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 other 49 top priorities because they

are the largest jurisdiction. the overwhelming number have indicated a willingness to work with us. chairman goodlatte: of the 276 so-called sanctuary cities, where they have probably taken a position to not cooperate with -- lester, criminal aliens were released by those communities onto the streets of their communities and of this country. and in the short time since those 8000 were released, they have already committed more than 1900 new crimes. why wouldn't you mandate influence, whatever it might be to honor detainers rather than to see this occur? now, i have to say the department is not operating with clean hands. when they go to these communities and say, don't

release 8000, because the department released 30,000 last year under their own procedures. again, that helped to contribute to this growing list now of nearly 350,000 individuals who are either under deportation order or have deportation procedures pending who have been released and are out on our streets. sectretary johnson: you are asking me, should we reduce or eliminate the criminals who are undocumented who are released by sanctuary cities -- chairman goodlatte: and by the department. sectretary johnson: i agree we should work to reduce that number. chairman goodlatte: but the trend is going the wrong way. sectretary johnson: i disagree that through federal legislation, we should mandate how state and local law enforcement relates to us. i don't think that is going to solve the controversy in the courts.

and in terms of the 30,000, as you know chairman -- chairman goodlatte: how about incentivizing them? sectretary johnson: as you know chairman, i have issued new guidelines to deal with releases of those who have been convicted of something from immigration detention to tighten up on it. higher-level approval authority and that we should no longer release them for budgetary or reasons of lack of space. we will find a space. if there is somebody we think should be detained and we can disdain them consistent with the law. that has been my directive. i want to see that number go down too. chairman goodlatte: thank you. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. i was just looking over your article in the newspapers today about cyber security. and you say often sophisticated actors penetrate the gate

because they know they can count on a single user letting his guard down, but will continue to increase with the -- with congress' help to do much more. do you have an additional comment about that? i am going to put this in the record. sectretary johnson: yes. congressman, i have been struck by the fact that -- that very often, the most sophisticated, far-reaching attacks -- whether in the private sector or in the government -- by the most sophisticated actors often starts with a simple lack of spearfishing. someone opened an e-mail that they shouldn't have. so a large part of our efforts have to be education. of our workforce about not opening suspicious e-mails e-mails they don't recognize. senator conyers: thank you. on immigration enforcement

priorities, over the past six and a half years, this administration has set many new immigration enforcement records. over the first six years, the number of people removed with so much greater than it had been in the past administration that the president was famously described as the to porter in chief. -- the deep order -- the deporter in chief. -- to remove fewer people in the current fiscal year than in the past fiscal years. can you explain why the removal numbers went down in this past year? sectretary johnson: well, the -- as i mentioned, congressman, i would like to see us move in the direction of focusing on public safety. and that is what we are doing. while the overall number of

deportation has been going down, an increasing percentage of those we detain, and hopefully those we ultimately remove, are convicted criminals recent border arrivals, illegally, and threats to public safety. that is the direction of believe we need to go. senator conyers: good. let me ask you about the decision to replace secure communities with priority enforcement programs. i understand the secure communities, the fingerprints of every person arrested and booked for a crime by local law enforcement are checked not only by the fbi, but also against the department of homeland security immigration records. will that ability still be

present under the priority enforcement program? sectretary johnson: yes. senator conyers: excellent. now, the montgomery county chief of police recently said, his office notifies ice when serious criminals are set to be released. and ice is always able to get there on the day of release to assume custody. would you say ice will generally take appropriate actions were notified about the release of a serious criminal? sectretary johnson: we will generally take appropriate action to avoid the release of a serious criminal, absolutely. senator conyers: very good. and -- finally, can you comment on this, the shooting of kate steinle and pennsylvania? in general, how do you respond to people who say that are

southwest border is not secure? how secure is our southwest border compared to other times in our history? sectretary johnson: over the last 15 years, in the clinton bush, and obama administrations we -- and i include in the statement, we, the congress -- have made historic investments in border security. for example, 15 years ago, there was only 70 miles of fence on the southwest border. now there is 700. we are up to 18,000 and change in terms of water control personnel -- border patrol personnel, and i believe that is reflected in the numbers. in the year 2000 apprehensions were 1.6 million. in recent years, they are down around 400,000. this year, i suspect will be somewhere in the 300,000 even

lower. that is due in very large part to the investment we have made in border security with this congress. i want to continue that through investments in technology, surveillance equipment, and so forth. in terms of the san francisco case, -- senator conyers: thank you. just finally, i understand that lopez has returned to the country multiple times after being deported. but in most instances, had he been apprehended right away, can you give us a little elimination on that subject? sectretary johnson: my understanding was that he was deported five times and returned five times. and he was prosecuted for unlawful reentry three times. and served fairly significant jail sentences.

he was in bop custody serving his last sentence. then here's to enter to the san francisco sheriff. we put another detainer on him. and he was released. my hope is that jurisdictions like san francisco, san francisco county will cooperate with a new program. i asked that san francisco participate. i personally met with the sheriff in april to ask for his participation. along with other san francisco area sheriffs. in the month of april. and so, as i said, i'm making the rounds. my debbie terry -- my deputy secretary and i and others have been very active in promoting

public safety to get jurisdictions to cooperate with us on this. senator conyers: thank you, mr. secretary. thank you, mr. chairman. chairman goodlatte: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i also want to thank the gentleman from texas for going on his spot -- in his spot. i have listened as witnesses have repeated with almost catatonic frequently certain phrases. phrases like, citizenship for 11 million aspiring americans, as if 11 million of any category could all pass a background check. phrases like, functional control of the border. phrases as benign sounding as sanctuary cities. i have listened pretty carefully, as i have heard argument after argument after argument made -- to actually

enforce immigration laws. have you had a chance to look at the criminal history of mr. lopez sanchez? sectretary johnson: i believe i have had senator gowdy: it dates back to 1991. his conduct occurred in five separate states. he has committed local, state, and federal crimes. he was and is a career criminal. he violated at least three separate statutes when he simply picked up the gun before he shot and killed an innocent woman walking with her father. so, to me, mr. secretary, he is exhibit a that we must not have functional control over the border or he wouldn't have reentered so many times. and he is, i am assuming, not able to pass anyone's background check. i would hope that somebody with his criminal history could not even past our friend in the senate's comprehensive immigration reform background check.

i want to sort the legal issue in a second, but i want to read a quote to you and ask you if you know who said it. i want people who are living in this country undocumented to come forward, to get on the books, and subject themselves to a background checks i can know who they are and whether there is a current program or a path to citizenship, whether it is deferred action or earned path to citizenship. i want people to come for. do you know who said that? sectretary johnson: well, i don't know if i said he would not, but that is consistent with my own sentiment. senator gowdy: you did say that. now i want you to tell me, what in lopez sanchez's background would comport? sectretary johnson: well, clearly, he is not the type of person that would ever qualify for any sort of deferred action. senator gowdy: i know that. nor is he the type of person who would comport. so my point is, that point is --

sir? sectretary johnson: may i be allowed as big? senator gowdy: you are allowed to answer the question that was asked. sectretary johnson: give me a chance, please. he is a criminal, a dangerous criminal multiple times over. we talk about encouraging people to comport we are talking about people who we hope will report crime and participate in american society. obviously, someone like this is not coming forward. senator gowdy: no, he is not coming forward, mr. secretary. i'm not going to let you run out the clock. he is not coming forward and he doesn't need to get on the books because he has already been on the books. better than being on the books mr. secretary, he was in federal prison. so i want to know why was somebody in federal prison with a federal detainer on him released to a sanctuary city? sectretary johnson: you would

have to ask the bureau of prisons. senator gowdy: have you asked the bureau of prisons? sectretary johnson: we had a detainer on him and both cases. senator gowdy: i know you did. my question to you is -- sectretary johnson: -- there are a lot of questions being asked right now. in my book, he is exhibit a for why jurisdictions need to work with our priority enforcement program. secure communities was networking. there were over 12,000 the tenors of mind that were not acted upon. senator gowdy: what are you make those mandatory? why don't you make the detainers mandatory? -- if if -- if -- if cities are not complying, what are you make the mandatory? sectretary johnson: i think that would be a huge setback and i suspect they would agree. senator gowdy: i do not agree and i will tell you why i do not agree. what i find ironic is you are not willing to mandate federal

detainers, you are willing to mandate that the state and local law enforcement cannot assist you in enforcing immigration laws. help me understand that. you can empower a city like san francisco to ignore federal law, but you want to empower state and local law enforcement to actually enforce immigration laws. help me reconcile that. sectretary johnson: can i speak? senator gowdy: yes, sir. you can have the rest of the time. [laughter] sectretary johnson: thank you for giving me seven seconds. senator gowdy: you take all the time. sectretary johnson: i am sure you are aware of this. it was usually problematic in the courts. the courts were saying that state and local law enforcement does not have the authority under the due process clause of the constitution durable people until we can coming get them. the last i looked, you cannot rewrite that. i do not believe that mandating through federal legislation the conduct of ships and please

choose is the way to go. -- -- police -- sheriff's and police chiefs is the way to go. i want is he is were cooperatively with state and local law enforcement. senator gowdy: my time is up. mr. secretary, the last time i looked, we had a supremacy clause and federal law trusts trumps -- trumps state laws. when i hear the phrase, century city. as benign sounding as it is, it may have been a sanctuary for that defendant, that it sure as hell was not a sanctuary for a woman walking with her father. so at a minimum, change the name of whatever benign sounding program cities like san francisco want to follow and the money ought to be cut and i would hope that you would insist that federal detainers be honored and not be discretionary. with that, i yield back. chairman goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from

new york. >> mr. chairman, i would first welcome secretary johnson. i would like to remind mr. gowdy that it does not trump the federal amendment. the federal court has held the fourth amendment. there were indeed troubles and the courts and i want to commend the administration for trying to violate policy that is not unconstitutional. as the prior policy was. now, secretary johnson, i have heard significant concerns. i realize this is of the one topic we are supposed to talk about. of visas to aliens coming to work in the motion picture industry. movie jobs provide 11 at for a great many new yorkers, so i think very seriously that they are improperly allowing unqualified aliens for those jobs. i would like your agency to take a serious look at these

sanctions or allegations. would you commit to working with me on this issue? sectretary johnson: yes. senator nadler: thank you. we have been asked, and i have looked to increase the number of h1-b visas. voted only against because of the -- the provision to eliminate the equivalent. but the assumption that we need more is because we had to bring engineers and others into this country to fill positions we can't fill here. we have heard that repeatedly. yet we see these recent stories about the disney company and others are laying off hundreds of their own american employees who were then forced to train foreigners who came here to replace them. now, if that is true, that is a

very serious failing of the program. on it being used to displace american workers rather than to supply people. if the department looking into that? as to how that program is being abused. sectretary johnson: through the h1-b program those who hold visas are not supposed to replace americans with the jobs, as you know, as you pointed out. any such allegations are very troubling to me. i believe that such matters should be investigated. i also believe congress can help in this regard. i think congress can help through increased enforcement mechanisms for situations where an employer does in fact replace

american workers with h1-b holders. i support that. senator nadler: thank you. mr. secretary, the united states has a long-standing commitment to refugee protection. we pride ourselves in our opening and welcoming asylum laws. i understand these laws need to be balanced with legitimate border security initiatives that i'm concerned that in our request to expedite the removal of individuals from our country we may be the deporting those with serious persecution claims. recently dhs instituted a pilot program expediting the deportation of central americans be on a normal expedited removal process. these detainees were apprehended and detained by ice only from the general population. they are not even access to attorneys and are deported within a matter of days. advocates on the ground of being told that these detainees are being held and facilities,

particularly in facilities and south texas. i am also concerned that we may have transferred our border security to the mexican government and they are supporting refugees without offering any protection under international law. mexico has more than doubled is detention of deeper -- duplicated central american children. i find this practice is troubling. given that there are several news reports of the horrific violence in the region, especially against women and girls, an article stating the central americans are being killed. i would like to enter some of these into the record, mr. chairman. chairman goodlatte: if the gentleman will come at some point, designate which one, we will put them into the record. senator nadler: law enforcement and falls protecting those from persecution and give an obligation to make sure we don't undermine those -- undermine our borders. what is the administration

during to ensure that central americans refugees international protection claims are being honored by both our governments -- and that is does it have an adequate opportunity to make their claims with proper legal assistance -- and by the government of new mexico -- mexico? sectretary johnson: a couple of things there, congressman. first, we have prioritized among our personal interviews of people on the border, particular from central america, who may have a reasonable fear claim. in the most recent guidance i is it, i directed that these interviews be conducted in a reasonable. of time -- reasonable period of time, as quickly as possible. my hope is we can get those done, on average, around 14 days at -- after apprehension. the other thing that i would

like to see more use of his in country processing and central america. last summer, we need to offer people a lawful safepath to the united states. we need to interview kids in the three central american countries have parents who are here to see if they would qualify for refugee status. frankly, not enough people have taken advantage of the program. it is just -- it is in the low thousands. i would like to see more use that method versus trying to make the journey through mexico, which is great dangers and causing a border illegally. so we are encouraging people to make use of that program and central america. and i want to see us publicize it, put emphasis on it because

it is the lawful safepath to come to the united states. senator nadler: my time has expired. i yield back. chairman goodlatte: the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will preface my questions with a comment. and that is we have referenced the commuter -- safe community programs and i would just note the administration never went to court to defend the program when the issue was before the courts. but limited to my questions. first of all, what is the administration's position on sanctuary cities? sectretary johnson: i would like to see -- senator chabot: does it have what? sectretary johnson: yes, in the sense that i want to reduce if not eliminate the jurisdictions that don't want to cooperate with us. senator chabot: has the

administration actually come out and either condemned to them on the one hand or condone them on the other hand? sectretary johnson: whatever label you put on it, there are a whole lot of jurisdictions. something like 300 that -- senator chabot: what is your operating definition of a century city? sectretary johnson: there are so many around. i just know there are something like 300 jurisdictions that have enacted ordinances, executive orders acting pursuant to state law that will not cooperate with us because the controversy around the program. senator chabot: in essence these communities are refusing to cooperate with the federal government in the enforcement of the federal immigration laws would that be a fair representation to -- representation? sectretary johnson: to one degree or another. senator chabot: thank you. one thing that is so frustrating to us and people who bring this topic up with me is the fact that this administration seems

to be anxious to aggressively pursue communities states that are enforcing the immigration must. arizona is an example. so when the state is enforcing our immigration laws, we go after them. we pursue them, we basically and that case, stop them. however, we have communities all over the country that are refusing to enforce the immigration must. and we saw this tragic incident in california. which -- with this totally innocent 32-year-old woman who was brutally murdered by someone who shouldn't have even been here. and the administration really, in essence, hasn't actively opposed cities that are flooding our immigration laws. can you understand that frustration? sectretary johnson: well, all i know is i've been spending a whole lot of time of my own

meeting with mayors, governors county executives, sheriffs who have been opposed to cooperating with us to a great them to eliminate those barriers. that is including a lot of very large jurisdictions who have passed these types of laws to repeal them or interpret them in a certain way consistent with either program, which is aiming i get in criminals. senator chabot: has the administration reached out to the family to your knowledge? sectretary johnson: to who? senator chabot: to the family of the woman who was brutally murdered by this individual who had committed seven different felonies in four different states, in my understanding, who had been deported and kept coming back? has the administration reached out to that family? sectretary johnson: i am sorry, i don't know the answer to that question, sir. senator chabot: i would just

note that the administration has reached out in a whole range of criminal cases around the country. and i'm not being critical of them having done that. i think certainly there are times when the administration should do that. but there are also times -- perhaps they need to do that. sectretary johnson: i don't know the answer. senator chabot: could you check into that? sectretary johnson: speaking for myself, i have developed a practice of reaching out to every sheriff or commissioner in chief who has had a law enforcement officer who has died in the line of duty myself. i write a letter personally. senator chabot: my understanding is they have not, but i would ask the administration check into that. i'm almost out of time. how long has our border with mexico -- how long is a reporter with mexico? sectretary johnson: 2700 miles. senator chabot: and how much of the fence is complete? sectretary johnson: 700. senator chabot: what did the

administration do i can 2010, which suspended expansion of the virtual portion of the fence? sectretary johnson: well, my understanding is that the 700 miles were built pursuant to congressional mandate. i know there are some litigation around an environmental issue. i also know the southwest border is very remote. as i am sure you know, some of it includes the rio grande. other parts are very mountainous. until the fence we have built has been built in places where it makes the most sense to have a fence. senator chabot: my time has expired, but limit complete by noting i think that is what of the other things is very frustrating to the american public. the fact that the law says the fence is to be built -- i know not all of this is a fence, some of it is virtual -- but the

length of time this has taken and the environmental lawsuit that have been found and all the rest, the fence needs to be completed. we need to have a secure border. i yield back. sectretary johnson: i believe it is almost all completed, pursuant from the mandate. senator chabot: i don't think that is correct, but i will follow up on it. thank you. chairman goodlatte: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you mr. secretary, for being here and the work that you do on behalf of our country to keep us safe. it is a tough job, but you have approached your duties with skill and dignity and we very much appreciate that. i want to touch just briefly on the tragedy in san francisco the young lady who was walking with her father, obviously, an outrageous situation. she was shot and killed. and i think whenever an innocent citizen loses their life, it

should cause us to review, what are the policies, what could be changed that would make our communities safer? some say we ought to do mandatory sentencing, but my understanding is that mr. sanchez just finished four years in prison for the prosecution. so it doesn't appear that that is necessarily the answer. one of the questions i wanted to explore was the policy of transferring from the bureau of prisons to a locality on a ward. it is my understanding there was a 20-year-old warrant for mr. sanchez, but the underlying offense was possession of a small amount of marijuana. now, i don't know. clearly, if you had an outstanding warrant against somebody who committed a crime you know, two weeks ago, you

don't want the department of homeland security to thwart the locality. but if you have a very old warrant with an offense that probably wouldn't be prosecuted, is there some way that we could explore either clearing those warrants if there is no intent to prosecute? in that case, you have a situation where probably there would be no witnesses, you couldn't really have an effective prosecution. in the state of california today, possession is an infraction. it doesn't give rise to a prosecution. what are your thoughts on that process? sectretary johnson: i agree with the spirit of your question. i think that in a situation where the bureau of prisons has someone that they are about to release because that person has completed his sentence and there

is an immigration detainer and there is a 20-year-old warrant on a marijuana charge, there ought to be some discretion and balancing built into that so that -- senator lofgren: or maybe some communication with the locality to find out whether they intend -- sectretary johnson: look, i think we need to look at this question. it may be that they give priority to a criminal warrant which in all cases is not necessarily the best outcome. so i want to look at the question of whether or not we and dop can work more effectively together to make the appropriate assessment that it is better that this person go to immigration detention versus go to a jurisdiction on a 20 rolled want. senator lofgren: i am glad to hear that and i would like to keep -- i think it is an

important element of the situation that has would've not been examined. i want to talk today about the gao report just released today. you may not have had a chance to review it. but it really talks about the manner in which the the hs is screening -- dhs is screening and caring for unaccompanied children when it comes to mexican children at the border. this is an issue i have raised in the past, both privately and publicly that mexican children under the age of 14 are presumed not to be competent to make a decision about whether to voluntarily return. but what the gao found is that we are not really getting the kind of examination that the law envisioned under the trafficking provisions. it does trouble me, and i know there is several members on both sides of the aisle who are concerned, you have a child who may be a victim of trafficking.

they may have been a victim of sexual abuse. and yet their interrogation is conducted by a uniformed officer who may or may not speak the language in front of other people, other children. you wouldn't have a police agency in the whole united states that would interview a child sexual abuse victim in that manner. so, i'm wondering, now that we have the gao report, whether we can revisit how we are doing these interviews and whether we might take a -- a clue from police agencies around the united states to make sure that potential sex trafficking victims, who are children, are interviewed in an appropriate setting by skilled, nonuniformed people so we can get the truth. whether they are, in fact, a victim, or whether they are not. when you have had a chance to

take a look at that report, could we discussed this further? sectretary johnson: i am aware of the report. and its conclusion. i have not had a chance to study it, but it is something we will look at. senator lofgren: thank you. chairman goodlatte: the chair thanks the gentlewoman and recognizes the gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, it is always good to see you. thank you for being here. at the opening of this hearing the making mentor who i have a gnome is respect complemented the conservative leadership of the house for impacting and even swelling some of the policies of this administration. i assumed he was talking about releasing terrorists or releasing criminals on our street. while i am sure leadership would be flattered, i am sure they would be the first to say we have a lot of work to do. he also mentioned your job needs to be done humanely. you know and we have talked about before we have a huge gang problem in the country.

in fact, if we took a members in the united -- gang members in the united states, they would equal the sixth largest army in the world. is it humane to leave individuals who are here illegally and who have been active participants in a criminal street gang or who intentionally participated in organized criminal gangs to remain in the united states? sectretary johnson: such an individual is among my top priorities for removal, sir. senator forbes: if that is the case, and that is indeed the memo you mentioned, we had a little difficulty because three month ago, your director vice did not have a clue which he was asked to a new can look at the testimony and the record. when we ask her how many criminal aliens with violent gangs has processedice -- has ice processed and deported? how many has ice or cbp

released? and what type of process of the using to determine which member is a member of the criminal gang? can you give us today the number of criminal aliens with violent gang ties that ice or cbp has processed and deported? sectretary johnson: well, as a knowable number, which we can get to you for the record, sitting with your right now, i don't know the number. senator forbes: and here's the problem we have. this is one of your top priorities. the director said she didn't have a clue. and today when we have a hearing to look at this, we don't have that number. so if you would get it back to us. but i would assume that you also don't of how many ice or cbp has released. sectretary johnson: again, it is a knowable number, sir, i just a not come prepared with a number.

if i could have anticipated your question, i would have. senator forbes: i would have just thought if it was one of your top priorities, that was a metric you would look at. sectretary johnson: it is one of my top roadies, sir. senator forbes: but you just on the whether it is working or not. sectretary johnson: like i said it is a noble number. senator forbes: but you don't know the noble number. -- knowable number. sectretary johnson: i have mandated as part of that same directive that we track who we will move -- senator forbes: can i ask you this, because i don't have five minutes, what type of process are you using to do that tracking? how do you know who was a member of a criminal gang? do you ask them? sectretary johnson: in fact, we have tightened up the guidance so that we can more effectively identify -- senator forbes: share with us if you would, how you have tightened it up. do you ask the individuals if they are members of violent criminal gangs? sectretary johnson: well, if you are referring to applicants for

deferred action, the answer is yes. senator forbes: so your testimony today is that you ask every member who was an applicant whether they are a member of a violent criminal gang because that would be in conflict with what the director said. that is your testimony? sectretary johnson: my understanding is that -- senator forbes: let me make sure. you are saying that it is the policy, you are sure of that, or you don't know? sectretary johnson: i know that being a member of a criminal street gang is certainly a disqualifier. senator forbes: i understand that, but if we don't know who they are, that doesn't help us. can you state under oath that you know that each one of those applicants are asked whether they are even a member of a chronic criminal gang? sectretary johnson: i believe the answer is yes, sir. senator forbes: you believe it is, but you do not know? can you confirm that and get it back to us for the record? do you know whether or not they are reviewing their criminal records? sectretary johnson: i am sorry, what is the question? senator forbes: do you know whether the applicant' trial

records are reviewed for a decision is to made? sectretary johnson: a trial record? senator forbes: yes, sir. sectretary johnson: what is a trial record? senator forbes: when they are going to court and they are prosecuted for crime, there would be a record for that. and the reason it would be important is because oftentimes, it doesn't say on the conviction that they were a member of a violent criminal gang. i know, mr. chairman, my time is up but -- sectretary johnson: i don't know if i have ever heard the term trial record. senator forbes: then let's use criminal record if you want to but the problem with the criminal record is that it does not always show the details that were in the trial. and then if you do not know that, you don't know if when they plead -- with that, i yield back. for a concerning that you have a major priority and we don't even know the metrics as to whether or not it is working. sectretary johnson: that would be a mischaracterization of what i said, sir. chairman goodlatte: the time has

expired and the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas -- gentle lady from texas. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have sat on the homeland security committee since the tragedy of 9/11. it is important to know that secretary johnson has made incredible advances in securing this nation. -- the transportation security administration and other agencies within homeland security that we have faced challenges, but america has been made safer and more secure with the creation of this department. in particular, let me thank secretary johnson for noting the decrease in the other company children, but as well when a group of us went to visit billy in san antonio, and viewed a

certain circumstances that were unacceptable to us, that department was responsive and we appreciate the decrease in population illegally of mothers and children dealing with the other company prison sentences. i think it is important to take note that this is a huge challenge. in securing this nation. and so, allow me to quickly, and mr. secretary, if you could just a yes or no on the reasons because i want to get to my real questions, but i just want to say, the program that you have announced, would that have been a sizable intervention for the sheriff's department and other sanctuary cities to be able to respond to the circumstance like mr. sanchez? does this give them a greater latitude? sectretary johnson: yes. senator lee: and let me just say for my colleagues, a century city is not choosing of the

secretary of from insecurity, it is their right. i would offer to say and ask unanimous consent to put into the record, and might i do this to my colleagues with my deepest of the two that family and i personally apologize to the family for this tragedy that has occurred in san francisco. none of us would want to counter that or support that or be supportive of cumbrian to immigration reform and support that violent act, but i do think it is important to note that murders intend to his go -- murders in san francisco compared to murders in dallas and minneapolis of the same size -- over the years it has gone down in san francisco. i don't necessarily what to condemn's x-ray cities, but i do want to condemn the idea of communications. and i want to join with me or at late and say, could summits of the pickup the phone? i am looking at in order of

activities here and i see that ice set a detainer on 3-27-2015. and it would not negate the ability to have simply picked up the phone and called ice to be able to say this individual, who has a look at history, is in our facility. mr. secretary, is that -- was that -- and might of this horrible tragedy that we do not diminish could that have been a phone conversation to a set that time tackle -- from the ships -- -- from the sheriff's department? sectretary johnson: my strong intent with the new program is that we have the type of corporate of relationship with local law enforcement such that we get notification before

released so that they are there to pick them up when they are released. senator lee: and they could have also medical at that time. i won't get into once and orders -- warrants and orders. let me move to this issue and site for you and article from the "new york times," that made it clear since 9/11, there were 19 non-muslim extremists attacks versus seven islamic militants attacks. and we are all concerned about isil in every state, but i'm concerned about homeland to katie looking at violent extremism that are dealing with antigovernment feelings or racist feelings. i have every respect for opinion and speech that expresses hatred towards me because i'm an african-american, not violence as evidenced by mother emmanuel. can you explain what you will be doing about capturing those rain gauge and violent antigovernment

activities and, of course, racial violence that is rising as a perspective of domestic terrorism? sectretary johnson: of course, there is always the law enforcement approach to hate crime, to violence. our efforts across the department should be comprehensive, in my view. i have personally spent a lot of time on engagement, -- engagements, as you know. he attended what together in houston about a month ago. at the moment, my priority has been focusing on communities that i believe are most all noble -- most vulnerable to appeals from isil, al qaeda, and other terrorist groups overseas where actively targeting individuals in these communities. so i think we need to focus on communities that themselves have

the ability to influence somebody who may be turning in the direction of violence. without a doubt, there is the potential, a very real potential , of domestic ask of terrorism. i just went to oklahoma city for the 20th anniversary of the bombing there. in april. a program that counters domestic violence extremism domestic waste violent extremism is, in my judgment, a little more complicated. the terrorist threats of the homeland from overseas that i'm concerned about is one that is making active efforts to recruit people in response to ice -- isil's recruitment effort. we have been very focused on that, but i do agree with the spirit of your question that

violent extremism in this country can exist in a lot of different forms. senator lee: let me think, mr. chairman, to include these two documents in the records and the and put one sentence on the record, i think you for your indulgence. mr. secretary, i implore you to consider to mastic terrorism and i like to work with the department to add that to its agenda. i think it will be a vital and important step for. let me thank you for your service. chairman goodlatte: the time has expired. that is a long run-on sentence but we will allowed. and those two documents will be made a part of the record. the chain of recognize that the gentleman from iowa. senator kaine: -- senator king: -- can i have a clear path? thank you. lessing -- listening for the

moment about detainers, how long have we been operating under ice detainers when they were mandatory? sectretary johnson: ice detainers? a long ways. senator king: 1986? sectretary johnson: 25 years ago, we had immigration detainers. senator king: so they were mandatory for a long time. how long has this been the problem? and your testimony, you said in the leicester, 12,000 ice dictators were ignored or not responded to our local for -- enforcement. as that indicative of a problem we have had over 20 years? sectretary johnson: i think that that number has been growing with the number of jurisdictions that have been passing ordinances and laws and signing executive orders that limited their ability to cooperate with us. i suspect the number has been growing annually, sir. senator king: would it be

perhaps in sync with a 2012 aclu , quote, fact sheet that said that ice detainers are not mandatory because no penalty existed? and they have this legal -- if there is no penalty, then there is no law to be enforced. are you familiar with that deco sectretary johnson: i am -- with that deco -- with that? sectretary johnson: i am not familiar with that. senator king: is that about the date that began to accelerate? sectretary johnson: i do not know the answer to that question, sir. senator king: but we do know the department has cooperated to some degree with -- ice excuse me, with aclu. and i am looking at a letter sent to a member of this committee dated fabric 25th 2014 from u.s. immigration's.

while immigration detainers are an important part to remove criminal aliens, they are not mandatory as a matter of law. congress was informed ever 25th that ice and your department was going to back away from detainers. and i'm listening to in ice spokesman -- an ice spokesman -- not a policy that has to do with kisses decision -- with ice's decision. have you set down would you have people in your department that have sent down and calculated the resources necessary to enforce all of the law? i would express that in sync with rudy giuliani's former policy in new york, we arrest people that break the law as quickly as we can and enforce the law so that there is an expectation that it is a deterrent. to get that -- to get to that

point to restore immigration law, i still believe we can repair it. what were the calculation be to accomplish such a thing deco -- thing? sectretary johnson: congressman you refer to restoring respect for immigration law -- senator king: let's just call it forward enforcement, then. sectretary johnson: that is what i'm trying to do. senator king: what resources do you do that? you have increased the number of officers. we have significantly fewer arrests taking place. that doesn't convince me that there are fewer border crossings. it has never been indicative to me -- sectretary johnson: you asked that question, what resources doing need. i would like to see our enforcement personnel put on a pay scale with other law enforcement personnel. as you probably know, a lot of them are topped out at gs-9.

one of our executive actions was to have pay reform for immigration enforcement personnel. senator king: i am happy to take that conversation up, as i do believe we should as supportive as we can. but they also want to do the job and i want to make sure we have the foundation to get that done. and when you are asked the length of the fence, how long is the border? the southern border. sectretary johnson: i believe it is 2700 miles. senator king: i want to give you an opportunity to state that. it is actually very close to 2000 mouse. the estimates run just under that. but i bring this up because i think it is important for that -- this committee and for you and the public to consider what we are doing. we are spending $13 billion on our southern border. that is the 50 mile wide. i don't know anybody else who even tracks that number. i comes out to be a little bit less than $6.6 million a mile. that may not be astonishing

unless you think that 20% of those attempting to cross the border are released again, maybe five times, 27 times as the highest number. we are building interstate highways across the expensive i will cornfield for $4 million a mile. -- iowa cornfield for $4 million a mile. if we can build interstate highways for $4 million a mile, we could take a bit of that budget down there and in a matter of two years, we would have that whole thing -- fence, a wall, patrol roads in between two zones, and by the way, if we do that, these fences don't have prosecutorial discretion. they will be effective. the israelis, up to 99.9% effective. they put $1.8 million a mile into theirs. they had 14,000 illegal crossings and cut it to 40. so i think there is an economic

equation that you to permit could record and i would be very happy to sit down and go through the numbers. i spent my life in the contracting business. i thank you for your testimony. i yield back. chairman goodlatte: the time has expired. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. first i like to recognize and say hello to mr. johnson, who is from the other great city in tennessee. which has the second-best barbecue. but the greatest hbcu in the country. i want to follow up on jackson lee's questions. we need to be concerned about threats from afar. and recruitment of our people from afar and isis. but the fact is -- we have more

of a threat domestically to our lives than we do internationally. an article in the "new york times" just this past year, june 16, this past month, cite the fact that since 9/11, inevitably nine american muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism related plots against targets in the u.s.. most were disrupted, but the 25 that were carried out accounting for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years. in contrast, right-wing extremists average 337 attacks per year. in the decade after 9/11 causing 254 fatalities. over five times as many as the muslim caused the talent is. this is according to a study by professor at the united states military academy combating terrorism center. and that total has increased

since the study was released in 2012. so i ask you about our efforts to curtail domestic right-wing extremist. i believe that in 2011, there might have been a department that funding was cut or even abolished. is there any consideration that you have given to increasing funding and/or renewing that department? i think the department of homeland security in 2009, the barber -- department disbanded that branch. you think it would be appropriate to have that division re-created? sectretary johnson: congressman if you don't mind, let me answer it this way. we -- we found over $2 billion a year in grants to state and local law enforcement for homeland security/public safety

purposes of a lot of different stripes. so, the first responder equipment that we find is -- fund is valuable whether it is a terrorist attack, a mass shooting for example, the boston marathon attack, which is definitely an act of terrorism our first responders were measured by a very large department, even above they were local. our grant money goes to a lot of valuable things to promote public safety. we have active shooter trading four campbell. -- for example. >> the department had a extreme was in an radicalization branch with the threat analysis division. apparently that the vision was

not reinstated. that is different than france. that is something specifically looking at the internet and seeing if they could bear out some of these folks before they get their weapon and go to a church and commit a mass atrocity. have you considered reinstating such a division in light of the fact that the distances six -- statistics are overwhelming that they continue to threaten our people? secretary johnson: i agree with the spirit of the question, but i would have a look at your specific question. rep. cohen: i appreciate if you would. the union of orthodox organization of america would agree that free mobile of worship means freedom from fear. our houses of worship need to be sacred we need to buy surveillance equipment and shatterproof windows. most of that has been going and i am pleased that it has been going to jewish organizations

and synagogues targeted over the years with threats. now that we see in the south, particularly over the years, but a rash recently, attacks on african-american churches. can your department look into requesting an increase in funding to cover african-american churches that are also threatened in this day and time? secretary johnson: we can, sir. i just met with officials of the american jewish committee last week, who were very confident of the relationship that we have with the jewish community. and, as i think i mentioned to you, congressman, my great-grandfather was a baptist preacher. in southwest virginia near roanoke. a little town on the virginia tennessee line called bristol.

back on the turn-of-the-century 115 years ago, being a baptist preacher in that part of the world meant breaking up the occasional lynching attempt. i appreciate the importance of your question, circuit sir. >> the chair recognizes mr. frank for five minutes. rep. frank: a report from the national academy of sciences places his estimate of 12 $2 trillion -- $1 trillion to $2 trillion for the economic cost of a severe geomagnetic storm scenario. the recovery time is four to 10 years. another report said that between

20 and 40 million people in america are at risk of extended outages for up to 1-2 years in duration. i can read excerpts of 11 major government reports that all share a very similar finding food yet the federal government has done next to nothing in terms of protecting the electric grid. i would just remind you that last or you testified that it was the main responsibility of the national program director board within the homeland security department to protect electric grid. i would like to ask you what is being done today at dhs to protect the grid from geomagnetic disturbance or from weaponize electromagnetic pulse and do you support legislative effortsn act that has come out of the homeland security committee to actually focus on this threat and act upon it? secretary johnson: in general i

am very supportive of the efforts being made. i know that the weapons he mentioned are once that we study and evaluate. i am happy to get back to you more specifically for the record an answer to what detailed steps we are taking and how we regard this particular threats. rep. franks: i appreciate that and i would hope you would take a special look at the act. it is going to be entirely within your purview to respond to it. i think it is something that you probably support. i sort of change the subject but i have to get back to the subject now that i had the privilege of chang this constitution subcommittee. as part of the predicate. article one, section eight of the constitution calls for the congress to have power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization and grants congress plenary power over

immigration policies." it is very, very clear. art your administrative -- are not your administrative actions to exempt millions of unlawful and criminal aliens from any threat of enforcement of our immigration laws usurpation of congresses role? secretary johnson: inherent in the enforcement of any law is the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. and that is what we do in the enforcement of our laws and that is what the department of justice does. that is what most other agencies do. rep. franks: with all due difference to you, prosecutorial discretion is one thing. the suspension of the law is another. i will probably leave it right there, mr. chairman. >> recommends the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson for five minutes. rep. johnson: this is a hearing

where republicans are arguing that the administration is not enforcing the immigration laws and that this is leading to increased crime. exhibit a -- the murder of miss steinle in san francisco. that event happened within the last two weeks. i'm really impressed with the speed by which this committee has sprung into action to bring this issue before a hearing. and then going to take advantage of it for political purposes is basically what is happening. however, something like the flying of confederate battle flags in national park spaces

is something that is salient germane, and current -- they want to put that off to a committee for a study or for a hearing that will never be held. so it is politics what we are planning up. here. secretary johnson, i appreciate your service, by the way. we have a situation where miss steinle was murdered by one mr. juan francisco lopez. he had been in federal custody for about six years on in a legal -- a felony illegal entry into the u.s.. ice had a hold on him so when he was released from the bureau of prisons that he would go into ice custody before deportation again. however, ice also has a policy

that when a local their station -- jurisdiction has an active warrant against an individual then ice yields to that local authority, holding that warrant. and that local authority, san francisco county in this case, decided to pursue its warrant. it took custody of mr. sanchez mr. lopez-sanchez. after they took custody of him ice had a war for a to tenant -- warrant launched against mr. lopez-sanchez that when san francisco finished its prosecution that it would turn mr. lopez-sanchez act over to ice for deportation. what happened was that after mr. lopez-sanchez was in the custody

of san francisco county, the authorities there decided not to prosecute him. which meant that he was eligible for release. ideally, it would've been through ice, which had the detainer in place. however, due to its local politics, san francisco county had a situation or sanctuary policy where they did not honor those warrants. i go do that to say that it was not the fault of ice or it was not a breakdown in federal immigration enforcement that resulted in mr. -- catherine st einle 's murder allegedly by mr.

lopez-sanchez fit it was not the fault of your department although they try to make it appear that way. in fact, under this president there have been -- this president is now known as the deep order in chief. why is that, mr. johnson? is it because over 2 million people have been deported under his presidency, which is more than were deported under the previous administration in eight years with 17 months left on this term? is that the reason why he is known as the deporter in chief? secretary johnson: let me say two things, sir. one is that i have mentioned that i believe it is important that we focus our deportation resources on threats to public

safety. and with our new policy, i believe we are doing that increasingly so. a higher percentage of those in immigration detention today are those who are in my top two priorities for removal. 76% of those in immigration detention today are in my top reported for local felons. those apprehended at the border. i want to focus our resources on what's the public safety. i know the president supports that and he shares that view. the other thing that i will say in response to your question sir, is that i mentioned earlier that we need to evaluate carefully whether it is appropriate in every case for a criminal warrant to be a priority over and immigration detainer. it may not be. it may need additional

flexibility and discretion built into that. i want to evaluate any such policy. rep. johnson: thank you. i yield back. chairman: the chernow recognizes mr. jordan. rep. jordan: the president issued his now somewhat famous executive order. you made a memo on deferred action. the recall that, mr. johnson? rep. jordan: yes, sir. -- secretary johnson: yes, sir. rep. jordan: and then it was an action that blocks what was outlined in your memo. is that correct? secretary johnson: yes sir. rep. jordan: then your counsel represented the court saying that no application would be accepted until the 18th of february 2015. is that correct? secretary johnson: i do not know exactly what the cola liquid was

g. rep. jordan: regardless of what it was, the representation that no applications would be accepted until the 18th of february turned out to be wrong. is that accurate, mr. johnson? that representation made and from the court was not accurate. secretary johnson: like i said i do not know exactly how was said. we began issuing three-year renewals consistent with the policy. it was on the face of the policy. rep. jordan: let me read what the judge said. your counsel actually filed an advisor with the court clarifying that even though you said he would not accept applications and it would not be revised that they, in fact, were up to 100,000. here is what the advisory court said.

the judge said, the court expects all parties including the united states government to act in a forthright manner and act truthfully could that is why the court is externally troubled by the multiple representations made by the government's counsel both in writing and orally that no action would be taken pursuant to the 2014 dhs directive until february 18 2015. here is what i want to understand. you said you would not issue, but you already issued 1000 -- 100,000 three-year deferrals. when did you know as the head of this agency and this department that the representation made to judge into the court was not accurate? secretary johnson: i definitely know that this is an issue for the judge. rep. jordan: that's not my question. secretary johnson: when did you know that your counsel told the court -- when did you personally

know as the head of the agency that it was not accurate? did you know when they said it? did you know when they had that hearing that it was not true? secretary johnson: no, i did not know when they said it. rep. jordan: ok, so when did you learn? secretary johnson: sometime shortly -- i do not have the exact time frame but sometime in early march i became aware that this was an issue. rep. jordan: who told you? secretary johnson: i don't recall. i wanted to be sure that we promptly advise the court of this issue and we did. i will say also that the fact that we began issuing three-year renewals was on the face of the policy, which was in the record of the court. i know that this is an issue in the judge's troubled by it. rep. jordan: he's not troubled by. he said it was half truth and deceptive representation. he is extremely troubled by it.

those are his words not mine. when a judge says that, you falsely represented something in front of the court. you later learned you did that according to what you just told me. and then you conveyed it to him to when exactly did you learn and how long did you learn before you conveyed it to the court? secretary johnson: i already answered that question. rep. jordan: did you can fit that very day? secretary johnson: i don't know what day it was. they could've in two days. rep. jordan: you don't know what day you happen to advise the court that you misrepresented the facts to the court? do you know that they? date? march 3, 2015. secretary johnson: i was going to say early march. rep. jordan: you know else happened early march 2015? relative to your agency, do you know what happened that day? we had a little debate in congress about the funding bill for your agency. so the same day that the dhs

funding bill passes congress is the same day you decide to tell the court, oh by the way, we lied to you back when we did not give you the facts early on. don't you think it would have been nice if the congress during that heated debate -- i remove it you that entire weekend that march 1, march 2 entire weekend. you are talking that if this bill does not get done -- hang on. the skies were to fall. it would've been nice if you had also told the congress and the amazing people, oh by the way we message that did -- misrepresented the facts to the court dealing with this issue. you sent the advisory the same day that we passed the bill. it would've been nice if we had that information before the date we voted on this and went on record. secretary johnson: there are some of things wrong with that question. i do not have 37 seconds to answer. rep. jordan: real quick, you filed the advisory. march 3, you filed the advisory. march 3, the dhs bill passes.

those are two fax. is that just coincidence? chairman: i'm going to allow the secretary to answer the question. secretary johnson: my recollection is that i was on the sunday shows earlier in the month of february. that doesn't work. second -- rep. jordan: that's why i like to know when you found out. secretary johnson: i don't recall the exact date the funding bill was passed. i really don't think that one has any to do with the other. i knew this was an issue. i found out about it in early march and i want the court to know. rep. jordan: if it was important to advise the court, it might have been important to let congress know in the heat of that debate when this is the central issue of that debate. all by the way, our counsel did not represent the facts to the court like they should have. that is an important element for this body and you congress and united states people to know and that fundamental debate we were having. chairman: the gentleman really is out of time.

i'm going to allow you to respond. i then need to go to the miss in california. secretary johnson: i do not believe one has any to do with the other. i do not recall whether congress voted for our funding on march 3 of march 4. i tend to think, but i do not have the calendar in front of me that it was on march 4. that is my recollection. i was intensely interested in the debate going on in this congress about funding our department so that i was not going to have the for low a whole lot of people. so my recollection is that it passed the congress on march 4. but i could be wrong. but i don't have the calendar in front of me. chairman: the gentleman from all heil yields back to we now recognize mischs chu. rep. chu: i was one of the a congressman who visited the

detention center and i was horrified by the situation. i'm glad you reevaluated the policy and that ice will not generally detained emily's after the they receive finding for credible or reasonable fear. it is a huge step forward and i hope it will bring our policies in line with our international obligations affect those that are fleeing persecution. the families that i spoke with when i was there were not criminals. they were victims escaping extreme violence. i heard from a mother from honduras who son and daughter were forced into the drug cartel. she was raped as walter 15-year-old daughter. she and her daughter escaped but ended up in the detention facilities for months. the mother had a credible fear determination, but then she was given a $10,000 bond obligation which made her desperate because she cannot afford it and it might as well have been $1 million because it was unattainable. then her daughter, and reaction to a desperation, have to be taken to the medical unit for

wanting to commit suicide. it is my hope that dhs's new policy means that famous is -- families like these will no longer be detained to such reasonable bonds. secretary johnson, can you describe how the agency will implement this new policy and how long you expect the review to take? secretary johnson: much of the reforms that we announce and i directed are underway already. in terms of the review of the cases, the older cases, that reviewed has already been undertaken. it has produced results. in terms of the new bond policy i believe also that that policy has, in fact, been implemented and is underway. the review that director sold on yoaldana directed himself. i would have to get back to you

on the status of that. thank you also for visiting the facility and meeting with me after you did so. rep. chu: thank you. i wanted to get more clarity on the bonds for the families. will ice continue using bonds for these families? how will you work to ensure that these bonds remain reasonable for them? secretary johnson: i directed that they be realistic and reasonable. i asked that i receive regular reports on what the bond levels are. i know that ice is developing, if they have not already developed, criteria for setting bonds at a consistent and affordable rate. when i was at one of these facilities, i was struck by the number of people who were there who had a bond set, but they were not able to produce the cash. this is one of the things that i want to be sure we set at a realistic rate. rep. chu: i also wanted to ask

about a different detention center in california. there have been numerous reports documenting inadequate care for the detainees. this facility is run by a private company, geo group. we know of their failure to provide adequate medical care resulted in the death of at least one day team -- detainee mr. dominguez, who was detained for five years and died have intestinal cancer several days after he was rushed to the hospital with unusual bleeding. now this facility has recently been expended by 640 beds and it is a concern considering the history of medical neglect. mr. secretary, what is ice doing to ensure that the private companies that a contract with provide adequate medical care and abides by the ice performance-based national detention standards? secretary johnson: this is a priority of mine and focus of mine. i believe it is a focus and priority of the director.

i've heard concerns raised about private contractors running detention facilities. i want to be sure that we get this right with both respect to the conditions and with respect to clarity about lines of authority and responsibility. when you have a private contractor in the mix, whose responsibility is it day-to-day to ensure the conditions of confinement? it is something that we are looking into and something i very interested in. rep. chu: thank you. i yield back. chairman: the chair will now recognize former u.s. attorney miss marino. -- mr. marina. rep. moreno: mr. secretary, i realize the complications involved with dealing with all

kinds of local law enforcement entities. they can be quite chaotic. however, i'm disappointed with the administration in a way that is is not directly handling century city. it has not been aggressive as it has in other areas to enforce sanctuary cities to be a contact with ice. rep. marino: i've worked with ice for a great deal time. i think they are some of the-based agents that we have the federal system. i do agree with your position on the pay but i put most of the blame on century cities at this point, but however, i put blame on homeland because of the void between the detainer and it warner -- a war. i know in some situations that a warrant may not be applicable.

give me some insight on how you see or what directive you can give to sanctuary cities in particular of letting ice snow no when in a legal individual or illegal person is in this country is being released from any facility. you have anything in mind at this point? secretary johnson: if somebody we want for detention purposes, my hope is that they would not be released. the most effective way to go about getting at undocumented criminals in local jails is through a cooperative constructive effort. rep. marino: i'm sorry to interrupt. that isn't working. i think you have the authority. i think that you need to take the top position to say that if you hand out a directive, you will response was.

if you need something done legislatively, come back to us. with all due respect sir, i believe the administration is avoiding this because of its propensity to want amnesty the way that it does. but that is a matter for another day. secretary johnson: the problem if i may, is for a long time, we did take the position that detainers were mandatory. and i was leading to a lot of litigation and the courts. rep. marino: i'm aware that of that. secretary johnson: frankly, we were losing with a lot of these jurisdictions that were passing all the lost saint thou shalt not cooperate with ice. that led to a public safety problem in my view, which i think we are correcting now. rep. marino: if any time you think you need legislation to help you in that direction please contact us. i want to switch to another situation here, particularly in my district, but it is happening across the u.s.

lester, the sentencing committee gated an amendment 782 that reduce the base offense level by two levels. the amendment was also made retroactive. as a result, more than 10,000 drug trafficking offenders will be released early from prison beginning on november 1 of this year. i have in front of me and this pretense to the middle district. there'll be 60 people released between november 1 2015 and december 31, 2016. and many more after 2016. as the state gets closer to the border, those numbers increase because all my list of 60 people, there are about 20% -- 19 of them are from outside the country. this does not tell me if they are illegal or not, but i would ask if you could take a look at

this, pay attention to particular the list of people that are from outside the country to see if they are violent illegals. that is probably another way that we can stop a great deal of what has been taking place particularly when has happened over the past week. my condolences to go out to that family. would you please respond? >>secretary johnson: i'm aware of this issue. i'm aware of the federal sentencing guidelines. i'm aware that a number of individuals will be released as a result. i'm aware that a number of them are probably undocumented and we have been working with eo j -- doj to do the most effective thing for public safety and will continue to do so. rep. marino: i appreciate that. i go back one second of my time. chairman: the chair will now recognize the former attorney general from puerto rico. rep. pierluisi: welcome back to

the committee. we spoke about drug-related violence and puerto rico. the same subject was that every senior dhs and doj official come before this committee. i want to outline a narrative for you and ask you to comment. i will be brief so you have sufficient time to respond. in 2011, there were 1136 homicides and puerto rico. an average of over three a day. the most violent year in the territories history. that was nearly the same number of murders as were committed that year in texas, which has over 25 million residents compared to 3.5 million and puerto rico. most murders in puerto rico are leaked to the drug trade. since puerto rico is within the u.s. customs zone and is used by organizations transporting

narcotics from south america to the u.s. mainland. when i examined the level of resources that dhs and doj are dedicating to combat drug-related violence in puerto rico, it was clear that federal law enforcement footprint on the island was woefully inadequate. accordingly, i did everything within my power to change that dynamic. starting in 2012 under your predecessor, the message finally began to sink in. the important agencies like the coast guard, ice, and others started this step up their games. the coast guard has massively increase the number of hours that it ships and planes are conducting counter drug controls and puerto rico. ice agents were sent to puerto rico, where they arrested hundreds of violent criminals and seized drugs and firearms. they seize control of the arrows that program from the air force

and work quickly to repair the radar that had been inoperative since 2011. the actions taken by dhs in conjunction with its federal and local partners have made a major difference in a very short time. each year, the murder rate has declined. in 2014, there were 681 homicides in puerto rico. that is 40% lower than 2011. in 2000 but -- 2015, there have been 287 homicides. his current trends -- if current trends continue, this will have fewer murders since 2011. i've not known of any other area that has had such a steep and critical crime drop. it is critical that we keep our eye on the ball and sustain these efforts, especially since notwithstanding the

improvements, porter seekers -- puerto rico's homicide rate is still four times the national average. i will continue to do my part. as you know, the coast guard is modernizing its fleet of vesicles that's vessels with six modern vessels. i met with the executive director of ice which is doing great work in puerto rico, to discuss the agents current posture and future plans on the island. on the legislative front, i secured language in the dhs appropriations bill that will enable cdp to use both revenues from the puerto rico trust fund and general appropriations from congress to support that air and marine operations in the territory. i would welcome any comments that you might have and hope you can you assure me that puerto rico will continue to be a top priority for dhs. thank you. secretary johnson: the answer is yes. since we last met last year, we

have created an operationalized southern border strategy that there is all the resources in my department and recorded at fashion. we are doing away with the stovepipes. we have a joint task force seized, for example, which is for the southeast part of the country and the maritime approaches where we now have in a combined and correlated way all the border security law enforcement assets of my department devoted towards the southeast. we now have the coast guard cbp , ice, cas, working together in a correlated fashion for public safety and border security. i think that is a very positive step and i think it will be a positive step for puerto rico as well. rep. pierluisi: thank you so much. chairman: the chair will now recognize the german from texas.

-- gentlemen from texas mr. smith. rep. smith: i like to go to the 30,000 criminal aliens released last year. arguably about 2000 of the 30,000 had to be released because of the supreme court case, but that left 28 thousand that did not need to be released. a breakdown of the terminal release to not have to include 5000 convicted of dangerous drugs 500 convicted of stealing a vehicle, 200 convicted of sexual assault 60 convicted of homicide over 300 convicted of criminalized sexual offenses and over 100 convicted of kidnapping. why did the a ministration release them and is he a ministration going to continue to release these types of individuals?

secretary johnson: as you and i have discussed previously, i like to see that number greatly reduced to the extent legally possible. last year, ice at my encouragement and direction issued new policies to tighten up on the situation where somebody who has been convicted of a crime and would serve their sentence and transferred to immigration is then released. so we had a higher level of approval for doing so. we should not release people for lack of space or budgetary concerns. rep. smith: do you expect this number to come down dramatically in the next year? secretary johnson: i would very much hope and like to see it come down. rep. smith: that is pretty much up to the administration whether it continues to release individuals back into our community's. as you know, many of them are convicted of additional crimes which could have been avoided. it does not sound like you disagree with me. secretary johnson: i want to see that number come down dramatically. as you point out, there is the supreme court decision which constrains our discussion

somewhat. rep. smith: that applies to about 8%. secretary johnson: like assert it a lot of it is up to the immigration judges. i want to see this number come down. rep. smith: i hope that you can secede -- 60. that number has been 30000 and over the last several years and i've not seen any improvement. the last bill that i happen to integers -- introduce became law. part of that law mandated that local officials cooperate with federal immigration officials. do you feel that san francisco and other sanctuary cities are violating current federal law? secretary johnson: i do not have a judgment with regard to that sir. i do believe the most effective approach is a cooperative one. rep. smith: i heard you say that you had no opinion on whether section where cities are currently violating federal law. secretary johnson: i do not have a legal judgment on that

question. rep. smith: i'm appalled that you don't. one fact is that under this administration the number of sanctuary cities has been increasing dramatically. has the administration done anything to discourage a city from becoming a sink to a city? -- sanctuary city? secretary johnson: absolutely, every day. rep. smith: yes in councils vote to become sexually cities. -- sanctuary cities. secretary johnson: we are engaging mayors and governors county supervisors, city council members about cooperating with us pursuant to the new ruling could rep. smith:. rep. smith: i'm asking if you discouraged any city from becoming a sink to a city. secretary johnson: i'm encouraging people to cooperate. rep. smith: the answer is no. secretary johnson: yes. rep. smith: that is after they become a sanctuary city. i'm asking did you discourage a city from trying to become a

sanctuary city. that is pretty critical if you're not doing anything to discourage cities. secretary johnson: irrespective of what label you put on it, there are now 300 jurisdictions that have to one degree or another corrective limitations on their ability to cooperate. rep. smith: did you do anything to prevent any of those 300 cities from becoming a century city -- sanctuary city? secretary johnson: jurisdictions i meet with regard themselves as sanctuary cities. rep. smith: you do not want to admit it, but i think it is clear that you did not discourage any city. one more question -- the president said in regards to the surge last summer of illegal immigrants coming from central america that they were going to be sent home. it is my understanding that roughly 92% are still in the united states. why has the president not kept

his promise to return those individuals home? secretary johnson: you're talking about children. rep. smith: not entirely. regardless of how you want to label them, the president said it would be returned home. secretary johnson: inevitably, removal and repatriation of a family or a child from central america become sacred -- a time-consuming process. rep. smith: do you agree with my statistic that 92% roughly are still in the united states of the individuals that the president said? secretary johnson: i've not heard it put that way before. i do know that an awful lot of them are still here. rep. smith: i think it is 92% contrary to what the president said to the mac and people. chairman: the gentlemen from texas yields back. we now recognize mr. gutierrez. rep. gutierrez: welcome.

i'm happy to have you in front of the community. i think the gentlemen just missed on the issue. not all jurisdictions call themselves section where cities. it is a political term. some people appropriate and others don't. but it is clear that a federal district court in oregon ruled that a county violated the fourth the moment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure by keeping the person in custody based on nothing more than an ice detainer. that is a federal court that made that determination. not the secretary of homeland security. a federal circuit court ruled that because ice detainers are not mandatory but not voluntary, with all respect to the gentleman from texas, that is what a federal court said. voluntary law enforcement agencies are to follow these. that is exactly what we're doing. instead of having the secretary

of homeland security here asking him, how many people have you tied to dissuade, the federal court has said that the detainers are a violation and are not enforceable. regardless of what we hear believe they are. so why don't you just haul in the mayor of san francisco and then haul in the mayor chicago and hall in the mayor of new york? what are you going to do -- lock them up, too because they do not abide by the way you look at the world and how things should be enforced? these are local jurisdictions that have made a decision that as they carry out local police enforcement, which is a local issue, that this is the way they want to do it. and then i going to cooperate. what we can do, instead of having this hearing here, which will lead to absolute nothing unfortunately, mr. chairman, this will lead to nothing could

this will not lead to a solution. everybody will feel better. they'll get a few headlines and put something on the facebook, put in a good day's work. it leads to nothing. why don't we get to the business of making sure? i would like to ask you a question could of the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants did all them cross the border between mexico and the united states? secretary johnson: no. as you know, a lot of the undocumented that come here by crossing the southern border -- there are a variety of different ways. rep. gutierrez: did millions of them come here legally to dotted states -- the united states with a student visa and overstay those visas eventually? secretary johnson: some are overstated. rep. gutierrez: if you shut down the border, there will still be millions of undocumented workers in the united states of america. secretary johnson: i think we have done a lot for border

security. we can always do a lot more. but we have, over the last number of years on a lot. the reality is that there are millions of people here undocumented. i'm struck by the fact that something might more than half of them have been here more than 10 years. they're not going away. we do not have the resources to deport 11 million people. in my judgment, we have to reckon with this population one way or another, to make them accountable, and to account for them. a lot of us want to see us adjust this population of people in a way that promotes law enforcement and is simply the right thing to do. rep. gutierrez: so 11 million people and not one of them cross the border ever again, they would still be hundreds of thousands and millions of people visa overstays because the only border in the united states

of america is not the border between mexico and the united states. it is not a lakes -- lax or jfk or o'hare. we need to also do something as we look at the broken immigration system. we should not just focus on that border. i think focusing on the border really doesn't give us the true nature of the problem that we confront. i would like to just and because you are asked earlier about whether or not when people applied for deferred action, if they are asked if they are a gang member. members of congress actually filled out the forms or help people fill out the forms, they would know that they are asked. i know you have never filled out

one of these forms. you wouldn't know. i just won the make sure that you give the right answer, mr. secretary could it is asked. secretary johnson: that is what we directed. rep. gutierrez: have you ever been arrested or charged or convicted of a crime in any country other than united states? nothing you asked about here, but you asked about the country of origin. you asked him particularly if they have ever been a gang member and they must -- and i will just add this. if you answer yes but you have ever been arrested and charged with a conviction or mr. nader -- misdemeanor, including juvenile court, just not in this case. if you want to be a dreamer, you have to tell ever think it if you answer yes you must include arrest record charging documents, sentencing records, except for each arrest unless prohibited under state law. i want to make sure the committee understood that when people apply for deferred action

they not only have to answer yes to all those questions that all those documents must be present. lastly, they have to be fingerprinted. those fingerprints are checked. i does one make sure. who checks the fingerprints? secretary johnson: i believe it is a common nation of agencies. an interagency process. rep. gutierrez: an interagency process -- thank you so much mr. secretary. chairman: i think mr. forbes has a broader point. i think you meant to ask about transcripts as opposed to rest. -- record . you can very well be a member of a gang and not charge or prosecuted with that. with that, i will go to the judge from texas. rep. gohmert: i was hearing my

friend from tennessee talking about all these threats that are in his mind. i do not know where his numbers were coming from. they are nothing like what i have been seeing. as i understand, the underwear bomber was certainly not an evangelical christian, not a conservative. do you know for sure -- was he a member of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula? secretary johnson: i would regard him as part of a q ap. rep. gohmert: i know that was before your watch obviously . secretary johnson: it actually happened when i was at the department of defense. i'm very familiar with the case. rep. gohmert: you're not going to take credit for letting that happen. secretary johnson: i was at dod. rep. gohmert: you are not in charge of tsa when you got through.

secretary johnson: i was not in charge of tsa on december of 2009. rep. gohmert: i know for fort hood, my colleagues would refer to that as workplace violence but when someone is yelling indicating that he is doing it in the name of allah, that does not seem to be exactly a right-wing radical, evangelical christian. i know there has been a a lot of discussion about francisco sanchez in san francisco. i know that as a former judge an ongoing problem -- one guy in particular sentence him, i think he had nine dwis before he got to my felony court. i thought that if he is going to be a threat that i will send into prison. six months later, he is back in my court. he said that he was deported 30 days or so after i sent him to prison. i come back and that is what is

bringing me back to francisco sanchez. he was deported five times. secretary, heavy analyst each of those -- have you analyzed each of those deportations, where they occurred, and where sanchez may have reenter the country? secretary johnson: i've looked at the very detailed timeline of each of the five removals. i don't recall exactly where he was removed and from what point and what station. we don't know for obvious reasons about how and when he reenter the united states. at least, i do not know. maybe in a guilty plea, here knowledge how and when he did a good sitting here, i do not know where he reentered or cross the border each of those five times. rep. gohmert: wouldn't that seem to be important to know where somebody reenters five times? secretary johnson: absolutely. rep. gohmert: i would encourage

you and i would like to find out from somebody in your department where those five ranches were. -- read entries were good where they all down in south texas or in the arizona area or california? it does not seem like we will be ever to get a grip on dealing with reentry's if we do not know where they are reentering. the fellow i mentioned that i had dealt with when he was back in my court, i asked how he came back in. he said that they took him to the border and watched him walk across. then after the officials took into the border drove off, he came back across. he ended up back in our county. it just seems like that ought to be where the focus is. is there any indication that if

mr. sanchez had been given industry somewhere -- amnesty somewhere between the first illegal entry and the fifth that he would not have shot catherine steinle? are there any indications that amnesty would have prevented this? secretary johnson: i'm not sure i understand your question. rep. gohmert: i think it is a pretty basic question. the white house is saying that the full for the shooting of this beautiful young lady in san francisco was because republicans have not passed comprehensive immigration reform. we know that we passed laws. we appropriated money to build defense, build a virtual fence and things that have not been done. i'm just wondering if we can figure out what the white house

is thinking, because obviously amnesty was going to be part of a comprehensive immigration reform. i'm just wondering if we all the sudden decline mr. sanchez as being legal here, if that would kept him from pulling a gun and killing this steinle. i cannot find any correlation to that. i'm trying to figure out what the heck the white house thinks would have occurred differently if this man had been granted amnesty. i cannot see that it would have prevented her shooting. secretary johnson: to be honest, i don't know. rep. gohmert: i do prefer you be honest, thank you could secretary johnson:. secretary johnson: i'm interested in promoting local safely to get at these individuals. rep. gohmert: if they were in amnesty, i don't see how that

particular helps. you just declare everybody legal and i don't see that it makes a difference. i realize my time is running out, but is dhs still shipping people to different parts of the country after they enter illegally, depending on whether they have family or ask to be shipped? secretary johnson: i do not know that is our policy. rep. gohmert: are you saying that dhs has not done that? secretary johnson: i do not know if that is our policy as you stated it. i'm not saying it's a policy. rep. gohmert: i'm saying you done it. secretary johnson: some people are put in alternatives to detention programs. rep. gohmert: the question was -- are you still sending people to different parts of the country after they entered illegally? chairman: the secretary may answer if you want stupid -- if you want stupid -- if he wants to. secretary johnson: i don't know

statistically, but i know a large number of people are making bonds. a large number of people are being placed in alternatives to the tengion programs. rep. gohmert: that would be a yes. your shipping them around the country. chairman: the chernow recognizes the gentleman from idaho. , mr. labrador. rep. labrador: ever since the murder, dhs and san francisco have been pointing fingers at each other. i heard several people on the other side saying it was not the fault of ice that lopez-sanchez was released. we had a telephone conference last week with dhs officials and my congressional staff asked last tuesday that even if they released mr. sanchez to ice, ice was likely the at they would have released him to census ago because of the outstanding criminal warrants, despite san

francisco being a known sanctuary city that does not complied with the tenors and continually -- comply with the tenors. it will never return him to you for deportation purposes. secretary johnson: no. rep. labrador: how often does ice release such criminal aliens to thinks ray cities? -- sanctuary cities? secretary johnson: i don't know but no to your first question. rep. labrador: it is no sense to saying eyes would have released them. secretary johnson: i was not part of the conversation. i stand by my answer. rep. labrador: that is not a policy. it is great to come to congress when the policy of the administration is to release these people to the sanctuary cities. secretary johnson: like i said it does not make sense to, in response to question, release somebody. rep. labrador: what are you

going to do about it? secretary johnson: as i said earlier, i think we need to evaluate whether greater discretion needs to be built into a situation where there is a choice or there are -- there is a jurisdiction that once the individual on an arrest warrant. i think they should be some discretion built into what is the best course for purposes of public safety. rep. labrador: it took this young lady's debt to actually get to that determination. this is not the first time this has happened. you keep telling the american people that they are safe and we are stopping illegal aliens, but the only reason we knew that lopez-sanchez was here was that he killed somebody. we keep releasing him and he has been to attain five times. -- detained five times. we are not stopping him from entering the united states did we just keep catching him committing crimes. i did not know if we can say

that america is safe when people like this continue to come into united states. i'm going to turn my time over to the chairman. chairman: thank you. i think mr. labrador's point and i'm sure given your background as a law enforcement officer and a prosecutor, i'm sure you can feel and understand the frustration. we have kicked them out five times. he comes back. he re-offense when he does come back. we put him in federal prison and he violates release. he is released to a city where we knew i had a time that this was going to happen. it would be one thing to release someone to a jurisdiction for a murder charge, sexual assault serious, serious drug offense. it would be one thing to do that so they can prosecute him.

particular there is a victim involved, that is exactly what you would want to do. but this is an old drug case. and they were going to dismiss it, why do they not dismiss it while he was in the federal prisons? why did it require his presence in san francisco to decide to cisco to decide to dismiss a case? he was not going to be a witness anyway. you get the frustration and -- and it think it is being directed to you because we perceive that you are in a position to change that. and i knew say -- you say cooperation, but i think, maybe this week, last week when you're talking to some folks on judiciary -- and if i am wrong, correct me -- there are five municipalities that have flat out told you they are not going to cooperate with you. so what do we do it them? if they really are refusing to cooperate, surely we have to have something more than just going back to them and talking to them again.