is happening every day in smaller numbers and without the media fanfare. our asylum process is broken, riff with fraud leapt claims. individuals who arrive at the border have no need to dodge our border security effort because our policies make it all too easy for them. aliens can simply come to a port of entry or look for a border patrol agency and say they have, quote, a credible fear. saying these simple two words permits them to be released into the country about 90% of the country regardless of the merits of the claim. once released they are given a notice to appear for court date, sometimes years in the future and a work permit after 180 days. in 2008 dhs asylum officers referred 5,100 cases meeting this credible fear threshold to imgracious courts. in 2006 it was almost 92,000 cases. the reason for the increase is

simple. individuals have learned to you to exploit the system. it should surprise no one that many who claim asylum never show up for the court date, most likely because their claim sun founded in the first place. in order to make sure we maximize our ability to -- we need to combat this fraud. another loophole seems from the victims reauthorization law which is well meaning and was designed to prevent human trafficking. however, the disparate treatment of children from mexico and children from non-contiguous countries like guatemala, honduras and el safely dorr creates a perverse incentive to put young children at risk. to must not put children in the hands of smugglers that abuse them on the way to the border. once they arrive they are vulnerable to gang recruitment especially ms-13.

dangerous gangs such as ms-13 are not the only ones den pitting from the loopholes. drug cartels do. every single paying rant, unaccompanied child, family unit or single adult that illegally crosses the southwest border enriches the cartels and assists their growth and lethality. the number of illegal bothered crossings in march and april show an urgent need to address these glaring loopholes. we witnessed a 300 pins crease from april 2017 compared to april 2018, and a 37% increase from last month to this month. the largest increase month-to-month since 2011. traffickers, smugglers and extremist advocacy groups are exploiting those weaknesses and putting individuals making the journey at risk as well as americans falling victim to crime by bad actors making their way in. if we do not address well be

confronted with another generation of daca-like people in the near future. when i was in the air norris traveled all over the world and i saw desperation and poverty that most americans cannot fat yom. countries around the world are deal with extreme violence, war and gangs. as human beings we are moved to help them, often through the help of charitable organizations or ministries but the truth matter is we cannot bring everyone who is suffering here. the very definition of a country is one that controls who hand who does not enter. we're a nation of immigrants and we open approximately 1.1 million immigrants every year and we're also a nation of lou and we can't sit idly by when the borders are overrun by lawlessness. we need to buy a policy wall alongside the physical wall to encourage people to do this the legal way. last september the speaker appointed me and seven other members to a working group

tasked with addressing this issue. we spent countless hours diving into our broken immigration and border policies. for the last nine months we've been working and refining the bill that became the goodlatte/mccall/mcsally and lar dore bill. this bill closes the loopholes and ends chaos on the border. >> thank you, chairwoman mcsally. i would first like to address the title for today's hearing. my position on the border wall is well known by now, and i would like to express moy deep concern about the so-called policy wall proposed by the administration and that we're going to talk about today. as with the physical border wall, the need for a policy wall sun clear to me. the number of asylum seekers requesting protection in mexico or the united states indicates a

humanitarian problem, not necessarily a security threat. a growing number of asylum seekers with coming from guatemala and el salvador and honduras. most of us here today are aware that el salvador an honduras rank among the top five most violent countries in the world including nations at war. each former secretary john kelly acknowledged the dangerous and complex conditions on the ground in the northern triangle before he joined the administration and during his confirmation hearing. the characterization that the levels of people seeking asylum are unacceptable is confusing. blaming and punishing the people who are seeking protection is inhumane. the conditions leading to a humanitarian crisis are unacceptable, not the people seeking protection. we should be working with our international partners to fix the source problem. earlier this year i joined the other tempts on this committee in sending a letter to secretary

nielsen opposing the practice of separating migrant parents from cases that do not warrant when they are apprehend at the border. i'm opposed to tearing kids away from their parents, and i am concerned about what criminal ouzing ray dult asylum seekers will mean for legal claims to protection. the effect of family separation is also traumatizing. according to more than 200 child welfare juvenile justice and child development organizations who wrote to secretary nielsen opposing family separation, there's ample evidence that this leads to serious negative consequences to children's health and development. as dhs separates families at the borders, dhs will likely have to detain people over age 18 in adult immigration detention facilities and designate any children as unaccompanied. i worry that there are no reliable mechanisms in place to ensure that families can be reunified later. if an adult goes through current

criminal proceedings and is subject to expedited removal, how is his or her child in a shelter somewhere in the united states know how to get in touch with them? i fear these policies will be harmful in the long run. lastly, i would like to hear how you are managing your resources to address potentially more asylum seekers at our ports of entry. given this new zero tolerance policy for people crossing between our ports of entry along our southern border dhs is urging people to claim asylum at poverty entry insteadch the staffing shortage is a persistent problem and i would like to learn how capacity issues at ports are like hi to be affected by the policy changes. i thank you for joining us today, and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the chair now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from texas, mr. mccall for any statement he may have. >> thank you madam chair. over two months a caravan of 2,000 migrants began a

2,000-mile journey from the guatemala to mexico border head towards the united states. the journey was not easy, and the migrants were met with great difficulties. hunger, sickness, even exploitation by criminal gangs. so what motivated them to make this journey? the lawless immigrant advocacy group whose specific goals is circumvention of u.s. immigration law. they organized what they thought would be their largest blitz on the united states border, and the goal was simple. overwhelm u.s. law enforcement and tax an already overburdened immigration system with baseless asylum claims. this was not the first caravan. and it did not change our immigration policies and laws, and this will not be the last. while this particular caravan drew lots of media attention, cvp agents and officers have seen a troubling trend. family units and unaccompanied alien children flood across the border, many of them claiming

credible fear. almost every single person who claims credible fear meets the existing threshold in the law. loopholes in our immigration system are well-known to the organized illegal immigration groups and the brutal drug cartels who facilitate the movement of aliens across the border. in fact, cartels use these weakness ezra taft benson as a shrewd marketing tool that further enriches the cartel this. harms the stability and rule law in mexico. building a physical wall along key parts of the southwest border is absolutely necessary. in tandem, we must also construct a wall of sensible policy to close these legal loopholes that put families and children at risk. last month we saw the number of illegal border crossings triple over the same period as last year. we have to take dramatic action to reverse this disturbing

development. i was pleased to see that the department recently enacted a zero tolerance policy for those who come here illegally. prugt those who enter the country illegally is the right policy. this will send a powerful message of deterrence to those who are trying to take advantage of our immigration laws. we have used prosecutions successfully in the past, and i know that myself as a former federal prosecutor. under operation streamline nearly every alien apprehended was prosecuted, and when that policy was enacted in every instance, we saw a dramatic decline in crossings. i along with chairman goodlatte and chairwoman mcsally have proposed a robust border security and immigration enforcement bill to close these legal loopholes that secretary nielsen and the honorable homan,

good to see you, sir, pointed out so many times in the past, so many times. without changes to the way we treat unaccompanied alien children and family units and without tightening our asylum standards there, will always standards, there will always be powerful incentives. this must stop. the time for change has come. i'm committed to working with this administration and other like-minded members to make that you a reality. with that, i yield back. >> other members of the committee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. i ask that the gentlelady from arizona be able to participate in today's hearing. without objections so order. we're pleased to have three distinguished witnesses before us today. ron vittelo is the acting commissioner of the u.s. customs and border protection. as its chief operating officer, he was responsible for the daily operations of the u.s. border

patrol, assisting in planning and directing nationwide enforcement and administrative operations. mr. thomas holman became the deputy director and senior official performing the duties of director in 2017. he's a 33-year veteran of law enforcement and has nearly 30 years of experience. he has served as a police officer in new york, as well as a supervisory agent for investigations at i.c.e. mr. cissna was sworn in in 2018. he served as the director within the dhs office of policy. during which time, he was selected for a detail to the u.s. senate judicial committee. prior to that, mr. cissna served as the acting director for immigration and border security policy in the dhs office of policy. the chair now recognizes deputy commissioner vittelo for five

minutes to testify. >> thank you. chairwoman mcsally and others, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the efforts of u.s. customs and border protection to achieve our objectives. my fellow witnesses have decades of practical experience and i'm grateful to work with such dedicated professionals to secure the homeland. tactical infrastructure physical barrier and complimentary areas have long been part of our risk-based approach to secure the board. the act of 2018 supports the mission, including $1.4 billion for the largest investment in border wall in more than a decade. we're eager to put this funding to work and encourage congress to continue to support investments. in addition to our border security mission, it plays a key role in our continuum.

we look forward to working with congress with this legislation. this legislative needs have a direct impact on homeland security. in accordance to the justice department's zero tolerance policy, home land security secretary nielsen has directed us to refer all crossers for enforcement. no classes or categories of aliens are exempt from enforcement. the number of individuals apprehended while trying to enter the country illegally and those presenting themselves without entry documentation increased by 40% from february to march. when compare today march 2017, the increase is an extraordinary 203%. the effort and hours used to detain, process, care for, hold

shrinks our capability to control the border and make the arrest of smugglers and drug traffickers and criminals much more difficult. to enhance the capability, the department of defense in conjunction with border state governors has begun deploying the national guard. to assist in stopping the flow of deadly drugs, other contraband, and illegal aliens in the country. initial forces are already on the ground assisting cvp. we're work ing with dhs headquarters and dod with the support of congress and in close coordination with our partners, cvp will have a risk-based approach to infrastructure and personnel. i want to thank and recognize the men and women of cvp. they carry out their border protection responsibilities professionally and with an integrity deserving of the public's trust. i will work to insure my representation of them matches

their dedication and commitment and the sacrifices they and their families make. last wednesday, during national police week, we added three more names to the memorial and did our best to demonstrate to their surviving families and returning families that we will never forget their loved one. we'll always preserve their memories and honor the heroic work they did. while protecting us all. chairwoman mcsally, and members of the subcommittee, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. the chair recognizes director holman for five minutes. >> chairwoman mcsally and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today and speak to the importance of i.c.e.'s mission to protect america from cross-border crime and illegal immigration. both of which threaten national security and public safety. since president trump's executive orders were issued early last year, i.c.e. and its partner agencies have made significant progress in restoring the rule of law

to the immigration system. i.c.e. has increased arrests by over 40%. increased removals by 30%. we have nearly doubled the number of ms-13 arrests. reflecting our continued focus on national security threats, illegal re-entrants, and fugitives, 92% of our arrests last year reflects these priorities. it reflects what the dedicated men and women of i.c.e. can achieve. but the reality is, we will not stop illegal immigration unless we eliminate the poll factors. we need congress's help to do that. last fall the trump administration sent a -- >> the gentleman suspend for a minute. demonstrations from the audience, including the use of signs, placards and t-shirts as well as verbal outbursts are a violation of the rules of the house. the chair wishes to thank our guests for their cooperation in maintaining ord and proper decorum. >> last fall, the trump

administration, >> the administration addressed policies. these priorities reflect the input of law enforcement professionals and us three at the table who know best -- >> please suspend. pursuant to our previous statement, would our guest please lower their signs in accordance with house rules? the chair instructs the capitol police to remove the protesters. from the committee room. the committee will recess pending the recall of the chair.

committee will come to order. please continue. >> do you want me to start where i ended? >> you can start where you left off. >> okay. last fall the trump administration sent a series of policy priorities to congress that would address misguided policies and loopholes that only serve as poll factors for illegal immigration. these priorities reflect input of law enforcement professionals who know best what we need in order to close the loopholes and eliminate magnets for illegal immigration. us three at the table authored much of what was sent up to the hill. this administration listened to us. i know that many of you agree, it's time that congress do the same. entering this country illegally is a crime. if there are no consequences for sneaking past the border, overstaying a visa, skipping

immigration court or even committing crimes while in the country illegally, then there will be no integrity in the entire system. one major factor we need to address is the policies governing the process of children. called uacs. this encourages more parents to subject their children to dangerous smuggling organizations. unfontly, we have seen that reflected in the recent uptick at the border. since the decision, i.c.e. has been constrained in the way we can detain family units. we often forced to release them which all but guarantees they'll skip their court dates or not abide by the court's decisions. this is highlighted by the fact that 3.4%, only 3.4% of all uacs from countries other than mexico encountered at the southwest border have been removed. while i.c.e. and interagency

organizations, we have made progress this past year on reducing the number of countries that refuse to take their citizens back, we need a policy to retain dangerous criminals whose home countries won't take them back. as a result of a 2001 supreme court decision, even violent criminals can be released to our custody and back into the community if their home country won't take them back. that loophole can have tragic consequences and we need congress to help us. we also need to address a dangerous poll sanctuary policies. for those who claim they want i.c.e. to focus on arresting and detaining criminals, it defies commonsense to prevent us from taking custody of them in local james and prisons. to be clear, i.c.e. is not asking law enforcement to do our

job. we want access to the jail. to talk to somebody that we know is here illegally in violation of federal law that committed another crime. it's frustrating. as a result of these policies, my officers are forced to make more arrests in the community, at homes and workplaces. those are riskier for both the public and law enforcement. they increase the likelihood that i.c.e. will encounter other illegal aliens that weren't on our radar. in other words, policies aimed at restricting or minimizing our engagement in the community is actually having the opposite effect. these policies also undermine cooperation and partnership between federal, state and local law enforcement. we should be working together to uphold our shared priority of protecting public safety. i'm encouraged that many of our law enforcement partners throughout the united states have expressed their opposition to these types of policies and continue to find ways to work with us. i want to make sure everyone understands that sanctuary cities do not protect the

immigrant community. they do not make the community safer. they do the exact opposite. finally, it is my hope that congress will support the administration's request for more i.c.e. personnel resources so we can continue the progress we've made over the past year with exists resources. these issues aren't just about enforcing the law, they are also humanitarian issues. because we know the journey to the u.s. can be dangerous and deadly. until and unless congress works with us to address these concerns, we're going to see more caravans, more people making that dangerous journey north. more people will die entering the country. i've said it many times, there's a right way to come into the country and a wrong way. it's our job to make sure that those who choose to come to the united states illegally is removed. that's the oath i've taken. along with 20,000 law even forcement officers and

i.c.e. who are attacked for doing their jobs. i'll be retiring next month after 34 years. it's been the honor of my life to lead this agency and the 20,000 men that work in the industry. they're american patriots by the very fact that they leave their homes every day and put their safety at risk to protect their communities. i will continue to be a strong advocate for the workforce and for the i.c.e. mission. i urge congress to work with the administration on the issues i've highlighted today. i want to thank you again for giving me this opportunity to testify. thank you. >> thanks, director homan. the chair now recognizes director cissna for five minutes. >> chairwoman mcsally, i'm pleased to be here today along with my colleagues from i.c.e. and cbp to offer thoughts on real border security. in most people's minds border security means walls.

i suggest that true border security is much more than that. while border security certainly does incorporate physical control of the border, it must also incorporate the administrative processes that govern the entry and exit of individuals into the united states. behind the border wall, as both the chairman and the chairwoman have said, there must be a wall of law. as evidenced that many in congress understand this problem, i point to hr-4760 securing america's future act, as a blueprint for meaningful immigration reform. and i note that the chairwoman on this subcommittee are all co-sponsors of this bill. this piece of legislation provides many of the tools that could help us retain control of our borders while at the same time improving our ability to administer an immigration system that's responsive to our nation's

needs. i would like to mention the backlog in the asylum caseload. the number of new asylum filings has tripled between fy14 and fy17. the number received in fy17 was the highest annual number of asylum claims received in over 20 years. we currently face an asylum backlog of 318,000 cases. it cripples our ability to properly screen and vet applicants as they wait for a decision. the consequence of this 1750% increase is that true asylum seekers are lost in a haystack of applications, many of them non-meritorious. in my written testimony, i discussed how we have taken steps to address the backlog. i also mentioned several loopholes that work to undermine our nation's asylum system. i would like to share with you some background on this. when congress established the

expedited removal process in 1996, congress understood that a mechanism to screen for claims for asylum was necessary. the compromise congress came up with was the so-called credible fear process. i would submit to you that the present process at the border is not credible. the statutory standard for credible fear screenings at the border has been set so low that nearly everyone meets it. but over the years, since the passage of the refugee act of 1980, certain courts have taken this generous approach and stretched it almost beyond recognition. ruling that people like former gang members or victims of gang violence may qualify for asylum. as a member of a particular social group. someone only has to show that there is a reasonable possibility of suffering persecution on account of a protective grounds in order to qualify for asylum. the credible fear screening standards at the border only requires that somebody establish there is a significant

possibility of establishing eligible for asylum in order to pass the screening process. what does this all mean? it means that an alien saying the magic word "asylum" at the border has to establish a significant possibility that there is a reasonable possibility that he or she will be persecuted on the counts of a protective ground if they return home. in order be screened in. in other words, they need only have to show a possibility of a possibility. many seeking to enter the country illegally, know a few key words is all that's needed. it should be no surprise therefore that we have seen a 1750% increase in the number of fear claims being made in the expedited removal process between fy08 and fy16. the loophole of this overly generous screening standard, when paired with insufficient funding for detention space, and an overburdened immigration court system, is a recipe for

disaster. the evidence of the present system is obvious. according to data from the department of justice, the executive office for immigration review, 56% of pending cases they have that originated from credible fear reviews that were conducted still had not filed asylum applications. the number of removal orders issued after the alien failed to appear at the hearing on cases that originated from credible fear has increased by 1350%. finally, as announced last week, the approval rate for defensive asylum cases was only 20%. it was 22% for the first two quarters of fy18. secretary nielsen has called on congress to work with her to close these legal loopholes and the asylum loopholes and abuse of the process i just described are some of them. these are being exploited to the detriment of the integrity of the our immigration system. like secretary nielsen i stand

ready to work with any member of congress who seeks to secure our country and correct these problems. thank you. >> thank you. i now recognize myself for five minutes for questions. so, i just want to summarize the big picture here. we've heard a lot of numbers, a lot of information, a lot of data. we've seen a 1750% increase, director cissna, between fy08 and fy16, correct? in asylum claims. that's a big number. >> yes. >> there is a lot of violence around the world. there's a lot of poverty around the world. there's a lot of tribulation and troubles from individuals around the world. this increase has gone up 1750%. so the cartels and the individuals have figured out

they simply have to say i have a credible fear, or i want to seek asylum, and the bar is so low it's a possibility of a possibility, 90% are released into the interior of the united states? >> so the numbers are pretty bad. right now, a credible fear screening rate, last year was 76%. >> 76%. >> but the immigration courts might flip a few more digits beyond that, so say it's around 80%. of that number that get through, the ones that -- when their asylum claims are heard, about right now, between 22%, 25%, something like that are actually granted asylum. >> okay, so, again, paint the picture. most say the right words, right? how many years later do they get a court date on average? >> it could be several years. >> okay, what percent actually show up? >> well, the numbers that we have show that something like 50% i think never even file an asylum claim. and in absentia orders, i don't

have that readily available. >> more than half, right? >> high percentage don't show up. >> yeah, i looked at those numbers this morning. family units, uacs, approximately 80% are absentia orders. >> i'm trying to paint the picture. significant numbers are coming in, they're saying the right words because the bar is so low. they're then released into the interior of the united states with a court date years in the future. the vast majority don't show up for that court date. for those who do, only 20% are actually granted asylum? >> yes. >> so, i mean, our system is being used for people to drive a mack truck through the loopholes? >> i think the problem goes back as i said in my oral statement to the very beginning of this process. the whole idea of the credible fear system was to give some protection to people who had legitimate fear of persecution in their home countries when they were at the border so that

they wouldn't be removed with everybody else. but the reality is, the number of people seeking this protection and making these types of claims is greatly overwhelming our ability to hold them throughout the process. if you can't hold them, you have to let them go. if you let them go, you end up with the problem. >> just so everyone understands. i mean, the asylum law is specific that you personally are going to be persecuted because of of your race, religion, nationality or political opinion. personally when you go back to that country. not that your country's in poverty, not that your country has violence in general. i want to allow you to elaborate on that. >> that's correct. you have to demonstrate you have fear of persecution. that the credible fear stage there is a significant possibility you will be persecuted on those grounds. and as i said in my oral remarks, the courts have stretched those grounds a lot in the decades since. the basis is very generous. the credible fear standard is even more so.

>> so, director cissna, if you are fleeing from a country because of this persecution in one of these five categories and your life is in danger, as soon as you step foot into another country, say, mexico, wouldn't that be a safe place for you to settle? >> well, what i and secretary nielsen and others have been saying for a while now is that people who are fleeing persecution in their countries should seek refugee in the first safe country -- >> exactly. >> they come to. if you -- that's the basic point. >> thank you. that's the whole points. if you really are legitimately fleeing because you're personally being persecuted, as soon as you're in a safe country, you should be processed there. can you share like, what mexico is or is not doing related to this? and increasing partnership on this topic? >> well, for the past several years -- mexico does have an asylum system.

and we at uscis for several years now have spent people to mexico to help them build their capacity to expand and improve their asylum processes. and we continue to do that. we continue to have discussions with them about that. people do ask for asylum and receive asylum in mexico. we are helping them to the degree they want and need help from us to accomplish that better. >> okay, great, i'm out of time. i'm going to come back in another round. the chair now recognizes the ranking member vela. >> thank you, chairwoman mcsally. family separation is very concerning to me. with this new zero tolerance program announced by the attorney general, can you please explain the criteria please explain the criteria cbp personnel are supposed to use to verify family relationships? >> essentially the agents and officers use whatever information is available to establish relationships.

sometimes these people have documents, sometimes they don't. when it's in question, when we don't believe that there is a relationship when a minor is involved, we'll refer that minor to hhs as an unaccompanied minor. as it relates to, you know, day-to-day operations, there's typically their statements along with documentation. and our officers and agents work to verify that. when we can't, then we let hhs sort the individual as an unaccompanied minor. >> now, i don't know if you can answer this question because this actually may be a question best suited for cbpos. is the process different for families who present themselves at the ports of entry versus those that are apprehended by border patrol between the ports of entry? >> between the ports we're now referring anybody that crosses the border illegally. border patrol is referring 100% of the people that cross the border illegally to the justice department. for criminal prosecution.

the verification of family relationships is essentially the same in both instances. >> so, with this new policy in place, at the point that you're in a situation where you decide to separate the families, where do the minors go? >> the decision is to prosecute 100%. if that happens to be a family member, then the hhs would then take care of the minor as an unaccompanied child. >> but can you tell us -- over the past couple of weeks, we have seen reports of families that have been separated but nobody can tell us where the children are going. do you know where they're going? >> they're referred to health and human services to be placed in a shelter. >> you're telling me i'm better off asking hhs? >> yeah, they control the system as it relates to where the shelters are and which ones they

send them to, et cetera. it's their work that will reunite families or place them with a guardian. >> this is probably a question for you, director. yesterday the department of justice announced that it was asking the department of defense to send 21 prosecutors to assist in the prosecution of people detained pursuant to the new zero tolerance policy. and within a few short weeks, federal courts along the southern border are now experiencing tremendous backlogs because of this. border patrol agents and customs officials do not appear to have the personnel and/or resources necessary to process the new detainees, including minors. there also appears to be an issue with the lack of space necessary to house all of these defendants sentenced to serve time. what is the administration doing to address these concerns? >> i think that's probably better for i.c.e. on the detention issue.

>> as far as the detention capacity, we're well aware of that. we're working with the u.s. marshals. and doj on available detention space. so i think it will be addressed. we want to make sure we don't get back to catch and release. so we're identifying available beds for all we can use. as far as the question on hhs, we're required to release unaccompanied children to hhs within 72 hours. so we simply -- once they identify within 72 hours a bed someplace in the country, our job is to get that child to that bed. and hhs is -- their responsibility to reunite that child sometime with a parent. >> three years ago, most of us

here lived through the issue with unaccompanied minors coming into the country. to me, i just find it ironic that with the new zero tolerance policy, what we're essentially doing is creating a new class of unaccompanied minors. and i'll save the rest of my questions when we come back. i do -- i would -- although we may not see eye to eye on a lot of these things, i would like to congratulate you on your retirement and thank you for your service as well. >> thank you. as far as your question or your comment, if they show up at a port of entry to make their asylum claims, they won't be prosecuted and they won't be separated. the department has no policy to separate families for a deterrence issue. they're separating families for two reasons, number one, they can't prove the relationship. we've had many cases where children have been trafficked by people who weren't their parents, and we're concerned about the child.

the other issues are when they're prosecuted, then they're separated. >> i just -- thank you for clarifying that, sir. are you saying that with the new zero tolerance policy, that at the ports of entry that children are not being separated from parents seeking asylum? >> not 100%. what i'm saying is we separate children from parents on two situations. number one, they don't have evidence that they're actually a parents or legal guardian. and as i said, we have cases where children were trafficked by people claiming to be the parents but weren't. we want to protect those children. the second issue, if the parent is prosecuted, then we have to separate them. because the parent goes to the u.s. marshals. the children go to hhs. it's not a policy based on deterrence, it's a policy based on these two issues. prosecution and can't establish a relationship. >> i'll just add, if they choose to use a port of entry,

then prosecution won't be contemplated in those cases? i'm out of time. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes mr. mccaul from texas. >> director homan, let me thank you for your many years of stellar service to our nation. we all congratulate you on your retirement. i look forward to working with you in the future. when you talked about sanctuary cities, it just reminded me when i was a young counterterrorism federal prosecutor after 9/11, working with the joint terrorism task forces. lot of times we couldn't prove material support to a terrorist. what we would do in many cases was we were able to get them on immigration violation and deport them from this country. what i worry about what's happening in california -- and i wrote an article that california's building the wrong wall, is that they're building a wall between federal law

enforcement and local law enforcement. the idea that we would defy an i.c.e. detainer because this is a criminal alien and yet, the state has decided we're going to defy federal law enforcement, to me, i think the supremacy clause applies. and eventually we're going to win this is in the courts. what can you tell me about the danger, not only to your agents that have to chase these people in the streets, but the danger from a counterterrorism standpoint? >> well, there's two issues here. we always get wrapped around the immigration issue, right, that a local state agency has chosen to arrest somebody, take your freedom away, and lock them in a jail cell. and if we know they're here illegally based on some fingerprint submissions, we should have access to them. they've already decided to arrest them. we should have access to that jail cell. like every other federal agency does. i agree 100% on that.

the other issue that's not talked about as much is, how sanctuary cities affect terrorism investigations. we've had law enforcement agencies that have left the jttfs because we have agents who work for i.c.e. on the task force. as part of the california sanctuary law we have lost access to the databases. it's a california state database that has the information on gang members, ms-13 and numerous gangs. we can no longer access that because of these laws. it affects greatly national security and public safety on a criminal investigative aspect of that. you've had cities out there that passe policies in their cities, not allowed to assist i.c.e. in any way whatsoever. >> and i think that's a point we need to make as well, kate steinle, murder, but also talking about the national security. i have a map i want to point out

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

there's also a program i want you to talk about because i like this committee to authorize this program for you, sir, is the bit map program which deals with biometrics and deals with how can we track these individuals that make this journey from very dangerous countries of origin into this hemisphere, in particular, into the united states. >> well, i agree with you on this chart. that's the issue, right, if we learned anything from 9/11, law enforcement needs to be sharing information. these sanctuary city laws prevent that from happening. so 100% agree with you. i'm glad you brought it up. it's not just immigration issue, it's a public safety national security issue. as far as these pathways, as you know after 9/11 you are exactly right, immigration authorities got most of the people that are involved with terrorist activities arrested. because fbi are still working on the case.

as far as bitmap, we are working with our attache officers overseas, these other countries will enroll them in the bit map, take some prints, feeds them into our system along with the dod and gives us a shot of who is coming who is on their way. panama has been very successful. panama has a great program down there. people that were known terrorists turned around in panama and sent back before reaching our shores. i'd like to use then-secretary john kelly said, we'd rather play the away game, it's important we expand that to other parts of the country. already proven successful and proven that people want to do harm to this country stopped on the way rather than on the border or in the united states. so a significant investment needs to be made there. >> i couldn't agree more. and madam chair look forward to working with you. i yield back.

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

about 1750%. one was in the number of pending asylum cases over the past five years. >> not one year, five years. >> yes. >> and the other one was the number of -- >> what were the actual numbers on that? >> so i have that. let's see. >> while you are getting that to me, i have another question. talking about cartels, when you talking about these folks getting asylum. are these cartels sending them over with drugs, when they get to the border these folks coming looking for refugee status, are they coming in with drugs? so they say i want asylum, by the way, they have a backpack full of drugs, is that what happened? >> i'm not sure we see that very often. i think that's more of a rare occurrence. but i can tell you that -- >> happened at 1% of the time? a couple of times? 30% of the time? >> i would say most everyone in this situation is being this situation is being smuggled and the way that -- >> so you don't have actual

numbers. i'd like to get some of those from you. i'm sorry, i've just got a couple of minutes left here. the other question is, you talk about a caravan, 1,000, 1,500, left for u.s. how many of those actually made it to the border, the u.s. border? sounds like you don't have that number either. but i hear it's about 300. and what i'd love to do, and i'll ask, i'll put in a question for you that i want to see what mexico is doing, because my understanding is there is a major effort at this southern border of mexico addresses this issue and they are doing quite a bit in cooperating with the u.s. it's just it's something that i don't have at my fingertips and it appears you don't either. so i'd love to give an answer to that and finally, mr. homan, if i can, i won't put any words in your mouth, but you said illegal immigrants are dangerous?

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

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

>> syria. china. venezuela. >> china, there is no war in china. what's the issue there? >> well, there could be political persecution. used to be you could be a member and previously it was the one child policy that drove a lot of refugees from china. >> again, thank you for the great job you've done. i'll follow up with questions. and madam chair i yield. >> chair now recognizes mr. bacon from nebraska. >> thank you for being here today and sharing your expertise. i think you've made a compelling case that our policies and loop holes undermine our security and our law. and we need to get that fixed. we can have the best physical security in place, but if we are doing catch and release or asylum policy that's being used as a loophole, we undermine all those efforts. and so, i for one support more physical security but i know we have to fix these laws so they support each other. and that they defend our border and give us the rule of law.

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

and trying to abuse these policies to come to our country? >> the secretary is right. like i said, the bit map program has already identified those who want to harm this country in their travel here. this is the whole issue about the southern border and president wanting the wall and wanting true border security. the question from the gentleman from california was criminal cartels move product. they don't care if it's just an illegal alien looking for farm work or whether it's drugs or weapons or whether it's a terrorist. they are in the business of moving product into the united states illegally that's how they make their money. so when you talk about sanctuary cities that dangle the carrot out. we are dealing with criminal people smuggle terrorists. same illicit pathways. that's why when we talk about border security and border wall and closing these loopholes that's why it's so important. it's just not an immigration issue.

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

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

i know ron is trying to talk a lot. trying to get the story out this is more than immigration. talking about our countries sovereignty and national security to this country. >> i think some folks perceive this as a hypothetical issue versus a real issue. and i think the more real we make it with tangible names and tangibles pictures of faces of folks who come here who had terrorist designs on our country, i think this debate gets easier. thank you. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes california for five minutes. >> thank you. i'm going to go ahead and my colleagues said he wanted to make this more real. i want to introduce into the record a statement by olivia casaras, a mother who participated in the caravan in the fall of 2017 into the record. she's from -- may it go into the record? >> no objections. >> she's from el salvador, one of the deadliest countries not in the war zone. she talks about to turn yourself in and talks about what it's

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

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

stomach to keep hearing over and over again, painting the broad stroke and the picture as though these are folks coming here to do harm. so it's just unbelievable to me how this rhetoric continues and to see it continue in a campaign season just gets even worse and worse. just because you don't get asylum isn't a fraud. and i think that's so important for me to state. now, i want to move on to the issue of climbing separation. according to "the new york times," more than 700 children had to be taken from adults claiming to be their parents since october under the age of 4. secretary nielsen disputed this figure at a may 15th senate homeland hearing. she said the 700 children figure was an hhs number and not a dhs figure. does anybody on this panel know

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

i'll tell you right now, if i had to co-find something to prove my relationship with my mother, it would probably take me a little while. so i understand how difficult this is. can you tell me how we are counting and tracking children that are separated from children? >> so everybody that's taken into custody goes through sort of a booking procedure, right, we get the biographical information. so all of that is in the documentation systems at cbp. so that's how we try to establish whether they are related or not using those documents. that all becomes part of their record. as they come in part of that processing is approving them for removal hearing. >> i yield back. >> can i respond to the speech that was made? >> absolutely. >> first of all, no one on this panel is anti-immigrant. where law enforcement officers enacting the law that you enacted. so saying that is wrong. we are enforcing laws. if you don't think people entering this country illegally

shouldn't it be arrested that's wrong. the law says it's illegal. and no one is saying all aliens are illegally. i've said many times, i certainly understand the plight of these people and feel bad but i have a job to do enacted by you and congress. >> thank you. gentleman, your time has expired. time recognizes the gentleman from alabama for five minutes. >> thank you for being here and service to our country. i understand that you all may have talked about this opening statements, i was a little bit late, i apologize for that, that in march nearly 1,500-person caravan, mostly hondurans, started on a mission to make 2,000-mile trek to our border that was organized by some sort of radical advocacy group. is that accurate, the characterization of that caravan?

and they came through mexico to get to our southwest border under pretense they were in danger. was there any evidence that they were in danger once they got to mexico that you are aware of? do you know how many of that group made it to the port of san yasidro? >> yes, my staff gave me the number. congressman correa had the same question. our records indicate that we arrested crossing illegally between the ports of entry 12 two people claimed to be part of the caravan. and 333 of them presented themselves at the port of entry and claimed asylum. >> do you know of any of those individuals in that caravan petitioned mexico for asylum? >> in discussions with mexico, they did resettle some of the original group. >> do you know if any of that roughly 500 that you just

described tried to stop and stay in mexico? >> i don't know. >> director cissna, do you know how many of these immigrants have received credible fear in the united states? >> yes, u.s. referred to us from i.c.e. so far, a total of 327 cases of people that we think were part of this so-called caravan or we have helped they were. of those 327, we have completed 216 of these credible fears screenings. and of that, 205 got positive screenings. >> do you have any estimate, mr. vitello, how many immigrants in that caravan may have slipped through in our country that we don't have a handle on?

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

>> mr. vitiello, do you believe that a physical border wall is effective in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants into our country. >> it has been very effective and we expect it will continue to be. >> do you believe in addition to a physical wall, security systems support that wall are capable of doing that? >> when the president asked us all the planning we did is in fact that. it's a system that brings a number of capabilities access and mobility so roadways and avenues toward the border get their conveniently. you have to have all three of those things, personnel, technology and infrastructure to make it successful. >> at present, do they have ry sources physically and financially to secure our southwest border? >> across the board, no. but we are using all of the money that the 2018

appropriations gave us to improve conditions as it relates to those three, personnel, technology and infrastructure. >> it seems to me that this caravan that got so much publicity was a manufactured event to try to exploit our southwest border. would that be a fair characteristic? >> given that those people for weeks were traveling, seemed to be out of harm's way. >> it does highlight the discussion of loopholes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes florida for five minutes. >> thank you so much, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. it's good to see you again. commissioner, i would like to address how unaccompanied minors, how they have reasonable -- how reasonable fear interviews are conducted. as a former social worker, a former law enforcement officer, and a former crimes against children detective, i

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

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

>> and since 2014, how would you critique the success of the training that you do have in place? how do you feel it's working? and what adjustments, if any, have you made since then? >> weave gotten better. and the system adjustments and the things that we have done to make sure that those facilities, they are border patrol stations, where people are arrested before they move through the system. so we try to understand this population is a bit different than the larger population. and i think we've done a good job in making those adjustments. >> thank you. director homan, under what circumstances does i.c.e. detain or otherwise assume custody of individuals apprehended at or near the southwest border? and if you talked about that earlier i'm sorry i was late. >> i.c.e. is appropriated for detention of those in the country illegally. so everybody that border patrol apprehends, they take them.

if there is border patrol for expedited processing, mandatory detained, so we'll detain them. >> under what circumstances does i.c.e. refer individuals who are apprehended at or near the border to doj for prosecution? >> we do that. border patrol does that as part of the zero tolerance. we will present if we criminally arrest them and charge with a crime. but as far as zero tolerance border patrol is doing that work. >> did you want to add to that? >> so based on the attempt to end catch and release, justice department put out word through their system, and then the secretary followed that up with direction to cdp to refer all into the ports of entry, referred for prosecution. >> thank you. chair woman, i yield back. >> yield back.

now we'll start a second round here. director cissna i want to go over the numbers in the caravan. >> you said 327 were referred for asylum processing. 216 were screened. and 205 received a positive screening. >> that's correct. so far. >> so far. >> so there may be more cases coming. >> so of the 216 screened, 94.9% because of this very low bar of proving a possibility of a possibility have made it through. where are they right now? have they been released into the interior of the united states? >> i can't account for all. and i would have to my colleague at ice but i have to say the issue here once they are screened, of course it's if it's negative and there were a handful that were negative, they'll get removed they uphold the decision. but if it's positive the idea is they would be sent to immigration judge who would then

determine with finality whether they are going to get asylum or not. and if these are family units, as you may know, because of the flores settlement agreement we may need to release them within 20 days. there may not be enough time to get to the immigration judge before we let them go. >> so that brings to the next point in your testimony, support first in last out because if you put them at the end of the line you are creating a whole another problem as people are settling down, which is inhumane in and of itself. so if you are doing first in last out what is the time frame? >> last in first out refers to regular asylum. this is 317,000 cases we have here. but it's connected to the credible fear. because of the surge in work, we have had to divert people to do all this stuff at the border. one of the results is that the

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

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

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

legal using this loophole? >> yes, there are many such loop holes. one you just referred to this is for regular asylum cases. it is well known that if you file for asylum and six months go by, you get a work permit. a lot of people do this on purpose because they know the bag lock is huge and they can wander around working freely in the economy as long as it takes to hear their case. many of those people have legitimate claims, many don't. and the people that don't clog up the system for the people that do making the granting of their correct benefit delayed. >> so for those who don't have a legitimate claim, they've been in the country illegally. they apply and now have a legal workforce? >> yes, and some apply because they intentionally want to get thrown into immigration court and they want that because certain avenues of relief you can get into immigration court

that they think they can get, one is called cancelation of removal, so they file these bogus claims on purpose intentionally to get into court. and that also clogs up our system. so wrestling with that as well trying to get through those cases as quickly as we can. >> just on the no teeth to the false asylum claims, can you speak to that? >> if you file a false claim, usually the penalty is you receive notice to appear in immigration court, you get deported. we would like more teeth or more penalties to be put on fraudulent claimings. and we also want the definition on what constitutes a fraudulent or frivolous claim. if that were better defined, we could weed out the bad cases

that clog up the system for legitimate asylum seekers. >> thanks. i want to mention that tightening that up is in our bill. >> that's right. >> if i can add to that, one thing i.c.e. is process of doing,they've had their due prs a -- process and ordered removed from an immigration judge. but if given due process and federal judge makes a decision, if we don't execute those decisions, no integrity in the system so see a lot more enforcement in the future. >> thank you. >> and i ask unanimous consent to enter statements from the church rural service, amnesty international, the national immigration forum, the american immigration counsel and the national domestic workers alliance into the record. >> without objection. >> commissioner, kind of as a follow up to the question about the distinction in how people are treated at the ports of entry versus between the ports of entry. with the new zero tolerance policy in place, if someone is

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

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

country where they may suffer persecution. and we are not doing that. if they make a legitimate claim to asylum, we'll hear it and do the credible fear screening. they may in the end get asylum. but that doesn't mean that they didn't violate the law or violate u.s. 1325 a. and the law is the law. they should be prosecuted and punished for that. but that doesn't mean they can't get also get asylum. and we won't throw them back to country where they'll be persecuted if they have a legitimate claim. >> but to be clear and we may agree or disagree whether this is the right thing to do or not what is happening to the people who are claiming credible fear between ports of entry being taken into our criminal justice system, correct? >> i believe so, yes, right. >> commissioner vitiello, on the issue, we had some discussion

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

just let me start out by saying there is a policy in the federal government in law enforcement against racial profiling. the secretary has a statement out on it. and cdp has its own policy statement that prohibits the racial profiling as a tactic used in law enforcement investigations or encounters. and we expect our people, whether they are an arresting someone, or interacting with the public, bad guy or good guy, they treat them with professional and dignity and we hold them to account when they don't do that. the case of montana, we've asked our officer professional responsibility to review the matter. and so i don't want to prejudge it. i want them to do all the fact finding and i'll be happy to give you information. >> thank you. i yield back. >> chair recognizes mr. korea from california for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair.

just following up on those comments on racial profiling. state of california democrats and republicans got together to pass laws against racial profiling. and i can tell you in my life taking the train from san diego to orange county, i have been profiled. nice marine sitting right next to me, guess who gets the question are you an american citizen? it's something we live with. yes we have to live with it. let me take a few moments to talk about big picture. anybody here think ms 13 is good actors, bad actors? we all agree they are bad actors, for the record. is there some of these folks coming from el salvador, guatemala, do you think they have legitimate fear for their lives given that it's alive and well in the country? the answer is probably yes. so my question is, this is a public policy hearing today

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

your folks mouth here, but you said there was some cooperation with mexico. i've talked to folks in your agency and they tell me there is a lot of cooperation with mexico. and that the numbers of the folks coming across in those caravans were drastically reduced by mexicans but they have their own laws they have to follow when it comes to humanitarian issues. so my question to you is would you advocate a stronger cooperation with the mexicans when it comes to our national security? including this issue of asylum seekers? >> yes. yes. to be precise we have a good working relationship. >> you are experts. policy makers. do you have any suggestions how we can work with the mexicans to make sure that we make this hemisphere a little safer for everybody involved? i'm asking you as a policy maker. you are the expert. give us some opinions. >> they're a strong partner.

they've held us cohost a conference on the northern triangle to help them understand what the government challenges are, in that part of the world. so mexico is a great partner in that. but safe third, mexico does have asylum system. so if it can be strengthened -- >> majority of these folks in the caravan get turned back at the mexican territory as opposed to reaching our border? >> a number of them did. >> a majority. because 1,000 to 1,500 started, and some of us quoted that, and you said about 300 arrived at the border that we know of. it's more than half didn't get to the u.s. border. >> we encountered almost 500 of them. and i'm aware of the media reports and in direct discussion with mexico they settled a number of them. >> sir, if we can add, we do need to close the loop holes and need congressional action. >> is that loophole sir or change in the law to tighten up on who is a refugee or not?

>> well, either or. >> well, sir. >> understand the people -- >> you are here as policy maker advising us. do you think the laws are too lax when it comes to whether you fear for your life? or something else that you want to change in these loop holes? >> laws are too lax. loop holes we need to have addressed. >> what would you tighten? >> 35% immigration court only approves 20% something being lost here. and if only 20% are winning their claim in front of the immigration court, that shows there is a problem. now i certainly can say do i think some of these people have a solid claim in their escaping fear, of course. but i also think many are taking advantage of a loophole in a small threshold. and the problem with that they're clogging up the system.

>> so is enough money being sent to the judicial branch so they can speedily advocate on the claims? >> i think it's both substance and process. if you change nothing but change the process, that would be a big help. if you kept the system as it was, but at least detain people until full process of their asylum claim was heard. >> so it's a process not the leap hole. >> that's one issue is the process being able to hold people and address the flores settlement situation and arrest all his resources whole people as long as it takes to hear their full asylum claim. the other issue is substance what should be the credible fear standard. other people say the asylum needs to be reexamined. that's separate issue as well. >> i yield. >> recognizes california for five minutes. >> you know, i heard the comment

the fact that only 20% qualify for asylum means there is an abuse happening. one of the reasons it could be so low is these people are not entitled to counsel. and as i mentioned, it is very hard to meet the legal requirements. you almost cannot increase the standard. it is already so high. i actually believe if we gave people counsel, you would see that 20% number increase. and by quite a bit. and so i'm not sure, i don't think the logic follows it, because only 20% are granted asylum. therefore all these abuses. having been in the system, having litigated asylum cases, i know firsthand how challenging it is, and i know the difference it makes when you do have counsel. most people who don't have an extremely difficult time because it is so high. i want to go back to the issue

of i think mr. cissna that you had mentioned. how do ucis see a person's claim is fraudulent? how is that assessment made? >> the person could just be ineligible, flatout ineligible. that's different from being fraudulent. both things are happening. >> i want to know about the fraudulent. >> i think if the person says something that manifestly does not conform to the facts on the ground would determine they were lying and therefore made a fraudulent claim. >> do we have any numbers how many were fraudulent under that definition you just explained? >> no, we don't have any numbers on how many people making fraudulent claims yet. >> do you have any numbers on how many asylum claims were denied by uscis in recent years that led to perjury charges?

>> no, i don't have that available. >> could you get those to me in writing? >> sure. >> if you could, that would be great. i want to also touch upon the incident that occurred in the montana incident. the cdp has about 100-mile radius of jurisdiction where you can engage with somebody, pull somebody out for reasonable suspicion of immigration violation or crime. is that correct? roughly. >> roughly. the state through case law has given us jurisdiction, loosely defined at 100 miles. >> and if you take a look at the map, like most of los angeles alone is in that because of being on the coast, correct? >> i think that's true for a number of coastal states. >> how often would you say a cdp

officer is going to engage with somebody and start questioning them about their status just because they are speaking spanish? how often do you think that's happening? >> i don't think that happens very often at all. i think they are trained to do a number of things and look at a number of factors before they make a stop for someone. in this case, it was roughly 40 miles or so from the border. >> okay. so should i advise my constituents that are within 40 miles of the border they shouldn't be speaking spanish anymore?

>> i'm not sure. social engagement, i've worked on the border and speak spanish myself, not something people should be concerned about if they are here legally. >> and in this case they showed id and they were detained for another 35 minutes. in that case, what is somebody supposed to do? you've shown your id, still being detained. >> i would like for our office of professional responsibility to do a complete review of the incident, and then i'm happy to come back or put in the record if it's done by then, the total circumstance of that case. >> okay. if that happens to somebody, are they allowed to pull out their cell phone and start documenting they are being held for 35 or 40 minutes? >> our agents regularly filmed

in the performance of their duty and cdp has made an investment in changing policy and allowing us for use incident driven video recordings, so we'll be investing in and deploying a number of cameras in the work space. some of those will actually be worn by agents. >> agents will not delete the videos, right? >> there is a whole policy how we use the video and how it's stored and collected et cetera. >> great. thank you. >> i yield back. >> yields back. in summary as we wrap up, i want to thank the gentlemen for that testimony today and their service. we talked today about trying to build the policy wall in order to secure our country and border and stop having people take advantage of loop holes in the wall. to summarize, some of those loop holes that we have been working together with you to close, the first is to raise the standard of the initial asylum interview that happens at the border which is so low that nearly everybody can make it through.

the second is to hold individuals as long as it takes for them to have due process in order to process their claim. the third is to make it inadmissible within our country if you are serious criminal or gang or gang member or terrorist which i cannot believe isn't part of the law but we have to change that law. the fourth is to have a swift removal of you if you are denied in your claim. the fifth is to terminate your asylum if you were to get it if you return back to your country without any material changes. clearly, if you are afraid for your life but go back to visit, then something is not right. so your asylum should be considered for termination. sixth is there could be an expeditious return of unc unaccompanied minors so we can

swiftly return them just like we do to mexico. and last is increase the penalties for false asylum claims in order to deter and hold people accountable if they file for those. is that a good summary of many of the loop holes we are talking about today? >> agree. >> thank you. >> yes. >> these all are in our bill. the secure america's future act. these are common sense reforms that will keep our country safe and keep our community safe. and i just want to encourage, don't have any members left here, all members on both sides of the aisle, look at our bill, read our bill, study our bill. and if you have suggested improvements to our bill, then please bring them to us and we will work with you in order to get the bill to a place that we can get 218 people to vote for it and get it out of the people's house, house of representatives. the time is urgent as someone who represents a border community who is dealing with these public safety threats and national security threats on daily basis in the communities that i represent. as you are all and your agents are out there every single day dealing with these threats. the time is urgent.

it's time for people to solve this issue and close these loopholes to keep us safe. i want to thank the gentlemen for their testimony and the members for the questions. i want to particularly thank director holman for your 34 years of service to our country and many law enforcement positions. god bless you in your transition out. and thanks for your service and all you've done for us. >> thank you. >> members of the committee, may have some additional questions for the witnesses. we'll ask you to respond to these in writing. pursuant to committee rule 7e hearing record will be open for ten days. without objection, the committee stands adjourned. [ inaudible conversations ]

here's what's coming up today. next the head of the justice department's anti-trust division

talks about global anti-trust enforcement. that's followed by u.s. strategy in the middle east a. at 6:55, a hearing on the rights of federal union workers. tuesday, the justice department's inspector general michael horowitz it was on the ongoing hillary clinton e-mail investigation by the fbi and justice department. live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. the head of the justice department's anti-trust division talks about global anti-trust enforcement at an event hosted by the council on foreign relations.