nal" and it is at 7:00 a.m. more on the deal with iran and the lobbying efforts going on in washington. also, we will check in with andrew selee to talk about mexico's fight on organized crime and money and politics, dave leventhal of the center for public integrity -- who is winning the money race in campaign 2016? we hope you two in tomorrow morning. "newsmakers" is coming up next. thank you for joining us on this sunday. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, "newsmakers" with labor

secretary thomas perez. then homeland security secretary jeh johnson at a house hearing on immigration enforcement. after that, president obama talks with reporters about the iran nuclear deal and other issues. >> this week on "newsmakers," u.s. secretary of labor, her as. thank you for being here. we also have melanie trottman, labor reporter with the "wall street journal," and lydia depillis of the "washington post." radio will go first. lydia: a lot of the news is on the minimum wage and there is a strong push for $15 to be the base. in places that are not coastal cities like new york or los angeles, and you think is appropriate for them are went they do themselves damaged by the going to that level?

secretary perez: i applaud the effort state and local levels are trying to raise and wage. no one should have to live in poverty while they are working. that is the reality because of the daily of the republican leadership to work on the minimum wage. the president has been vocal in his support of the $12 an hour proposal. i was strongly supportive of that. our -- i believe is that there should be a federal floor and state and local levels should be able to go above that to reflect the fact that it costs more to live in seattle and los angeles that in another part of the united states. but regardless of where you live, you should have a floor that enables you not to have to live in poverty. at some dollars $.45 an hour, we have folks working many hours going to the food pantry.

lydia: one thing kansas city did was accept people under 17 worried that including the might impede employment opportunities for young people. does that make sense or is that unequal treatment? sec. perez: the federal minimum wage has a tear instructor to it for younger people. and then over time, you need to raise that person's wage up to whatever the minimum wage would be. so there is president for that. i have not reviewed a kansas city provision to figure out where that is, but again, state and local governments have been the leaders. 7 million people got a raise january of 2015 as a result of state and local efforts in red and blue states alike. ballot initiatives in arkansas, alaska, south dakota, nebraska. people across the country

recognize that people need a raise and you cannot live on $7.25 an hour. melanie: i want to stay on that topic, but there seem -- but there seems to be mixed signals out of the labor department on whether we see leach -- wage growth or not. there are people who believe the 4% annual wage growth we have can never reach that point again. that there will be a new normal lower than that. are we seeing real signs of wage growth? what do you expect going forward? well less than 4% annually be the new normal? sec. perez: it is hard to predict what the level will be. but what i think we do know is that one of the big pieces of unfinished is in this recovery -- and we have seen now 64 consecutive number -- months of job growth, making sure we lift

wages is a big part of it. too many people have not had a meaningful raise in years. decades ago, when he saw productivity increase, that meant wage increases. they went hand-in-hand. in recent decades with the exception of the late 90's, the productivity that workers health eight, they are not getting the benefits of that. that is way past that is why the president is working on a management gas on a minimum wage proposal. and people who work overtime ought to be paid extra. one of the best ways to list your wages is to list your skills. we are not satisfied with the level of wage growth. we have an all of the above strategy to address it. lydia: you mentioned pay protections for the recent overtime proposal.

to get millions more eligible for overtime coverage. you raise the minimum wage for federal contract workers to $10.10 an hour. pay protections for home health workers. what other regulatory changes would we might expect to see in the last year and a half of president obama's term from the labor department? melanie: we always ask what can we do to help -- sec. perez: we always ask what we can do to help working people. that is why what you described melanie, with the $10.10 executive order for federal contracts. that is why we are in the process of implementing a requirement that if you are trying to do business with the federal government, you cannot discriminate, cannot violate wage and hour laws. if you are chronic violator, you do that at your peril. that is why we have the overtime rule. that is why we have a robust enforcement program.

we are working hard. we have recovered more than $1 billion on behalf of workers. that is why we talked misclassification. there are a lot of folks who are employees but have been called an independent contractor so an employer can pay them less, not pay them worker's comp., and she the government. because the tax collector at a state and federal level does not get the money. we are doing everything in our power to make sure we stand up for workers. lydia: but as melanie asked what other areas are you looking at -- host: as long asked, what other areas are you looking at? sec. perez: the minimum wage. the $12 minimum wage proposal is something we care a lot about. i hear from people, in this environment, you cannot get anything done. i worked in the u.s. senate in 1996 for senator kennedy.

that was a presidential election year. you had a republican congress and a democratic president. and in a presidential election year immigration reform passed. well former form -- welfare reform passed. minimum wage increase past. you can get things done if you have the will to do it. the $12 minimum wage proposal is common sense. as we have seen from ballot initiatives in red and blue states alike the people demand this. we will continue to work on these issues of wage fairness. we will work to help people create a better balance between work and family. we meet people all the time who have to stay home from work to take care of their kids and they do not have paid leave. we are the only industrialized nation on the planet that does not have some sort -- some form

of federal paid leave. that is why the president is aggressive in working on that. that is why i have been going around the country trying to talk about wage. state and local governments are. but the congress is behind, regrettably. lydia: that's a misclassification. there is a new set of businesses in the digital economy that have folks doing different things for their employers that are not of the company. they are people. if those workers are classified as independent contractors and they do not look like your typical employee, do you think these kinds of workers, it is a matter of where it -- whether they are classified correctly or does that change in the economy? that there is a new type of

worker that should be accommodated through legislation or regulation? >> you're talking and uber driver, maybe someone selling something on etsy and has two or three of those jobs. sec. perez: there has been a lot of conversation about this recently and i understand it. what troubles me at the outset is it reflects a false choice. you either have innovation or regulation. that is a false choice. i see innovators across the economy. in the new economy, the long-standing economy, who understand that when you take care of your workers it is good for your workers, for your bottom line, and for your customers. this notion that we have to have either an independent contractor driving you or else we cannot create a business model is incorrect. i talked to employers all the

time who recognize their most precious asset is their employee. when you treat them fairly, you end up having a much more loyal workforce. when i hear people talk about the need to make sure that if someone is an employee, they are treated as one, that is right. you can do so and innovate at the same time. that is what the president feels. i know that is what secretary clinton feels and how others feel. we talked to innovators all the time in the silicon valley and elsewhere who understand i can't create a new business model and still take care of my workers -- i can create a new business model and still take care of my workers. lydia: and it is not being impeded by new regulation? sec. perez: i do not think so. there are innovators out there who understand it. i hear people who say innovation has to occur at the absence of

regulation. i think we are about to celebrate the americans with his abilities act's 25th anniversary. does that mean as -- does that mean that if you are an uber driver that you cannot serve a disabled person because they are not a company? no. i think we can accommodate all of this. this discussion about what you following the economy looks like an adjusting it, it is important to reject these false choices and recognize we can take care of workers and create remarkable space for the innovation that has existed for hundreds of years. >> you're wage and hour -- was sent to employers on how to distinguish employees and contract workers. some of the people in the communities said they were

concerned about the agency were showing a bias towards workers being classified as employees and that it was going to make their members and employers around the country to hire independent contractors. there is a statistic. a lot of hiring happening all along -- among contract workers is among contract workers. the temporary service space accounts for more than 10% of all hiring in this expansion. are you in any way concerned that more aggressive enforcement in this area could undermine hiring? sec. perez: what is interesting is the employers i have spoken to over the past two years about this issue said thank you. because the most frequent entity that brings concerns in this classification to our attention our employers.

if you're operating a package company and you call your workers employees because they work exclusively for you, where your uniform and you are competing for a contract say, with the federal government. and your competitor takes their workers that they totally control and call them an independent contractor and they can load value on the date, that is an unfair playing field. we hear that all the time from employers. that is why we have understandings and are working with states like utah, alabama texas. the problem of misclassification of employees is a huge problem. a construction case we had recently where concession workers showed up on friday and they were an employee and then on monday there were told you are an llc and we were able to resolve that i call them what they were, which was employees. this is a very big problem. this -- there is no new policy,

but what employers want was greater clarity and that is what we provided. melanie: do you think the trade group leaders do not accurately reflect what employers feel about it? sec. perez: i remember going to texas six months ago and talking to home builders, who was a self described conservative republican, who said i need your help on misclassification. as i am waiting to build developments -- i am bidding to build of elements and the competition is lowballing me because they are employing folks that they are calling independent contractors when they are their workers. and they should be employees. what i found interesting but not surprising about this issue is that there is -- the concerns i

hear from people across the ideological spectrum. what they understand -- it is not a republican or democratic issue. cheating is cheating. one may take someone who works exclusively under them and cause them an independent contractor -- in maryland, we did not call that misclassification. we called it workplace fraud. you are cheating the worker. creating an unlevel playing field for other businesses who played by the rules. you are cheating the tax collector. that is not right. we have a lot of talk about wage inequality in this country. it is appropriate. one of your questions was about wage inequality. one way to make sure people get paid the fair wages they deserve is to enforce laws on the books and make sure we call people who act like employees quite -- quack like employees employees

and treat them as such. lydia: you worked closely with unions. i think you're supportive and coordinate on a lot of things. reform of the -- act and it has not changed in the 80 years. they would like to see for it changed for how the economy has changed. given how difficult it is to unionize today, do you think legal structures are adequate to help unions do what they need to do to help workers organize themselves? sec. perez: there has been a frontal assault on collective bargaining that the supreme court just accepted a case in that area. teachers and firefighters.

police officers. people doing such important work. make no mistake. there is an effort to hollow out wages by undermining their ability to collectively bargain. that is unfortunate. when we collectively bargain, we help people get where -- fair wages and help immunities build and help school teachers focus on teaching and not getting a second job. i traveled to germany recently and spent a day at volkswagen. the seventh largest company in the world. a great company. they wanted to establish a work counsel in the u.s. they have a manufacturing footprint in over 20 countries across the world. the only country they do not have one is in the u.s. they are developing one or have evolved one in china. that they have not done that here. they were willing.

the model that made volkswagen great is codetermination. they want to work together. they believe their employees are their biggest asset. the challenge in chattanooga was that out-of-state folks came in and mounted an aggressive campaign and defeated the union. the union organizing efforts. it is unfortunate. works council models, i believe businesses succeed when workers have a meaningful voice. that is why i am a strong supporter of collective are grinning. we need to build space in this country so that works councils which employers at volkswagen 18, can come in. it is inconsistent for me to hear some people argue that need to let his essays -- businesses do what they do best and get out of their way. and then when they come into chattanooga and say i want soon establish a works council with

my workers, suddenly the same people who said we should not go out there businesses and let them control of eight to do, suddenly they are mounting a campaign. >> is a more political than regulatory or illegal at this point? sec. perez: there is an assault on collective bargaining. i do not believe i am giving away state secrets in saying that. trying to pit neighbor against neighbor state, making arguments like that teacher who worked 30 years has a pension and you do not so the remedy is let's hollow out that teacher's pension as opposed to the remedy of let's build an economy that works for everyone so you can get a job that will enable you to have a decent wage. that is the reality of the world we are dealing with. movements like the fight for 15, like the home health workers.

2 million strong who as a result of some regulation that we put in place, will hopefully have access to minimum wage and overtime protections. as a nation, we should do our level best to allow workers to have. a voice. collective -- to have a voice. collective bargaining. works councils. when workers succeed, businesses succeed. when they succeed together, we all succeed. we are stronger together as a nation. regrettably, there is a movement that says the only way to grow the economy is through low-wage no benefit jobs. i categorically reject that. >> i will turn to politics a moment and the economy. the 2016 presidential election is already underway. there has been talked about

income inequality and the economy in general. from what you have heard so far from the candidate, which most closely shares president obama's vision for the economy? sec. perez: i will not get into the campaign. but i will tell you, i find it ironic that there is bipartisan talk about the need to address income inequality. i am heartened by that. but when you get to solutions let's wait -- let's raise the minimum wage to $12 -- no, we cannot do that. let's raise the overtime thresholds of people who work 70 hours debt paid for it. no, we cannot do that. let's address misclassification -- no, we cannot do that. i judge people by their action. i am heartened by the fact that

democrats have stood up and understood that income inequality is one of the defining issues and we should be doing this, that, and the other thing about it. minimum wage overtime, things of those nature. i applaud those efforts. i love working with this president because he wakes up every day asking how can he lift the standard of living for everyday americans? that is what i am proud to work for this president. that is why i think the democratic party is standing up in meaningful ways. >> is a democrat wins in 2016, you have been in this position for coming up on two years would you stick around? sec. perez: i have about 530 days until the weekend. i have a sign on my desk. it is a reminder that january 20 2017 will soon approach. i wake up every day with a hop

in my step, because i meet people who need our help. they want a level playing field. they are not asking for a hand up, a hand out. they just want a level playing field. whether i asked whether it is the guy working 70 hours and making $20,000 and cannot feed his family, or the woman who is struggling because she has childcare and she has no paid leave. the progress we have made as a nation is inspiring, but the unfinished business is motivating. >> i would like to squeeze in more question -- one more question if we could -- >> you just mentioned he that you mentioned you are on a tour trying to get states to pass legislation congress has not. is that turning out to be a more bipartisan issue or do you think it has affected the workforce participation? sec. perez: one of the

criticisms i hear from republicans is you have not done enough to increase labor participation. the best and you can do that is the past paid leave laws. look in canada. in 2000, female labor force participation was identical to the u.s. you look now and it is like 7.5 percentage points higher. if we kept pace with canada, we would have 5.5 million more women in the workplace now. 5.5 million more women going to the silicon valley, some of them to help create the gender diversity that is sorely lacking there. or wall street as well. we would have that much more money in the social security trust fund and the medicare trust fund. we are seeing tremendous success most recently in montgomery county, maryland, my home county, were the council passed

and signed a very good paid leave law. we are taking a page out of the minimum wage pay book -- playbook. we will advocate on capitol hill and not wait for republicans to act. we are going elsewhere. i leave you with this on paid leave. only in the u.s. is this issue a partisan issue. i have been to australia journey -- germany, the u.k. canada. you look at who rules in those countries, it is mostly center-right government in those countries. every time i go, i asked business communities and leaders, if you had a chance would you pull back or repeal your paid leave laws. i get a one or two word answer. the one word answer is no and the two word answer, because we are on tv, is really no.

this is a causal link between what they have done and how they have been able to increase women and families in the workplace. a leave is a family issue. that is why i am so passionate about it. i met a school bus driver in connecticut, who gave birth to her daughter and she could not afford to stay home. and she brought her it new born on -- he brought her newborn on the bus with her while she was writhing -- driving. a school bus full of kassig kids with the sniffles is no place for a newborn. i want my bus driver focused on driving the bus. this is what the nation has come to. we have learned from the global experience that you can do this and still have a thriving business community. i reject the false choices of we

can either have a good business climate or have paid leave. every other nation figured it out. we leave on so much but not on leave. we will spend the next 530 some odd days trying to lead on leave. >> labor secretary tom perez thank you. we are out of time. back with our reporters here, lydia, you asked the secretary on minimum wage. there is frustration in congress to raise the federal minimum wage. what are the prospects for it getting through the republican controlled congress? lydia: it is hard to see it moving and president obama's term. but these things take a wild. right now, the main action is in states and localities. what i heard from the secretary is he is supportive of the fight for $15 movement that wants the

minimum wage to be $15 an hour. but it is unclear if that would be well-suited for every place. he did not say it was a bad idea and ask or why state, but he says $12 is where we want to be nationally. host: melanie, where does it go from here? does it get kicked down the can to the next administration? melanie: i think that is more likely than not. we will continue to see activity and the states, see labor unions leading a lot of those efforts. i think they will continue to be aggressive about it. i do not think they will let up. the demonstration is expressing general support in those efforts and on the state level, it sounds like paid leave is where it is out. it is not something the federal government is focused on.

i have heard mostly democrats. i have heard some republicans, but secretary perez says the best thing we can do to increase labor force participation is to pass a federal paid leave law. host: for the has been surprising -- lydia: they have been surprising support for it. who knows, maybe it gets through faster than we expect. host: but what is happening on the state level? lydia: i feel like it is more counties and cities. philadelphia county did it. i think oregon county just did it. in pretty liberal places. but until there is a federal law, it will not reach the red states that are not interested. host: another issue is the independent contractors. the uber drivers. those people out there.

folks who have two to three jobs sewn together by doing different things. is the government moving on this lydia? does that part of the economy feel like the government needs to address their needs? lydia: i think that part of the economy once the government to go away. the misclassification issue that is crackdown in traditional areas. what i was surprised to see is that secretary perez does not say we need to adapt our regulations to this new evolving part of the economy. he says regulations that exist are fine and you can innovate around them and you should use employees as employees, if that is what they are. melanie: i was a bit surprised as well. some of the criticism from the

is is community on this issue is that the labor department is locked in the 1930's industrial economy and they are not accepting that there is a modernized workforce that -- workplace that operates differently. he did not budge at all on that. decades old laws do have to be applied and enforced, but the economy is also changing. i am not sure how he is trying to strike a balance, or if he thinks in their needs to be a balance to be struck. he made clear that the law is the law and it can continue to work. the enforcement will continue at the rate it is and that companies will thrive and innovate. host: we will have to leave it there for now but thank you for being part of "newsmakers." >> next, homeland security

secretary jeh johnson at a house hearing on immigration enforcement. after that, president obama talks with reporters about the iran new year deal and other issues. -- the iran nuclear deal and other issues. tonight on "q&a," matt -- molly crabapple on her use of rawlings to tell investigative stories from around the world. >> gang affiliation might mean reading a book by a black panther even having a tattoo. pelican bay is not alone in this. around the country, you can land in solitary for your art reading, believe, sexual orientation, or your friends. i go around with a sketchbook and draw. that is not necessarily to show the venice drawing but to build a rapport with people. when you have a camera, it puts a difference -- a distance between you and the person. you're taking these images that they cannot see. it is almost a vampiric even though you produce beautiful

things later. but when you draw, it is vulnerable. they can see what you're doing. if you suck, they can tell you so. most people have not been drawn and are delighted to be drawn. a lot of times i draw people because i like to. >> on c-span's "q&a," at 8:00 eastern and pacific tonight. : security secretary jeh johnson testified tuesday at a house judiciary committee oversight hearing on immigration enforcement. among the issues discussed, so-called sanctuary cities which are jurisdictions that do not enforce federal immigration laws. these cities are getting attention because of the death of a woman whom authorities was -- whom authorities say was shot and killed by an undocumented immigrant earlier this month in san francisco, a city with such a status. this is just over three hours.

>> good morning. we welcome everyone to the hearing of oversight of united states department of homeland security. i will begin with recognizing myself for an opening statement. and then i will recognize mr. connie when he arrives. many members of the democratic side are meeting with former secretary clinton as secretary johnson is aware. when they arrived, we will recognize mr. conyers for his opening statement. we will receive because we appreciate the secretary's time as well. >> good morning. i want to welcome our secretary for testifying before us today for the second time. when secretary johnson testified last year, i stated that he was not responsible for the dangerous and irresponsible decisions made by dhs before he was sworn in. i stated that we could only hope

that he would bring back a level of adult responsibility to the enforcement of our immigration laws. unfortunately, since that hearing and under secretary johnson's leadership, the deterioration of immigration enforcement has accelerated. dhs under the obama administration has taken unprecedented steps in order to shut down the enforcement of the immigration laws for millions of unlawful and criminal aliens not considered high enough "priorities." this is done under the guise of "prosecutorial discretion." unfortunately, new priorities issued by secretary johnson last november have turned the flight from enforcement into a headlong rush. although dhs previously deemed fugitive aliens to be a priority for removal, under secretary johnson's guidelines, these aliens are no longer a priority if they were issued a removal order before january 1, 2014. this means that dhs is disregarding removal orders that

have already been issued and wasting the millions of taxpayer dollars spent to obtain the orders. although dhs claims that gang members are a top priority for removal, gang members are most often convicted under state, not federal law, and state convictions for gang-related activity are ignored under secretary johnson's priorities. secretary johnson considers as secondary priorities for removal of aliens convicted of "significant" misdemeanors -- such as domestic violence, sexual abuse or exploitation will -- burglary, unlawful possession of

a firearm, drug trafficking, or drunk driving. yet, even this priority falls away if the aliens simply show "factors" warranting relief. despite dhs's pledge to prioritize the removal of serious criminal aliens, in the last year the number of administrative arrests of criminal aliens has fallen by a third. and the department continues to release thousands of such aliens onto our streets. u.s. immigration and customs enforcement has admitted to releasing 30,558 aliens with criminal convictions in 2014. last friday we received data from dhs regarding the recidivist activity of these criminal aliens ice released in 2014. 1,423 have already been convicted of new crimes like vehicular homicide, domestic violence, sexual assault, dui, burglary, and assault, among many others. because of the failure by this -- of this and previous administrations to detain criminal aliens, and the failure to vigorously pursue fugitives there are almost 180,000 convicted criminal aliens currently in removal proceedings who are living in our neighborhoods, and almost 170,000 convicted criminal aliens who have been ordered removed yet are also living free. under the obama administration

the total number of such convicted criminal aliens who are not being detained has jumped 28% since 2012, as shown by this chart. the tragic impact of dhs's reckless policies on the safety of americans was made all too apparent in recent weeks. a convicted criminal alien who had been deported numerous times killed an innocent american woman on a popular pier in san francisco. ice had recently issued a detainer for the alien -- which san francisco, a sanctuary city -- simply ignored and proceeded to release him. unfortunately, dhs openly advertises that jurisdictions can ignore its detainers. while testifying this march, ice director saldana expressed her enthusiastic support for mandatory detainers. then, the very next day, she

retracted that statement made under oath and called mandatory detainers "highly counterproductive." there are now more than 200 jurisdictions -- including san francisco -- which refuse to honor ice detainers. this effectively releases criminal aliens onto the streets with all too tragic results. secretary johnson's solution the priorities enforcement program, is a failure. politely asking for cooperation from sanctuary cities is a fool's errand. the clear answer to this problem is for dhs to mandate compliance with detainers and for this administration to defend the mandatory nature of detainers in federal court. unfortunately, the administration has taken neither of these crucial steps to keep our communities safe. prior to secretary johnson's appointment, dhs under the obama administration went beyond simple non-enforcement and took the leap of granting administrative amnesty to a class of hundreds of thousands of unlawful aliens.

then, last november, secretary johnson announced that dhs would grant such "deferred action" to over four million more unlawful aliens. by granting these classes of people deferred action, he would bestow benefits such as legal presence, work authorization and access to the social security trust fund and the earned income tax credit. it is within the constitutional authority of congress, not the administration, to grant such benefits to classes of unlawful aliens. 26 states believe that secretary johnson's planned grant of deferred action en mass would cause them irreparable harm. they challenged the plan in federal court. the judge agreed with the states and has granted a temporary injunction. the court stated that the administration is "not just rewriting the laws, it is creating them from scratch." an appeals court has rejected the administration's request of a stay of that injunction. while the continuing injunction

against the unconstitutional affirmative grant of deferred action is a welcome development for the health of our constitution, the court was clear that it was not interfering in any way with secretary johnson's non-enforcement of our immigration laws. the american people have rightly lost all confidence in this administration's willingness to enforce our current immigration laws. this has become the single biggest impediment to congress' ability to fix our broken immigration system. i look forward to the testimony of secretary johnson. now it is my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the committee, mr. conyers, for his opening statement. mr. conyers: thank you. members of the committee and our distinguished witness, secretary jeh johnson when you last testified before the committee i said that given his

distinguished record of public service, i can think of no person better equipped to lead the department of homeland security and to carry out the president's directive that we carry out our immigration policies in the most humane way possible. much has happened in the past year. i i'm pleased to say i do not stand -- that i stand by my initial assessment, which is not to say that there is not still a great amount of work to do. in your written testimony, you speak in great detail about your efforts to counter the over -- the global terrorist threat which has become more diffuse and complex. i agree that isil and al qaeda have moved to a new phase of the conflict. recruiting individuals hoping to

as fire attacks in the west. the department rightly combats this threat with a combination of heightened sick -- with heightened security measures and community outreach. but i wonder if the department has taken note of a recent study by new america which demonstrates since september 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics, and other non-muslim extremists burned by radical muslims. another study released last month by the police executive research forum shows that state and local law enforcement agencies, there will -- they are more than by right-wing and antigovernment terrorism as they are about isil inspired attacks. i hope that you will provide us

with some assurance today that our priorities or an order and that the department focuses on homegrown extremism with the same for forest -- forcefulness and has shown in countering threats from abroad. the immigration actions you initiated last november through a series of memoranda should make our immigration enforcement system smarter, more efficient and ultimately more humane. carrying out these reforms clearly has not been easy, but meaningful reforms really are. your job has been made harder by the refusal of conservative leadership in the house to allow a vote on the immigration reform bill that passed the united states senate two years ago with 68 votes. it has been made harder by their

refusal to consider the bipartisan house bill, h.r. 15 which had 201 cosponsors in the last congress. and it has been made harder by the barrage of litigation that you had to fight off as you have attempted to implement commonsense and entirely lawful immigration reforms. at the end of the day, it only makes sense that people who commit serious crimes and pose a danger to the public should be our highest priorities. those with strong ties to this country, the spouses of citizens and permanent residents, the parents of citizens and dreamers, and those who have worked productively in the u.s. for many years, should not be. who could disagree with that? we are already seeing a positive

impact from the reforms that have been implemented, and i thank you for your tenacity. certainly we might disagree about the implementation of some of the enforcement reforms -- and that is something we will monitor -- but i believe we are heading in the right direction. one area that is particularly in need of urgent reforms involves the detention of mothers and children in secure, jail-like facilities. you recently knowledge that substantial changes must be changed in the current policy of detaining thousands of these families. some for many months and some for longer than one year. we are monitoring these changes because we know from experts that family detention is causing real, lasting damage to these children.

we look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that all aspects of the department of homeland security operate in a way that reflects our american values and continue to honor the contribution of immigrants to our great nation. one final note. the chairman spoke about the tragic death of kate steinle, an innocent young woman who was walking with her father on a san francisco pier. our hearts go out to her family. but as we think about the proper way to respond to this situation, we must make sure we do not adopt policies that would diminish public safety and undermine our commitment to the constitution and civil liberties. and so i ask mr. chair unanimous

consent to enter into the record new york times editorial, titled -- yesterday's "new york times" editorial, titled "lost in the immigration frenzy." >> the chair thanks in the chairman and without objection the chair will be made a part of the record. all other members opening statements will be made a part of the record as well. secretary johnson, if you could rise, i will begin by swearing you in. do you swear that the testimony your about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god? sec. johnson: i do. >> thank you. let the record reflect the witness responded in the affirmative. j charles johnson was sworn in

december 23, 2013 as the fourth secretary of homeland security. prior to joining dhs, he served as general counsel for the department of defense, where he was part of the senior management team and led more than 10 thousand lawyers in the department. he was a counsel to the air force until 2001. he served as assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york until 1991. in love -- and law practice, he was a partner in the new york city law firm paul white -- he graduate from morehouse college in 1979 and received his law degree from columbia in 1982. mr. secretary, your entire written statement will be entered into the record. we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. we welcome you again.

sec. johnson: thank you. you have a pair testimony, as you noted. chairman goodlatte, compass conyers, members of the committee, good to see you again. last time i was here chairman, you noted that 38 years ago, i was an intern for thompson fish, a member of this committee. i recall, after talking to some congressional interns who were here 38 years ago, very vividly congressman fish sent me to a hearing of the senate judiciary subcommittee on the cause tuesday on the senate side. 38 years ago this month. i remember it like it was yesterday. there when his was talking about the abolition of the el toro college. in the middle of his testimony he had a massive heart attack and drop dead.

i hope not to make such news today. [laughter] >> we hope and pray not either. sec. johnson: in all seasons, as you know, the department has many missions. we have 225,000 people, 22 components. my top priority for 2015 has been management reform. ensuring our department functions most effectively and efficiently for the american people. i am pleased that we have filled almost all vacancies that existed in my department when i came in 18 months ago most recently with our new tsa administration are. we are doing a member of other things to reform and make more efficient how we conduct our business. we are focused on aviation security. of course, counterterrorism, which remains the one stone of our department's mission.

we are focused on cyber security. i refer to the members to an op-ed which appears in political on federal cyber security and how i think need to improve our mission there and the things we are doing in dhs to -- to improve our federal civilian work. on immigration respectfully, it is a fiction to say we are not enforcing the law. apprehensions are down. they are down considerably from where they were a year ago. but there are still apprehensions. daily. in particular on the southern border. i am pleased that the spike we saw last summer on the southern border has not returned. apprehensions, an indicator of total attempts to cross the border, are down considerably. if the current pace continues, apprehensions will be at the

lowest sometime in the 1970's. in terms of enforcement and removal, without a doubt, the new policy i announced and am directing prioritizes threats to public safety and border security. without a doubt, we are moving increasingly in the direction of deporting criminals. absolutely. i stand by that. i believe it is good for public safety. i am pleased that of those in immigration detention now, 96% are in my top two priorities for removal. 76% or in my top priority for removal. that is, those apprehended at the border, convicted felons. that is the direction we are moving in with the resources we have. i believe we need to continue to focus our resources on criminals

threats to public safety, onboard security. -- on border security. part of that is fixing our relationship with state and local fall -- state and local law enforcement. we are at the point where something like 300 jurisdictions had enacted or imposed limitations on their law enforcement's ability to cooperate with our personnel. that needed to be fixed. because it was inhibiting our ability to get at the criminals. what the president and i did was to replace the secure communities program with the new priority enforcement program which i believe result the legal and political controversy. we are actively reaching out to state and local law enforcement and jurisdictions to introduce the program and encourage them to work with us.

of the 49 biggest, i am pleased to report some 33 have indicated an agreement and willingness to work with us. only five of the 49 have said no. so far. that we will go back. this is a work in progress. the county of los angeles is a big one has agreed to work with us in the new program to more effectively get at threats to public safety. that is the direction i believe we should go in for the sake of public safety homeland, and border security. our deferred action program for adults is pending now in litigation. the district court issued an injunction. that matter is on appeal now. oral argument on the appeal was last rider. we await the decision. chairman congressman, i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. secretary.

i recognize myself. you claim to prioritize immigration enforcement against terminal aliens. the number of detention beds use continue to fall. only 24,000 to 26,000 are being utilized. can you explain the continued increase in the number of convicted criminal aliens and removal proceedings will have already been ordered removed who are not being detained by dhs? the number of these convicted criminal aliens allowed on our streets has gone up by 28% in less than three years. i again direct your attention to that chart. to almost 350,000. these people are on the streets and many of them are committing new crimes. i would like you to explain how this priority system is working when you are not fully utilizing

it, not removing 350,000 people who have been ordered removed and not even using the capabilities that the congress is paying for. sec. johnson: last i looked at the number of those detained in immigration detention has been going up. last time i checked, it was around 31,000. that is a day to day report i get. it was up to around 31,000 the last time i checked. that is less than the full capacity that congress has given us of some 34,000, to be sure, but it is moving in the direction -- mr. goodlatte: given there is the hundred 50,000 on the street, should we provide you with additional capacity? sec. johnson: it is trending in that direction. as you know, we have established greater capability to detain

those who bring their children with them. i have issued policies to reform those practices, because of the special consideration that go into dealing with children. but we have increased capacity. it is going up. one of the reasons i think it is lower than 34,000 is frankly the apprehension rates are lower and because of the problem we had with secure communities, which inhibited our ability to conduct interior enforcement. mr. goodlatte: why do you think cooperation with ice should be voluntary? sec. johnson: if i could finish my sentence. some 12,000 detentions were not acted upon by state and local jurisdictions. i do not believe we should

mandate the conduct of state and law -- local law enforcement through federal legislation. the most effective way to work with jurisdictions, particularly larger ones, is there a cooperative effort. state and local law enforcement believe that as well. through a cooperative effort with a program that removes legal controversy -- chairman goodlatte: let me ask you about that. is it true that some of the worst addictions have the kind to participate? sectretary johnson: i would disagree with that, sir. chairman goodlatte: my understanding that the highest party have said outright, no. sectretary johnson: and as i indicated a moment ago, 33 have indicated a willingness to participate in one way or another of the 49 top, 11 are still considering it. and we have contacted literally hundreds. at the 409i have mentioned